Action Research for Management Research
| Published date | 01 March 1996 |
| Date | 01 March 1996 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00107.x |
| Author | Colin Eden,Chris Huxham |
British Journal
of
Management,
Vol.
7,
75-86 (1996)
Action Research
for
Management Research
Colin Eden and Chris Huxham
Department
of
Management Science, Strathclyde Business School, Graham Hills Building,
40
George Street, Glasgow G1 lBA,
UK
Action
research
has become increasingly prominent among management researchers
as an espoused paradigm used to justify the validity of a range
of
research outputs. In
this paper we introduce and discuss 12 contentions which, we argue, justify an action
research project as quality research. The contentions are presented through a
discussion
of
a number of important issues: generality and theory generation, the type
of theory development appropriate to action research, the pragmatic focus of action
research, designing action research and validity of action research.
Introduction
Action research misused
In common with other forms of qualitative re-
search (Gummesson, 1991; Miles and Huberman,
1984; Strauss and Corbin, 1990),
action research
has become increasingly prominent among man-
agement researchers as an espoused paradigm
used to justify the validity of a range of research
outputs. The term is sometimes used rather loosely
to cover a variety of approaches. Whatever the
precise interpretation of the phrase ‘action re-
search’, the common theme to which most users
of it would subscribe is that the research output
results from
an involvement with members
of
an
organization over a matter which
is
of
genuine
concern to them.
Such interventions are necessarily ‘one-offs’
and the paradigm has frequently been criticized
for its lack of repeatability, and, hence, lack of
rigour. These criticisms are countered by the
argument that the involvement with practitioners
Address
for
correspondence: Department
of
Manage-
ment Science, Strathclyde Business School, University
of
Strathclyde, Graham Hills Building, 40 George
Street, Glasgow G1 lBA, UK.
over things which actually matter to them pro-
vides a richness of insight which could not be
gained in other ways (Rowan and Reason, 1981;
Whyte, 1991). Though this is a valid and import-
ant argument, what is less clear is the range of
approaches over which its validity lies. Taken to
its extreme, for example, the argument could be
interpreted to imply that any management con-
sultancy project could be considered to be action
research. Though it is difficult to see how such an
interpretation could be sustained, case studies
and technical developments are often reported as
though this were the case.
It is not our purpose in this paper to explore the
reasons why the action research paradigm
is
being misused in this way. However, it is worth
highlighting a few of the more obvious ones.
Many business school academics value their
consultancy both as a way of informing and legiti-
mizing their teaching and as a source of extra
cash. There is thus a danger that consultancy done
for these reasons, rather than as part of a deliber-
ate design for research, may become their major
source of research output. While consultancy
settings may be a valuable source of ‘real’ data,
unless these are entered with a more sophisticated
view of action research there is a danger that
0
1996 British Academy
of
Management
To continue reading
Request your trial