Steven M.

Kates & Judy Robertson

z
Adapting action
research to
marketing
A dialogic argument between
theory and practice
z
ABOUT THE
AUTHOR
 z
STEVEN M. KATES
Department of Marketing, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada

 PhD, Administrative Studies, Marketing, Schulich School of Business,

York University, 1996; the only high pass standing awarded on
comprehensive examinations in 1992; doctoral dissertation: "Closets
are for Clothes! An Ethnographic Exploration of Gay Men’s Consumer
Behaviour," nominated for best dissertation of the year.

 Master of Business Administration (MBA), Schulich School of

Business, York University, November 1988, awarded with distinction.

 Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA), Schulich School of

Business, York University, June 1987, awarded with distinction.

 Chartered Accountant (CA), Ontario, Canada, 1990.

 z
JUDY ROBERTSON
Department of Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

 Marketing Manager, Dandenong Market, October 2018 – Present.

 Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.), Monash University, 2006.

 Master of Arts (M.A.), Monash University, 1994.

 Diploma of Arts, Holmesglen Institute, 1991.

 Certificate of Professional Writing, Holmesglen Institute, 1988.

 z
ABOUT THE JOURNAL

 The purpose of this article is to offer a perspective on adapting action

research principles and methods in academic marketing research
contexts.

 From combined theoretical and practical perspectives, the article

provides a dialogical argument about the issues associated with
implementing action research, addressing three important and
related questions.
 z

 First, are marketers specifically (and people in organizations, more

generally) truly reflective? Is reflection suited to some organizations'
authoritarian realities?

 Second, how is a strong organizational culture a barrier to change

and further learning, and how might this difficulty be overcome by
action research?

 Third, what is the role of the researcher in the process, and what
skills, knowledge, and influence must this person have to
successfully implement an action research program?
 z
ACTION RESEARCH

 Action research is inquiry or research in the context of focused

efforts to improve the quality of an organization and its performance.

 It is typically designed and conducted by practitioners who analyze

the data to improve their own practice.

 Action research can be done by individuals or by teams of

colleagues.
 z

 The term ‘action research’ was invented by the eminent social

scientist Kurt Lewin over half a century ago (Lewin 1946).

 Since then, it has become acclaimed and criticised.

 There are several reasons for such controversy.

 One reason is that the label of action research is rather broad, or it

is often left undefined, and it used in different ways (Coghlan and
Brannick 2001).
 z
For example, Gummesson (2000) distinguishes four types of a action
research:

 Societal action science (the traditional type where researchers help

underprivileged groups to solve problems)

 Management action science (where the purpose is to understand

organizations, markets and customers better, usually to make an
operation more efficient),

 Real-time action science (working in a research project planned for

action research), and

 Retrospective action science (letting past experience and action

through later scholarly reflection become data in a research
project).
 z

This special issue covers three of the many types of

‘action research’:
 traditional action research

 action learning

 case research

Traditional action research in management is often

defined to be about a group of people who work together
to improve their work processes.
z
HIGHLIGHTS
z
ACTION RESEARCH
as a recognized research methodology

 Nursing (e.g. Smith et al., 2000)

 Education (e.g., Howell, 1994)

 Management and Organizational Development

(Argyris, 1993; Edmondson, 1996; Ellis and Kiely,
2000; Gummesson, 2000)
 z
ACTION RESEARCH TO MARKETING
Why not?

 Is it that marketing research is simply late in

recognizing the value of qualitative and interpretive
perspectives?

 Or is it that marketing is not a discipline in which AR

can be successfully implemented?
 z
Five phases of an AR program:

(1) identification, fact finding, and analysis of an issue;

(2) planning for the intervention;

(3) executing the intervention;

(4) observing and examining the organizational effects of the

execution (e.g., better practice, or restructuring, etc.); and

(5) reflecting and planning for the next intervention, if deemed

necessary (Carson et al., 2001; Dickens and Watkins, 1999; Lewin,
1946).
 z
Three Significant Dimensions
(Approaches to Action Research)

1. the type of reflective thought required by participants;

2. the degree of freedom, participation, and liberty accorded to

them by organizational culture; and

3. the role and capabilities of the AR team

 z
Reflective thought may be either:

1. Single-loop reflection may include: learning practical problem-solving

techniques, identifying problems with customer service or other
business areas, elaborating on business strategy, and learning how
strategy relates to everyday marketing tactics.

2. Double-loop reflection may include: questioning the mission of the

business, evaluating the leadership of the organization or business
unit, deciding whether strategy, structure, and leadership in the
organization fit with the business’ competitive environment, threats,
and opportunities, or assessing whether culture acts as a barrier or
facilitator to the organization’s future success.
 z

1. The first relevant question is whether organizations generally

allow for such reflection to be done, and to what depth.

2. Second, the type of participation and freedom accorded to

employees is another critical dimension of AR approaches.

3. Third, action researchers must possess certain critical skills in

order to succeed.
 z
The issues with AR for marketing
practice: a dialogical approach
 Are marketers specifically (and people in organizations, more
generally) truly reflective?

 How is a strong organizational culture a barrier to the change and

further learning commonly associated with AR, and how may
cultural barriers be overcome?

 What is the role of the action researcher in the process, and what
skills, knowledge, and influence must s/he have to successfully
implement an AR program?
 z
Theoretical and practical marketing
experiences:

 Are marketers and managers reflective?

 Culture as a barrier

 The skills and roles of the action researcher

z
Discussion: toward effective AR practice
in marketing

 (lack of) reflection in organizations;

 cultural barriers to effective AR; and

 the technical and political skills required of the

action researcher or consultant.
 z
Condensed Guide to Future Practice

 Reflection is an integral aspect of AR, but it may not be one of

many marketing departments or organizations.

 Culture – as a set of deep assumptions underlying much

organizational thought and action – may be an entrenched
phenomenon.

 The research team itself must acquire intimate knowledge

about the organization, its products and markets, in order to
build credibility, often acting as political entrepreneurs to win
key support.
 z

Marketing practice has its own unique set of priorities

such as global competitive advantage, positioning
tactics, consumer behaviours, and product
development that distinguish it from previous
traditional AR contexts such as hospitals, schools, and
factories, where different kinds of reflective thought
and empowerment may be appropriate.
z
STRENGTHS &
WEAKNESSES
z
STRENGTHS

1. The basic tenets of Action Research were properly

presented.

2. The factors and the roles of the people/management

involved in the Action Research were highlighted.

3. The questions and issues in the article were

addressed.

4. The authors have strong backgrounds in marketing.

z
WEAKNESSES

1. The process or procedures of adapting action research to

marketing were not thoroughly discussed.

2. The examples presented in the article were not that

strong enough.

3. The questions and issues in the article were not deeply

analyzed.

4. The backgrounds of the authors in marketing were not

properly maximized.
z
RECOMMENDATIONS
z

1. The process and procedures of adapting action research to

marketing should be presented and discussed thoroughly for the
benefit of the future practitioners.

2. There should have been more relevant examples about the topic
for the readers to easily understand the concepts and principles of
Action Research.

3. The questions and issues in the article must be explained in a

manner that would help the readers analyze the problems and fully
understand the answers and recommendations to the problems.

4. The backgrounds of the authors about marketing should have

been maximized for reliability and relevance purposes.
z
CONCLUSION
z

 Action research often lends itself to small-scale

studies and is time-consuming.
 The value of such a methodology is that it provides a
powerful means of improving and enhancing practice.
 The article concludes by proposing that an
incremental orientation to change and intervention
effectiveness is needed for these approaches to work
in demanding marketing contexts.
z

Cultures cannot be commanded to change, but

they can be creatively disturbed.