Publishing action research

19th EGOS Colloquium Copenhagen – 2003

Sub-theme 25: Challenges faced by action researchers in bridging the gap between micro-sociological processes and desired macro-changes

Publishing Action Research

by

Robert MacIntosh and Fiona WilsonUniversity of GlasgowWest Quadrangle – Gilbert Scott Building GlasgowG12 8QQUK

Tel. + 141 330 5939Fax. + 141 330 5669E-Mail. [email protected]

[email protected]

EGOS 2003 Page 1 of 22

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Abstract

Action research has a long history in the field of management and organisation

studies. Since Lewin’s original work to develop the processes of action research, the

approach has been applied to a wide variety of research problems and in a host of

different organisational contexts. Furthermore, a range of variants of action research

has developed, including action science, action learning, participatory action research

and many others. In more recent years, there have been calls for greater use of action-

oriented research approaches to help increase the relevance of management research

to the community of practising managers. However, despite these developments,

action researchers still face significant challenges in publishing their research. This

paper undertakes an empirical review of the volume of research published in action

research as compared to other research methods. If the management research

community aims to achieve a macro-level change by adopting more action-oriented

research, this paper explores the question “what micro-level changes can action

researchers make to effect this desired macro-level change ?”

Introduction

This year’s EGOS sub-theme on action research focuses on the challenges faced by

action researchers in bridging the gap between micro-sociological processes and

desired macro-changes. In many of the papers presented at the sub-theme, the micro

and macro-level changes under consideration will relate to particular organisational

problems and settings. In this paper however, we examine a particularly pertinent

desired macro-change: the desire to see increased usage (and legitimacy) of action

research within the academic community of management researchers. With this

macro-change in mind, the paper then concerns itself with the micro-processes that

we, as individual researchers, might engage in to achieve this ambitious goal.

Setting off with the challenge of influencing a whole community may seem daunting.

However, there have been numerous calls for increased usage of action research for

business, management and organization research and all change has to begin

somewhere. For us, the starting point is a brief review of the historical roots of action


research, tracing the development of Lewin’s original approach (and purpose) through

a range of variants of action research.

We then argue that action research may offer a methodological means of spanning the

perceived “relevance-gap” (Starkey and Madan, 2001) in the field of management

research. However, publication of action research studies in top-ranked, peer-

reviewed journals remains extremely challenging. Paradoxically for a paper about

action research, we adopt a far more positivist approach in our search for some

empirical data. The paper examines the number of action research publications in

three top rated journals: the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ); Administrative

Science Quarterly (ASQ) and Human Relations (HR).

Action Research – a brief history

Action Research is an umbrella term to describe a host of activities intended to foster

change. Kurt Lewin introduced the term in 1946 to denote a new approach to social

research that combined generation of theory with changing a social system through

the researcher acting on or in the social system. It provides a step-by-step framework

for diagnosing, implementing and evaluating a change process, allowing for

collaboration between practitioner and client to distribute knowledge and

understanding within the organization. It emphasises empirically supported data

collection and feedback to ensure that the issues facing an organization are defined

and examined. One of the most frequently quoted definitions of action research is this:

"Action research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an

immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint

collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework" (Rapoport, 1970:499).

There appear to be two strands of action research that developed independently but in

parallel, in Britain and the US. Action research was developed in the United States by

Kurt Lewin in the 1940s (Lewin, 1946) to respond to problems he perceived in social

action (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988). He wanted to find methods to deal with

critical social problems, like racism, anti-Semitism, and minority issues, as he

believed traditional science was not helping in the resolution of critical social


problems. Noting the gap between social action and social theory and the lack of

collaboration between practitioners and researchers, Lewin called for social scientists

to bridge that gap and combine theory building with research on practical problems.

He believed that in a better world everyone would be able to find satisfaction in work.

Psychologists could contribute to reaching this goal (Lewin, 1992).

Lewin saw action research as a means for improving group decision making and

commitment toward a change strategy. His original model was five steps (analysis,

fact finding, conceptualisation, planning, execution, more fact finding or evaluation,

then a repetition of the circle of activities) but in some instances he expanded his

model to fit the needs of the situation (Dickens and Watkins, 1999; Lewin, 1948).

In the US, with the help of Douglas McGregor, Lewin set up the Center for Group

Dynamics at MIT and then at the University of Michigan. Working with Lewin's

guidance Cook, Chein and Harding outlined 4 varieties of action research - diagnostic,

participant, empirical and experimental. (see Cunningham, 1993:15). Lewin never

wrote a systematic statement of his views of action research (Argyris et al, 1985); he

only wrote 22 pages on the topic (Peters and Robinson, 1984), and died suddenly in

1947, aged 57 years old.

The other strand of action research grew in Britain from the work of a group of war-

time researchers who later formed the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in

London. Lewin's ideas had an enormous impact on developments at the Tavistock.

Like Lewin the group was committed to the social engagement of the social sciences

both as a way of advancing knowledge and to contribute solutions to important social

problems (Susman and Evered, 1978). Their approach was to go into the field to find

out from commanding officers what they saw as pressing problems. They used

psychoanalytical skills, listening as a psychoanalyst would to a patient. The research

process usually began with the forming of a steering committee to monitor the study;

they would usually be involved in developing a strategy to carry out the research and

implement the findings. The researchers interviewed and gathered background data.

The findings were usually implemented in a test area of the organization.


After Lewin's death, others, mainly in Britain and the US, developed action research.

Most models developed since then consist of between 5 and 14 steps (Argyris, 1980,

1989; French and Bell, 1999; Robertson et al., 1993; Schmuck, 1997). Much of the

work became known as “survey feedback” where systematic feedback of data from,

for example, a company wide employee attitude survey would be used to bring about

change through group discussion and involvement. Survey feedback “is based on the

assumption that employees have needs for personal growth and development”

(Cunningham, 1993:16) and that an effective organization can better encourage

individuals to take on greater responsibilities. The emphasis in survey feedback

suggests that “employees are more productive when their jobs are designed to utilize

the employees’ total capability - his/her total knowledge, interests and commitments”

(French and Bell, 1973:36).

Researchers since Lewin have elaborated upon and reinterpreted the original

definition and model. For example Cunningham (1993:4) says action research “is a

term for describing a spectrum of activities that focus on research, planning,

theorising, learning and development. It describes a continuous process of research

and learning in the researcher's long-term relationship with a problem.” He is

criticised by Dickens and Watkins, (1999) for not saying how action research leads to

action or change and for not mentioning action research as a group. Yet his book

“describes the characteristics of an action research process for carrying out research

and implementing changes” (1993:9). It also describes how action research differs

from traditional scientific inquiry due to “its concerns for accepting the values

inherent in the client system” and the “researcher’s involvement with people’s

expectations and values” (1993:10). Similarly Sanford (in Reason and Rowan, 1981)

is criticised for failing to mention the importance of participants in the action research

process and how they act as members of the change environment (Dickens and

Watkins, 1999).

Four streams of developments of action research are outlined by Reason (1970; cited

in Foster 1972). These include firstly the Tavistock stream that was an integrative,

psychoanalytical, social science approach that centred on social rather than individual

problems. Secondly the Group Dynamics Stream that emphasised individual and


small group processes was more academic and has closer links to experimental

psychology. Thirdly the Operational Research Stream which is practised by members

of the Institute for Operational Research at the Tavistock Institute, where operational

researchers have attempted to introduce human factor parameters into their models.

Finally the Applied Anthropology Stream which is exemplified in the work published

in the journal Human Organization, many revealing an action orientation to the study

of cultural change.

Participatory action researchers focus on participation and empowerment and is

probably closest to the group Dynamics Stream above). Participatory action research

is described as a process whereby some of those in the organisation under study

participate actively with the researcher throughout the research process from the

initial design to the final presentation of results and discussion of their implications

(Whyte, 1991a). Participatory action research as a process facilitates continuous

learning for both the researcher and the researched (Greenwood et al, 1993). This

participatory action research can have a greater impact, it is claimed, and does not

privilege the researcher as “expert” over the other participants in the research process

(Harrison and Leitch, 2000).

Eden and Huxham (2001) claim that their action research involves working with

organizational members on matters of genuine concern to them and over which they

have a genuine need to take action. The action researcher would be a consultant or

facilitator. Research data and insight are gained alongside the intervention and theory

derived is emergent, produced inductively from the data and grounded in the data.

Theory is created incrementally with each stage of interventions having the potential

to test out, and add to existing theory. Their form of action research takes a

phenomenological research approach in contrast to those that are essentially a form of

organization development (Dickens and Watkins, 1999; Elden and Chisholm, 1993).

It is a form of self development (Whitehead, 1994) or a form of empowerment

(Stringer, 1996; Whyte, 1991b) It is also in contrast with those forms that place an

emphasis on inclusion of hypothesis in testing experiments in the intervention

(Alderfer, 1993; Lewin, 1946).


Our Time Has Come

Having reviewed the development of action research, we now come turn to consider

why it has so much to offer the field of management research. As a community,

management researchers are beset by recurring concerns over the relevance of our

work. A number of eminent scholars have commented that much of the management

research appearing in top-rated academic journals is of little relevance to most

practitioners (see Smith and Robey, 1973; Schein, 1987; Gopinath and Hoffman 1995;

Kelemen and Bansal, 2002).

Indeed, 25 years ago, Susman and Evered declared:

“There is a crisis in the field of organization science. The principal

symptom of this crisis is that as our research methods have become

more sophisticated, they have also become increasingly less useful for

solving the practical problems that organizational members face.”

(Susman and Evered, 1978: 582)

The crisis identified all those years ago can be considered in terms of two distinct but

related issues. First, although the crisis manifests itself in terms of relevance or

usefulness, the underlying cause might more accurately be considered as a crisis of

epistemology. The widespread adoption of a positivist model of science, which only

deals with what are presented as value-free, logical and empirical findings, has limited

the extent to which management research has influenced the realm of management

practice. Susman and Evered offered a devastating critique of the positivist approach

and argued that action research could, and should, be legitimated in different

philosophical terms (1978). Second, the dominance of positivist approaches has led

to serious difficulties in communicating effectively with the practitioner community.

Willmott (1994) criticises the dissemination channels at our disposal, whilst Kelemen

and Bansal note that “given that researchers are expected to publish their findings

mainly in academic journals, they have no choice but to follow academic writing

conventions, which make it difficult for practitioners to fully grasp the essence and

practical implications of the theoretical insights.” (2002: 98)


Looking back through the literature, it would appear that the same problem recurs in

subtly different language from time to time. Westbrook argued that management

should embrace action research as a method, pointing to its “theory building

potential” (1994:9) while Hill et al. have called for greater emphasis on what they

describe as plant-based research where “closeness to, even involvement with, the

objects of study is required.” (1999:144).

Most recently, Gibbons et al. developed the labels mode 1 and mode 2 to describe

different approaches to the production of knowledge (1994), where mode 2 was

problem-centred, involving theory development in the context of application. This

language has become prominent in discussions on the nature of management research

(see Tranfield and Starkey, 1998; Huff, 2000; MacLean et al, 2002) and in many cases

calls have been made for increased usage of mode 2, e.g.

“While we need to shelter mode 1 – even if it is possibly too sheltered

already – we need to plant more mode 2 seeds” (Starkey, 2001: s78)

“one way to bring academics and practitioners closer together is to

adopt a mode 2 research framework.”

(Kelemen and Bansal, 2002: 106)

However, whilst a growing number of researchers are calling for greater relevance to

practice and greater usage of methods that produce actionable knowledge, there are

also those who express some discomfort at this prospect. March argues,

“What in management research is important for management

practice? … the primary usefulness of management research lies in

the development of fundamental ideas that might shape managerial

thinking, not in the solution of immediate management problems.”

(March 2000)


Whilst Grey contends,

“Much knowledge will, quite rightly, only be used by other academics

during the process of refining, testing, critizing and discarding. This

process is by no means self-indulgent or wasteful: it is central to the

development of usable knowledge.” Grey (2001: S29)

Where does this leave us ? Well, despite numerous calls over the years for increased

use of practice-oriented research methods, including action research, Eden and

Huxham (1996) report that such approaches still experience difficulty in finding

acceptance on the grounds that they are “not science” (p78).

The Empirical Reality

It would appear that the arguments for, or against action research, and other practice-

oriented methods, are showing now signs of abating, nor of approaching resolution.

What then is the empirical situation with regard to action research ? In terms of

academic acceptance, one comparatively objective performance measure would be to

consider the relative success rate of publishing in reputed international journals using

an action research approach.

In this paper, we have selected three journals for consideration: the AMJ, the AQS

and HR. These three have been selected because they are all ranked in the top ten of

the most cited management journals1 (ranked 2, 4 and 9 respectively). Academic

researchers in most countries are under increasing pressure to publish in high quality

outlets, with many appraisal systems at the departmental, university or national level

drawing on lists or rankings of some sort (Van Fleet et al, 2000). In terms of

academic recognition then, these three outlets represent the very best outlets in which

researchers might aim to place their work. In addition, the three journals selected

claim (in their notes to contributors) to welcome submissions from a range of

1 Based on the most recent data available from the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) which monitors over 1700 international social science journals, noting how often works from these journals are cited


methodological positions. The following are extracts from current editorial notes

provided by all three journals (complete details are given in the appendices)

AMJ All empirical methods - including (but not limited to) qualitative,

quantitative, field, laboratory or combination methods - are welcome.

ASQ We attach no priorities to subjects for study, nor do we attach greater

significance to one methodological style than another.

HR For over fifty years it has pioneered publication of multidisciplinary and

action research focusing on progress in theory, methodology and

applications

Using an on-line database2, a search was conducted looking for the term “action

research” in either the title, keyword(s) or abstract of papers. The same search criteria

were used for each of the three journals listed. The data presented below was drawn

from these searches. As a check on the data generated by the on-line searches, two

additional tests were undertaken. First, subsequent searches for related terms such as

action science and participatory action research were conducted using the on-line

resources. Second, manual searches of a single year’s data from each journal were

performed. Only academic research articles were considered. The data set below

excludes editorials, book reviews, calls for contributions to special issues, etc.

In the case of the AMJ, the on-line search produced a single paper. Huxham and

Vangen’s action research study of leadership and collaboration appeared in December

2000. In that year, there were six issues of AMJ, containing a total of 75 articles.

Although AMJ accepts publications of all methodological persuasions and aims to

publish research which is clearly relevant to management theory and to management

practice, action research does not feature in the journal on a regular basis.

2 the Business Source Premier Publications database was used in conjunction with the EBSCOhost search engine


Given that the ASQ published Susman and Evered’s clarion call for increased usage

of action research as “a corrective to the deficiencies of positivist science,” we might

be hopeful that a flurry of articles adopting AR would follow in their wake. In fact,

since Susman and Evered’s contribution in 1978 there have been two subsequent AR

papers. The first by Pasmore and Friedlander, advocated the use of AR to increase

employee involvement in problem solving (1982). More recently, Uzzi presented a

study of competition in inter-firm networks (1997). In the year that Uzzi’s paper

appeared, 23 other articles were published in ASQ but a rate of one AR publication

per decade hardly constitutes a sea change.

Finally, we turn to HR. Of the journals we have selected, it is by far the most open in

its desire to see action research published. The on-line search generated 21

publications which have appeared in HR since 1970. Whilst this is an impressive haul

in comparison to either the AMJ or the ASQ, further investigation reveals a more

depressing picture. Of the 21 papers, 14 were discussions of the merits of AR, the

challenges of doing AR, the history of AR and its many variants, etc. The remaining

7 papers are spread over an extended period:

Year Author(s), Volume (Issue)

2000 Huxham and Vangen 53(6)

1998 Bain 51(3)Dartington 51(12)

1993 Ledford et al. 46(2)Englestad and Gustavsen 46(2)Brown 46(2)

1977 Trist et al. 30(3)

Table 1: AR Publications in HR


It should also be noted that HR had a special issue on AR in 1993 and thus the 12

papers which appear in that year may be regarded as artificially high. Taking these

factors into account, the number of papers where AR is used as the method to

investigate some substantive content issue(s), rather than the subject of the paper

itself, is very low indeed.

Discussion

Having reviewed the empirical evidence regarding AR publication, we now move

forward to consider the implications of our findings. An obvious starting point would

to look for common themes running through those AR papers which have been

successfully published in top-ranked academic journals. Here, there appears to be two

groupings, those that discuss the methodological dimensions of AR and those that

employ AR as a means to investigate some other issue(s). In the former category,

there is a risk that in “problematizing research we may come to overrate its

difficulties, which leads in turn to a defeatist attitude … even to asking ourselves

whether empirical social science has any reasonable function at all.” (Alvesson and

Skoldberg, 2000:2).

In the latter category, there are a wide variety of content issues under review. It could

be argued that one feature that these various contributions have in common is that

“the researcher using an action research approach will be studying interconnections,

interdependencies and the dynamics of a total functioning system rather than isolated

factors. One reason is that social phenomena always occur in combination and in

contexts – situational as well as historical.” (Hult and Lennung, 1980: 245) Rather

than look for common areas of application between those papers which have adopted

an AR approach, what is more striking is that a limited number of researchers appear

repeatedly. This may give the impression of a small, isolated community of action

researchers, yet when the AR sub-themes at EGOS 2001 and 2003 have both been the

most heavily subscribed of the two respective colloquia.

Another striking feature of those papers that have succeeded in AMJ, ASQ and HR

using an action research approach is that extracting insights from a research setting


where the researcher is working with organizational actors (as is the case with AR) is

a time consuming process. Colin Eden has stated that he believes truly meaningful

research outcomes only emerge from engagements with practice over a period of

several years3. This observation does not sit comfortably with demands that

academics publish early and regularly to achieve tenure. Indeed, Susman and Evered

point out that

“planned interventions usually take place in only

one organization at a time and would not be

interpreted within different organizations in the

same way.” (Susman and Evered, 1978: 592)

This makes the generalisation of findings at best time consuming (in that studying

multiple projects could take several years), or at worst impossible (in that each setting

is different). As confirmation of these difficulties, a study of BPR implementation in

the public and private sector which involved three action research studies, ran over a

period of 10 years (MacIntosh, 2003).

Conclusions

To conclude, let us return to the main theme of the paper, namely the desire to see

increased usage (and legitimacy) of action research within the academic community

of management researchers. Our review has indicated the relative paucity of

published action research studies in three top-rated journals. The desire to see

increased usage of action research is intimately tied to the perceived legitimacy of

such research.

3 Colin Eden’s keynote address to the British Academy of Management’s Special Research Forum on Practice-Oriented Research (March 2002)


We have highlighted the pressures on academic researchers to publish early in their

careers and regularly thereafter. Increasingly, pressure is being exerted not only to

encourage publication, but also to seek publication in top-rated, peer-reviewed

journals. Significant increases in the usage of action research approaches is therefore

highly unlikely to occur unless a higher volume of material makes its way through the

review process and into journals like AMJ, ASQ, HR and other similarly well cited

outlets.

One option at our disposal is to lobby journal editors to devote special issues to the

topic of action research. However, in many cases such special issues become a focal

point for discussion of the methodological dimensions of AR, or worse still polemics

on the need for increased usage of AR. The single most striking feature of such

special issues is that they contain no exemplars that other researchers might learn

from, be inspired by or from which deeper understanding might be gained (the same

observation is true of the British Journal of Management’s special issue on Mode 2,

December 2001). Exemplars do exist (see Reason and Bradbury’s Handbook of AR,

2001) but crucially such exemplars are notably absent from the top rated journals.

The evidence from HR (and the Journal of Management Learning Special Issue in

1999) is that special issues configured in this way do not affect the subsequent

popularity of action research in those (or other) journals. The irony that this paper is

itself devoid of any action research is not lost on us! Perhaps we should lobby for

special issues devoted to some common research topic that is being explored using an

action research approach. Meaningful commentary might then follow on what was

learned form the research, skills in the broader community may begin to be nurtured

and we may begin to see increased usage of AR approaches.

We can take encouragement from the arrival of a new journal devoted to Action

Research (beginning publication in 2003). However, any new journal faces a

challenge to develop the level of citations attributed to the three outlets we have

considered here. Whichever outlets we choose, we must produce high quality

research, justify our methodological and epistemological positions robustly in the

belief that the academic community will move from a position of calling for more AR,


to a position of delighting in the range and diversity of AR that appears alongside

more positivist research in the most highly regarded of places.


ReferencesAlderfer, C.P. (1993) Emerging developments in action research, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Special Issue, 29, 4.

Alvesson, M. and Skoldberg, K. (2000) Reflexive Methodology: new vistas for qualitative research, Sage: London

Argyris, C. (1980) Inner Contradictions of Rigorous Research, Academic Press, New York.

Argyris, C. (1989) Strategy implementation: an experience in learning, Organization Dynamics, 18, 2, 5-15.

Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and Smith, D. (1985) Action Science: Concepts, methods and skills for research and intervention, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

Cunningham, J.B. (1993) Action Research and Organizational Development, Praeger, Westport, CT.

Dickens, L. and Watkins, K. (1999) Action research: rethinking Lewin, Management Learning, 30, 127-140.

Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (1996) Action research for management research. British Journal of Management. 7(1) 75 -86.

Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (2001) The Negotiation of Purpose in Multi-Organizational Collaborative Groups, Journal of Management Studies, 38, 3, 373-391

Elden, M. and Chisholm, R.F. (1993) Emergent varieties of action research: introduction to the special issue, Human Relations, 46, 121-142.

Foster, M. (1972) An introduction to theory and practice of action research in work organizations, Human Relations, 25, 6, 529-556.

French and Bell, (1973) Organizational Development, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. (1999) Organizational Development: Behavioural science interventions for organizational improvement, Prentice Hall, NJ.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotony, H., Schwartzman S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, London: SageGopinath, C. and Hoffman, R.C. (1995) The Relevance of Strategy Research: practitioner and academic viewpoints. Journal of Management Studies, 32(5) 575-594.

Greenwood, D.J., Whyte, W.K. and Harkavy, I. (1993) Participatory Action Research as a Process and as a Goal, Human Relations, 46, 175-192.

Grey, C. (2001) Re-imagining Relevance: a response to Starkey and Madan, British Journal of Management (Special Issue), 12, S27-S32

Harrison, Richard T. and Leitch, C. M. (2000) Learning and Organization in the Knowledge Based Information Economy: initial findings for a participatory action research case study, British Journal of Management, 11, 103-119.


Huff A (2000), Changes in Organisational Knowledge Production: 1999 Presidential Address, Academy of Management Review, 25(2) pp 288-293.

Hult, M. and Lennung, S. A. (1980) Towards a Definition of Action Research: a note and bibliography, Journal of Management Studies, 17(2), 241-250

Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2000) Leadership in the Shaping and Implementation of Collaboration Agendas: how things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world, Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1159-1175

Keleman, M. and Bansal, P. (2002) The Conventions of Management Research and their Relevance to Management Practice, British Journal of Management, 13, 97-108

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1988) The Action Research Planner, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.

Lewin, K. (1946) Action research and minority problems, Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34-46.

Lewin, K. (1948) Action Research and Minority Problems in G.W. Lewin (ed.) Resolving Social Conflicts, Harper, New York.

Lewin, M. (1992) The impact of Kurt Lewin's Life on the Place of Social Issues in his Work, Journal of Social Issues, 48, 2, 15-29.

MacIntosh, R. (2003) BPR: alive and well in the public sector, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Volume 23, Number 3, 327 - 344

MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R. and S. Grant (2002) Mode 2 Management Research, British Journal of Management, 13(3) 189 – 207

March, J. (2000) Citigroup’s John Reed and Stanford’s James March on Management Research and Practice, Academy of Management Executive, 14, 52-64

Pasmore, W. and Friedlander, F. (1982)An Action Research Program for Increasing Employee Involvement in Problem Solving, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 343-362

Peters, M. and Robinson, V. (1984) The Origins and Status of Action Research, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 20, 2, 113-124.

Rapoport, R.N. (1970) Three dilemmas of action research, Human Relations, 23, 499-513.

Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds) (2001) Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice, Sage Publications, London.

Reason, P. and Rowan, J. (1981) (eds.) Human Inquiry, John Wiley and sons, New York.

Robertson, P.J., Roberts D.R. and Porras, J.I. (1993) Dynamics of planned organizational change: assessing empirical support for a theoretical model, Academy of Management Journal, 36, 3, 619-634.

Schein, E. (1987) The Clinical Perspective in Fieldwork, Sage Publications, London

Schmuck, R.A. (1997) Practical Action Research, IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing Inc., Arlington Heights, IL.


Smith, R D and Robey, D (1973), “Research and Applications in Operations Management: discussion of a paradox,” Academy of Management Journal, Volume 16, Number 4, December, pp 647 – 657

Starkey, K. (2001) In Defence of Modes One, Two and Three: a response, British Journal of Management (special issue), 12, S77-S80

Starkey, K. and Madan, P. (2001) Bridging the Relevance Gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management research, British Journal of Management (special issue), 12, S3-S26

Stringer, E. (1996) Action Research: a Handbook for Practitioners, Sage, London.

Susman, G.I. and Evered, R.D. (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582-603.

Tranfield, D and Starkey, K (1998), “The Nature, Social Organization and Promotion of Management Research: towards policy,” British Journal of Management, Volume 9, pp 431-353

Uzzi, B. (1997) Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 37- 69

Van Fleet, D. D., McWillams, A. and D. Seigel (2000), A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Journal Rankings: the case of formal lists, Journal of Management, 26(5), 839-861

Westbrook. R (1994), “Action Research: a new paradigm for research in production and operations management,” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Volume 15, Number 2, pp 6-20

Whitehead, J. (1994) How do I improve the quality of my management? Management Learning, 25, 137-153.

Whyte, W.F. (1991a) Comparing P.A.R. and Action Science in W.F. Whyte (ed.) Participatory Action Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Whyte, W. (ed.) (1991b) Participatory Action Research, Sage, London.

Willmott, H. (1994) Management Education: provocations to a debate, Management Learning, 25(1), 105-136


AppendicesExtracts from Notes to Contributors from AMJ, ASQ

and HR


Academy of Management JournalInformation for Contributors______________________________

The Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) publishes empirical articles of interest to members of the Academy of Management. The fields and topics of interest to the Academy membership are reflected in the divisions and interest groups listed on the inside front cover of the Journal. All articles published in the AMJ must make a strong empirical contribution. Purely conceptual papers should be submitted to the Academy of Management Review. All empirical methods - including (but not limited to) qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory or combination methods - are welcome.

Submissions that do not offer an empirical contribution will not be reviewed. Responses to or commentaries on previously published articles will be considered only if they make independent empirical contributions. These submissions, moreover, will also be peer reviewed. A manuscript's intended empirical contribution is usually the most difficult element to revise in response to reviewer concerns; therefore, authors are urged to have their research designs peer reviewed before data are collected.

All articles published in the Journal must make a strong theoretical contribution as well. Manuscripts that are primarily applied in focus and that have managers - rather than management researchers - as their intended audience should be submitted to the Academy of Management Executive. Submissions should reflect a clear understanding of the position of the contribution in the related organization and management literatures. Methodological articles are welcome, but they must contain an accompanying theoretical contribution.

All articles published in the AMJ must be clearly relevant to management theory and to management practice. The best submissions are those that identify both a compelling practical management issue and a strong theoretical framework for addressing it. Submissions whose authors stop short of considering the implications of their findings for management will be less favorably reviewed.

All articles published in the Journal must be accessible to the Academy's wide-ranging readership. Authors should make the contributions of specialized research to general management theory and practice evident, avoid jargon, and define specialized terms and analytic techniques.

… Authors should strive to be original, insightful, and theoretically bold; demonstration of a significant "value-added" advance to the field's understanding of an issue or topic is crucial to acceptance for publication.

Multiple-study papers that feature diverse methodological approaches may be more likely to make such contributions.

Available at www.aom.pace.edu/amjnew/


ASQNotice to Contributors

The ASQ logo reads, "Dedicated to advancing the understanding of administration through empirical investigation and theoretical analysis." The editors interpret that statement to contain three components that affect editorial decisions. About any manuscript they ask, does this work (1) advance understanding, (2) address administration, (3) have mutual relevance for empirical investigation and theoretical analysis? Theory is how we move to further research and improved practice. If manuscripts contain no theory, their value is suspect. Ungrounded theory, however, is no more helpful than are atheoretical data. We are receptive to multiple forms of grounding but not to a complete avoidance of grounding.

Normal science, replication, synthesis, and systematic extension are all appropriate submissions for ASQ, but people submitting such work should articulate what has been learned that we did not know before. That it has been done before is no reason that it should be done again. There are topics within organizational studies that have become stagnant, repetitious, and closed. Standard work that simply repeats the blind spots of the past does not advance understanding even though work like it has been published before.

ASQ asks, "What's interesting here?" But we take pains not to confuse interesting work with work that contains mere novelties, clever turns of phrase, or other substitutes for insight. We try to identify those ideas that disconfirm assumptions by people who do and study administration. Building a coherent, cumulative body of knowledge typically requires work that suggests syntheses, themes, causal sequences, patterns, and propositions that people have not seen before. Interesting work should accelerate development.

We attach no priorities to subjects for study, nor do we attach greater significance to one methodological style than another. For these reasons, we view all our papers as high-quality contributions to the literature and present them as equals to our readers. The first paper in each issue is not viewed by the editors as the best of those appearing in the issue. Our readers will decide for themselves which of the papers is exceptionally valuable.

We refrain from listing explicit topics in which we are interested. ASQ should publish things the editors have never thought of, and we encourage that by being vague about preferences. Authors should look at what ASQ has published over the last 10 years, see if there are any precedents for the proposed submission, and, if there is even a glimmer of precedent, submit the work to ASQ. Manuscripts that are inappropriate will be returned promptly.

Available at www.johnson.cornell.edu/publications/asq/contributors.html


Human RelationsTowards the Integration of the Social Sciences

Published on behalf of The Tavistock Institute, London, UK

Editor in Chief Paul Willman Ernest Butten Professor of Management Studies, Saïd Business School and Balliol College, University of Oxford, UK

Associate Editors Rob Briner Birkbeck College, University of London, UKSuzy Fox Loyola University, Chicago, USAYiannis Gabriel School of Management, Imperial College, London, UKLinda L. Putnam Texas A&M University, College Station, USABarbara Townley University of Edinburgh, UK

Human Relations is a key forum for innovative ideas in the social sciences and one of the world's leading journals for the analysis of work, organizations and management. For over fifty years it has pioneered publication of multidisciplinary and action research focusing on progress in theory, methodology and applications. Articles draw from an international network of leading scholars in management and organization studies, psychology, sociology, anthropology, politics, and economics. Human Relations fills the need for a journal examining issues in many spheres of organized life - work place, home, and community - establishing links between theory and practice as it translates knowledge about human problems into prospects for social action.

available at www.sagepub.co.uk


Date post:	11-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hw
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Publishing action research

Documents