Action science is designed to help people reflect on and improve social practices that shape inquiry, choice and action. It is based on an epistemology of practice as reflecting-in-action and has developed largely within the framework of the theory of action approach. A case example is used to illustrate how action might be redesigned in the moment and to suggest the causal factors that prevent people from acting more effectively. In action science we seek to alter these causal factors by engaging people in reflecting on dilemmas and inconsistencies in their logic of action.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Argyris, C. (1970) Intervention Theory and Method. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Argyris, C. (1976) Increasing Leadership Effectiveness. New York: Wiley.
3.
Argyris, C. (1980) Inner Contradictions of Rigorous Research. New York: Academic Press.
4.
Argyris, C. (1982) Reasoning, Learning, and Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Argyris, C. (1993) Knowledge for Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Argyris, C. , Putnam, R. and Smith, D. M. (1985) Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978) Organizational Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
9.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1989) ‘Participatory Action Research and Action Science Compared’, American Behavioural Scientist32(5): 612-623.
10.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1996) Organizational Learning II. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11.
Bernstein, R. J. (1971) Praxis and Action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
12.
Bernstein, R. J. (1976) The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
13.
Edmondson, A. (1996) ‘Three Faces of Eden: The Persistence of Competing Theories and Multiple Diagnoses in Organizational Intervention Research’, Human Relations49(5): 571-595.
14.
Geuss, R. (1981) The Idea of a Critical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books.
16.
Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual. Harthorne, NY: Aldine.
17.
Habermas, J. (1971) Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
18.
Heifetz, R. (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Lewin, K. and Grabbe, P. (1948) ‘Conduct, Knowledge, and Acceptance of New Values’, in K. Lewin Resolving Social Conflicts. New York: Harper & Row.
20.
Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Harper & Row.
21.
Putnam, R. (1990) ‘Putting Concepts to Use: Re-educating Professionals for Organizational Learning’, Doctoral thesis, Harvard University.
22.
Putnam, R. (1991) ‘Recipes and Reflective Learning’, in D. Schön (ed.) The Reflective Turn. New York: Teachers College Press.
23.
Putnam, R. (1996) ‘Creating Reflective Dialogue’, in S. Toulmin and B. Gustavsen (eds) Beyond Theory: Changing Organizations Through Participation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
24.
Ryle, G. (1949) The Concept of Mind. New York: Barnes & Noble.
25.
Schein, E. (1987) Process Consultation, Volume II. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
26.
Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
27.
Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28.
Schön, D. and Rein, M. (1994) Frame Reflection. New York: Basic Books
29.
Torbert, W. (1976) Creating a Community of Inquiry: Conflict, Collaboration, Transformation. New York: Wiley.
30.
von Wright, G. H. (1971) Explanation and Understanding. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
