• 2190 Accesses

Abstract

Lim and Seok Chai clearly follow the pragmatist research ideology. They expose many of the controversies in classifying the action research method, and then they apply it in two case studies (in Singapore and South Korea). As they cite from the literature, some writers position action research method under the pragmativist ideology, but as advocated in chapter 1, a pragmatic method can come under either the pragmativistic or constructivistic ideologies, according to how it is applied, because it requires the researcher to involve the participants in the process of the problem that they are trying to solve. There is agreement in the literature that action research uses an organizational problem as the unit of analysis to develop a solution for a deductive-inductive theory-building purpose. It starts as deductive so as to review any a priori best practices that may exist, but usually existing procedures require modification (inductively develo** a new process model). Otherwise why would an action research project be needed? The generalization is often organization specific although the implications apply to the industry or more broadly. As the authors of this chapter clarify, action research requires the researcher to participate with and within the target community. This is similar to the continuous improvement paradigm of total quality management in the post-positivist ideology where operations research methods are applied.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 117.69
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 160.49
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
EUR 160.49
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: Back to the future? Journal of Change Management, 4(4), 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1968). Field theory in social psychology. In G Lindzey & E Aronson (Eds), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 1 (2nd ed). (pp. 412–487). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (2002). Action research. In D Partington (Ed.). Essential skills for management research (pp. 193–209). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M. (2006). Bearing witness: Methods for researching oppression and resistance; A textbook for critical research. Social Justice Research, 19(1), 83–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, W. L., & Bell Jr. C. H. (1995). Organizational development: Behavioral science interventions for organizational improvement (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, H. A. (1982). Theory and resistance in education. Boston: Bergin & Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, D. J. & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsen, B. (2003). New forms of knowledge production and the role of action research. Action Research, 1(2), 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilgore, D. W. (2001). Critical and postmodern perspectives on adult learning. In S Merriam (Ed.), The new update of adult learning theory: New directions in adult and continuing education (pp. 53–61). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). (pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marrow, A. J. (1969). The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N. (1995). Pragmatism. In T. Honderich (Ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (pp. 710–713). Oxford: Oxford University Press,.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roll-Hansen, N. (2009). Why the distinction between basic (theoretical) and applied (practical) research is important in the politics of science, Centre for the Philosophy of Natural and Social Science Contingency and Dissent in Science Technical Report 04/09. Available from: http://www.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/research/concludedResearchProjects/ContingencyDissentlnScience/DP/DPRoll-HansenOnline0409.pdf. (accessed March 30, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes towards a model of management learning. Systems Practice, 9(1), 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmuck, R. A. (ed.) (2009). Practical action research: A collection of articles (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seashore, S. E. (1976). The design of action research. In A. W. Clark (Ed.). Experimenting with organizational life (pp. 103–117). New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2005). Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yorks, L. (2005). Action research methods. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton III (Eds). Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. (pp. 375–398). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2015 Kenneth D. Strang

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lim, A., Chai, D.S. (2015). Action Research Applied with Two Single Case Studies. In: Strang, K.D. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Research Design in Business and Management. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137484956_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Navigation