On Writing Up Action Research for Dissertations Or Other Forms of Publication

Doctoral students who choose to use action research as the methodology for their dissertation may find that, depending upon the academic environment in which they work and it’s relative degree of conservativism, they may have to translate one research paradigm to meet the needs or standards of another. This article addresses that situation while also suggesting (because of a meta-analysis on which I am currently working) that all action researchers consider the same challenges when writing for publication. Having worked in and around the problems inherent in clear discussion of methodology across academic silos for many years I can easily say it is not difficult to bridge what other people may consider divides or gaps between AR and the rest of the research communities. The outcomes of creating these bridges should be a wider acceptance and respect for AR in all fields and, more importantly from AR’s point of view, an increase in the use of the best practices that develop from our work in our industries or academic contexts. Bridging gaps requires that you understand both sides, so that you can work out solid communication between them. The scope of this article, one of several on the topic of action research for dissertations, is the juncture between the seven concepts of research and the AR iterative cycle.

A few definitions and basics discussion of terms will be helpful:

The seven concepts of research are widely used in rigorous scientific journals as a basis for all abstracts. Their use makes cruising through the results of others easy and encourages a wide spread of results across diverse audiences. Those seven concepts are: purpose, scope (meaning the size of the project), methodology, findings, conclusions, limitations, and contributions. It is this author’s bias that if all researchers adhered to these seven concepts we would find literature much easier to digest, and we would find ourselves able to more thoroughly contrast and compare our work with others. It is contrast and comparison that allows intellectual discussion of our work and that of others in our field. Whatever the context, however, doctoral students need to understand the logic of all of these elements to be able to discuss them in their dissertations (data analysis help for dissertation) and to make that work defensible.

The AR iterative cycle that my co-authors and I promote is made up of three steps: discovery, measurable action, and reflection. After years of teaching action research I have found that merging what are commonly the second and third steps of a four-part process into the one step called measurable action helps beginning practitioners avoid two common problems. By having measurable action as a clear step, the new researcher understands that they must take action and they must be able to measure it. It was my previous experience that there was a strong tendency in new practitioners to do one but not the other.

Action is defined here as clear activity whose outcome is believed to have the ability to appreciably impact the situation being researched. Planning is not an action within this definition, nor is taking baseline measurements, nor holding meetings, having discussions, or other strategic activities that are commonly preparatory to action.

Mixing Seven Concepts and Three Iterative Steps

When writing a dissertation proposal or discussion of outcomes, where do the three iterative steps and actions taken fit in the normal paradigm of the seven research concepts?

Action research certainly has (and it would be a blessing to the meta-analysis I am doing if authors would consider) a purpose, scope, and methodological mix between the AR cycle and other forms of data collection and analysis. It is most common that our methodologies are a blend of AR, case study, mixed methods, etc. Does the fact that AR articles seldom discuss the work so explicitly (less than 25% of the time according to the current level of my research) mean that they are not well versed in research at all? It is my contention that by not discussing AR methodologically and considering its place within other forms of research, AR practitioners withhold natural methodological bridges that we should be building and they help to maintain perceived gaps between “us and them.”

AR methodology has steps within it, some of those requiring action and measurement, and it is within the methodological discussion of findings and conclusions that our work tends to take on a narrative approach. Fortunately those working in narrative, and other forms of qualitative inquiry, have helped to develop standards of how findings are discussed as data and are applied to the original research questions, while still maintaining a more or less chronological storyline. Action research started 50 years ago and all qualitative research has developed over that time. I coach doctoral students to read the work and take on the consideration of our brothers and sisters to a narrative inquiry by looking for places where our work can be enriched by theirs, especially in the discussion of findings and conclusions.

Finally, all action researchers (and I include myself here) will be well served to consider the limitations of our work within the broader field of research as much as we tout our contributions. Because of the nature of the continuous learning cycle embedded in our chosen methodology we frequently write articles discussing what we have learned, therefore focused almost all the time on the contributions of our work to ourselves and the context in which we find ourselves. Other research methodologies hold themselves to a consistent balance between limitations and contributions and at the end of their writing develop statements of what to do next. These are healthy, and somewhat humbling, considerations for all researchers, and certainly doctoral students using action research for their dissertation will need to take on both sides of this discussion.

In conclusion, this article just begins to open up a deeper discussion of how action research can be used for doctoral dissertations, or discussed as part of publication in the wider industries or contexts in which it is used. Part of a series on action research for dissertations, other articles will go into greater detail about the action research dissertation proposal, writing up AR findings and conclusions, or defending a final action research dissertation to a positivistic research audience.