Since the late 1980s, much has been written about the meaning of action research (AR), and the basic cycle of planning, action, observation, and reflection has been used to improve practice in many fields of human endeavor, including education and management. This article examines the meanings of rigor when the term is applied to AR and discusses some of the strategies recommended to improve rigor. Focusing questions for the article include the following: What is AR? Who does it, with whom, and for what purposes? Why and how can one make the framework/method itself more rigorous? How can one make data interpretation more rigorous? What about theory building? What about the dilemma of group involvement with rigor for the Ph.D. student and thesis writer? The author's experiences in achieving an AR Ph.D., examining AR theses, and generating and using a daisy model of AR with several groups of staff are used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Argyris, C., R. Putnam, and D. M. Smith. 1985. Action science. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
2.
Bernard, H. R., ed. 1998. Introduction on method and methods in anthropology. In Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology, 9–36. Walnut Creek, CA: Sage.
3.
Bernard, H. R.2000. Social research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Candy, P. C.1989. Alternative paradigms in educational research. Australian Educational Researcher16 (3): 1–11.
5.
Cardno, C., and E. Piggot-Irvine. 1996. Incorporating action research in senior school management training. International Journal of Educational Management10 (5): 19–24.
6.
Carr, W., and S. Kemmis. 1983. Becoming critical: Knowing through action research. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
7.
Carr, W., and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer.
8.
Checkland, P.1995. Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
9.
Corey, S. M.1953. Action research to improve school practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
Dewey, J.1938. The logic of enquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
11.
Dick, B., R. Passfield, and P. Wildman. 1995. Action research for beginners. ARCS Newsletter3 (1): 3–6.
12.
Greenwood, D. J., and M. Levin. 1998. Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1981. Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
14.
Gustavsen, B.1998a. Introduction. In The end of organization theory? Language as a tool in action research and organizational development, edited by O. Palshaugen, 1–10. Philadelphia: John Benjamins North America.
15.
Gustavsen, B.1998b. From experiments to network building: Trends in the use of research for reconstructing working life. Human Relations51 (3): 431–448.
16.
Hall, S.1996. Reflexivity in emancipatory action research: Illustrating the researcher's constitutiveness. In New directions in action research, edited by O. Zuber-Skerritt, 28–49. London: Falmer.
17.
Harvey, L., ed. 1993. Quality assessment in higher education: The collected parts of the QHE Project. Birmingham: The University of Central England, Centre for Quality in Higher Education.
18.
House, E. R., S. Mathison, and R. McTaggart. 1989. Validity and teacher inference. Educational Researcher18 (7): 11–15, 26.
19.
Kelly, G. A.1995. The psychology of personal constructs. Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Norton.
20.
Kemmis, S.1989. Metatheory and metapractice in educational theorising and research. Proceedings of the international symposium on action research in higher education, government and industry. Brisbane, Australia.
21.
Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart, eds. 1988. The action research planner. 3rd ed.Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
22.
Kolb, D. A.1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23.
Lewin, K.1946. Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues2 (4): 34–46.
24.
Lincoln, Y. S.1985. Organizational theory and inquiry: The paradigm revolution. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
Lincoln, Y. S.1995. Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative, interpretative research. Qualitative Inquiry1 (3): 275–289.
26.
Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
McTaggart, R. 1997a. Participatory action research: How to do research inside and outside classrooms. Seminar, 30 June at Auckland, Kohia Teachers' Centre.
28.
McTaggart, R. 1997b. Is validity really an issue for participatory action research? Culture, Organizations and Societies 5 (1). Distributed as a seminar paper, 30 June at Auckland, Kohia Teachers' Centre.
29.
Melrose, M. J.1996. Got a philosophical match? Does it matter? In New directions in action research, edited by O. Zuber-Skerritt, 49–65. London: Falmer.
30.
Melrose, M.1999. The daisy model of action research. Connections: A Journal for Teachers of Adults49 (November): 47–54.
31.
Melrose, M., M. Blackburn, J. Cullen, and K. Ufton. 1998. Academic staff appraisal for promotion: A New Zealand polytechnic experience. In Proceedings of the 1997 annual conference of the higher education and research development society of Australasia: Advancing educational perspectives. Research and development in higher education 20:475–480. The University of Adelaide: ETU Printing.
32.
Melrose, M., and M. Reid. 1999. Collaborative action research for transformation: Improving processes for the recognition of academic credit at the organizational level. Research and Development in Higher Education21:225–235.
33.
Palshaugen, O.1998. The end of organization theory? Language as a tool in action research and organizational development. Philadelphia: John Benjamins North America.
34.
Revans, R. W.1982. The origins and growth of action learning. Bromley, UK: Chartwell-Bratt.
35.
Revans, R. W.1991. Reg Revans speaks about action learning. Videotape program 1 in the series “Action Learning and Action Research,” produced by O. Zuber-Skerritt. St Lucia: TV Centre, University of Queensland.
36.
Roget, P. M., J. L. Roget, and S. R. Roget. 1980. Roget's thesaurus of synonyms and antonyms. New York: Modern Promotions.
37.
Schon, D. A.1983. The reflective practitioner: How individuals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
38.
Schon, D. A.1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39.
Schwab, J. J.1969. The practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review78 (19): 1–23.
40.
Somekh, B.1993. Quality in educational research: the contribution of classroom teachers. In Teachers develop, teachers research: Papers on classroom research and teacher development, edited by J. Edge and K. Richards, 26–38. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
41.
Stake, R. E. 1972. The seven principal cardinals of educational evaluation. Cited in Hamilton et al. (1997), Beyond the numbers game. Handout at AERA annual meeting, Chicago. London: McMillan Education.
42.
Stringer, E. T.1996. Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
Webb, G.1996. Becoming critical of action research for development. In New directions in action research, edited by O. Zuber-Skerritt, 137–161. London: Falmer.
44.
Winter, R.1996. Some principles and procedures for the conduct of action research. In New directions in action research, edited by O. Zuber-Skerritt, 13–27. London: Falmer.
45.
Zeichner, K. M., and S. E. Noffke. 1998. Practitioner research. In Handbook of research on teaching, edited by V. Richardson, 4th ed.Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
