We propose a framework for viewing action research (AR) by considering the level of criticality and the emphasis on methodological process. Specifically, we propose conventional AR, critical AR, and dialogic AR as three broad categories for considering AR. This framework is explored through discussing the philosophical foundations upon which these approaches rest and providing examples of AR studies and conceptual writings in the organizational change and development literature. This literature appears to be dominated by perspectives and discourses close to the conventional AR paradigm, which does not actively acknowledge value stances. A central point of the article is that dialogic AR, informed by pragmatic philosophy and philosophical hermeneutics, represents an emerging, promising perspective. Dialogic AR’s primary concern is to create understanding and mutual learning in and through dialogue while also leading to practical solutions. Practical implications of dialogic AR are also considered, in particular the conditions that need to be present for critical dialogue to flourish and the organizational realities that prevent such dialogue.
Akdere, M. ( 2003). Action research paradigm in the field of training and development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27(8), 413-422.
2.
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: SAGE.
3.
Argyris, C. ( 1997). A theory of action perspective. Journal of Management Education, 21(1), 9-26.
4.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
5.
Barge, J.K. ( 2002). Enlarging the meaning of group deliberation: From discussion to dialogue. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 159- 177). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
Bierema, L.L. (in press). Critical organization development for human resource development and adult education. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
7.
Block, P. ( 2002). The answer to how is yes: Acting on what matters. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
8.
Brown, A.D., & Starkey, K. ( 2000). Organizational identity and learning: A psycho-dynamic perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 102-120.
9.
Buber, M. ( 1967). Between man and man: The realms. In F. W. Matson & A. Montague (Eds), The human dialogue (pp. 113-117). New York: The Free Press.
10.
Burke, W.W. ( 2002). Organization change theory and practice: Foundations for organizational science. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
11.
Bushe, G.R. ( 1999). Advances in appreciative inquiry as an organization development intervention. Organization Development Journal, 17(2), 61-69.
12.
Cooperrider, D., & Srivastva, S. ( 1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In R. Woodman & W. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (pp. 129-169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
13.
Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. ( 2001). Organizational development and change, 7th edn. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
14.
Cunningham, J.B. ( 1993). Action research and organizational development. Westport, CT: Praeger.
15.
Dick, B. ( 1999). Action research and publication. Retrieved 11 December 2005 from: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/research.html
16.
Ellinor, L., & Gerard, G. ( 1998). Dialogue: Rediscover the transforming power of conversation . New York: Wiley.
17.
Emery, F.E. ( 1959). Characteristics of socio-technical systems: A critical review of theories and facts. London: Tavistock.
18.
Factor, D. ( 1994). On facilitation and purpose. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/facilitation_purpose.html
19.
Fenwick, T.J. ( 2004). Toward a critical HRD in theory and practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(3), 193-209.
20.
Fenwick, T. ( 2005). Conceptions of critical HROD: Dilemmas for theory and practice. Human Resource Development International, 8(2), 225-238.
21.
Flyvbjerg, B. ( 2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
22.
Forester, J. ( 1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
23.
French, W., & Bell, C. ( 1999). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement, 6th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
Friedman, V.J., Rothman, J., & Withers, B. ( 2006). The power of why. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 201-218.
25.
Gadamer, H.-G. ( 1992) Truth and method, 2nd edn, trans. J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall. New York: Crossroad .
26.
Gadamer, H. ( 2001). Practical philosophy. In R. E. Palmer (Ed.), Gadamer in conversation (pp. 78-85). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27.
Githens, R.P. ( 2007). Critical action research in human resource development . In F. M. Nafukho (Ed.), Academy of Human Resource Development Conference Proceedings (pp. 481-488). Bowling Green, OH: AHRD.
28.
Greenwood, D.J., & Levin, M. ( 1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
29.
Grundy, S. ( 1988). Three modes of action research. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggert (Eds), The action research reader, 3rd edn (pp. 352-361). Geelong, Vic: Deakin University Press.
30.
Gustavsen, B. ( 1992). Dialogue and development: Theory of communication, action research and the restructuring of working life. Assen/ Maastricht: Van Gorcum.
31.
Habermas, J. ( 1971). Knowledge and human interest. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Karlsson, O. ( 2001). Critical dialogue: Its value and meaning. Evaluation, 7(2), 211- 227.
34.
Kemmis, S. ( 2001). Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jürgen Habermas . In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 91-102). London: SAGE.
35.
Kowalski, R., Haron, J., Yorks, L., & Kowalski, D. ( 2003). Reducing workplace stress and aggression: An action research project at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Human Resource Planning, 26(2), 39-53.
36.
Kristiansen, M., & Bloch-Poulsen, J. (2004). Self-referentiality as a power mechanism: Towards dialogic action research. Action Research, 2(4), 371-388.
37.
Levin, M. ( 1994). Action research and critical systems thinking: Two icons carved out of the same log? Systems Practice, 7(1), 25-42.
38.
Lewin, K. ( 1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
39.
Lewin, K. ( 1943). Defining the ‘field’ at a giving time. Psychological Review, 50(3), 292-310.
40.
Lewin, K. ( 1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
41.
Lewin, K. ( 1947a). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.
42.
Lewin, K. ( 1947b). Frontiers in group dynamics II: Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1(2), 143-153.
43.
Lewin, K. ( 1948a). Resolving social conflicts; Selected papers on group dynamics, ed. G. W. Lewin.New York: Harper & Row.
44.
Lewin, K. ( 1948b). Conduct, knowledge and acceptance of new values. In G. W. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving social conflicts (pp. 56-70). New York: Harper & Row.
45.
Lippitt, G., & Lippitt, R. ( 1978). The consulting process in action. San Diego, CA: University Associates.
46.
Marrow, A.J. ( 1958). The action theorist. New York: Basic Books.
47.
Marshak, R.J. ( 1993). Lewin meets Confucius: A review of the OD model of change . Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(4), 393-415.
48.
McArdle, K.L., & Reason, P. ( 2008). Action research and organization development. In T. Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of organization development (pp. 123-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
49.
McKernan, J. ( 1991). Curriculum action research. A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. London: Kogan Page.
50.
McLagan, P.A. ( 1989). The models. A volume in models for HROD practice. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development .
51.
McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. ( 1996). You and your action research project. New York: Routledge.
52.
Meyerson, D.E., & Scully, M.A. ( 1995). Tempered radicalism and politics of ambivalence and change . Organization Science, 6(5), 585-600.
53.
NTL Institute. (2008). NTL institute: About NTL. Retrieved 28 November 2008 from: http://www.ntl.org/inner.asp?id=178&category=2
54.
Pinchot, G., & Pellman, R. ( 1999). Intrapreneuring in action: A handbook for business innovation , 1stedn. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
55.
Porras, J.I., & Silvers, R.C. ( 1991). Organization development and transformation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 51-78.
56.
Pragmatism.The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (2002) Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Retrieved 19 September 2005 from xreferplus: http://www.xreferplus.com/entry/2442307
57.
Reason, P. ( 2003). Pragmatist philosophy and action research. Readings and conversations with Richard Rorty. Action Research, 1(1), 103-123.
58.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. ( 2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 1-14). London : SAGE.
59.
Schein, E.H. ( 1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 40-51.
60.
Schwandt, T.A. ( 1997). The landscape of values in evaluation: Charted terrain and unexplored territory. New Directions for Evaluation, 76, 25-39.
61.
Schwandt, T.A. ( 2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn (pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
