The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research consists of 314 entries totalling around 600,000 words by people expert in their topic. What if it was treated as a corpus of data about the current state of action research and related matters? So treated, it can provide a valuable current perspective on what action research is, who uses it for what purpose, and how it is done.
A companion paper by Davydd Greenwood reports on what the Encyclopedia has to say about theory in current action research. This paper does the same for action research methodology. I report and reflect on what the Encyclopedia says about the broad family of action research approaches, and its key features of participation, an action orientation, the use of critical reflection and the integration of those features within a cyclic process.
AramJ. D.SalipanteP. F.Jr. (2003) Bridging scholarship in management: Epistemological reflections. British Journal of Management14(3): 189–205. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.00374.
2.
BiggsR.SchlüterM.BiggsD.BohenskyE. L.BurnSilverS.CundillG.WestP. C. (2012) Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources37: 421–448. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836.
3.
ChandlerD.TorbertB. (2003) Transforming inquiry and action: Interweaving 27 flavors of action research. Action Research1(2): 133–152. DOI: 10.1177/14767503030012002.
4.
ClarkP. A. (1972) Action research and organisational change, New York, NY: Harper and Row.
5.
Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (Eds.). (2014). The SAGE encyclopedia of action research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
6.
DeweyJ. (1938) Education and experience, New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
7.
Dick, B., & Greenwood, D. J. (2015). Theory and method: Why action research does not separate them. Action Research, 13(2), 194--197.
8.
DoneN. B. (2014) On the necessity of intertwining ‘knowledge in practice’ in action research. International Journal of Action Research10(1): 54–97. DOI: 10.1688/IJAR-2014-01-Dohn.
9.
EdsonM. C. (2012) A complex adaptive systems view of resilience in a project team. Systems Research and Behavioral Science29(5): 499–516. DOI: 10.1002/sres.2153.
10.
EldenM.ChisholmR. F. (1993) Emerging varieties of action research: Introduction to the special issue. Human Relations46(2): 121–142. DOI: 10.1177/001872679304600201.
11.
FlyvbjergB. (2001) Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
FreireP. (1972) Pedagogy of the oppressed, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
13.
GlennJ. C.GordonT. J.FlorescuE. (2014) The 2013–14 state of the future, Washington, DC: Millennium Project.
14.
GreenwoodD. J. (2002) Action research: Unfulfilled promises and unmet challenges. Concepts and Transformation7(2): 117–139. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/cat.7.2.02gre.
15.
Greenwood, D. J. (2015). An analysis of the theory/concept entries in the SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research: What we can learn about action research in general from the encyclopedia. Action Research, 13(2), 198--213.
16.
HaywardC.SimpsonL.WoodL. (2004) Still left out in the cold: Problematising participatory research and development. Sociologia Ruralis44(1): 95–108. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00264.x.
17.
HenningJ. E.StoneJ. M.KellyJ. L. (2009) Using action research to improve instruction: An interactive guide for teachers, New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
Hockley, J., Froggatt, K., & Heimer, K. (Eds.). (2013). Participatory research in palliative care: Actions and reflections. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
HortonM.FreireP. (1990) We make the road by walking, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
20.
KemmisS.McTaggartR. (1982) The action research planner, Waurn Ponds, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
21.
KolbD. A. (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22.
LewinK. (1946) Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues2(4): 34–46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x.
23.
LindblomC. E. (1954) The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review19(2): 79–88. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/973677.
24.
LudemaJ. D.CooperriderD. L.BarrettF. J. (2001) Appreciative inquiry: The power of the unconditional positive question. In: ReasonP.BradburyH. (eds) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice, London: Sage, pp. 189–199.
25.
MartensJ.RichterJ. (2014) Corporate influence on the business and human rights agenda of the United Nations, Aachen, Germany: Bischöfliches Hilfswerk MISEREOR.
26.
MezirowJ.. Associates (1990) Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27.
PikettyT. (2014) Capital in the twenty-first century, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
28.
PolanyiM. (1966) The tacit dimension, New York, NY: Doubleday.
29.
RaelinJ. A. (2011) Action learning’s good company: the action modalities. In: PedlerM. (eds) Action learning in practice, 4th ed. Farnham, Surrey: Gower, pp. 369–379.
30.
ReasonP. (2003) Pragmatic philosophy and action research: Reading and conversation with Richard Rorty. Action Research1(1): 169–178. DOI: 10.1177/14767503030011007.
31.
ScheinE. H. (1996) Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes towards a model of managed learning. Systems Practice9(1): 27–47. DOI: 10.1007/BF02173417.
32.
SitrinM.AzzelliniD. (2014) They can’t represent us!: Reinventing democracy from Greece to Occupy, London: Verso.
33.
SteynB.GreenM. (2001) Investigating strategic management roles of the corporate communication function in the Department of Housing. Communicare20(2): 1–35.
34.
StewartD. W.SamdasaniP. N. (2014) Focus groups: Theory and practice, 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
