The action research case study approach: A methodology for complex challenges such as sustainability in aviation

Abstract

Action research was chosen to investigate the interface between economic and environmental factors in the aviation sector. A variant of the methodology was developed which combined the ethos of action research with the prescriptive mechanism of case study analysis. This was found to be particularly appropriate for the situation encountered, where the parameters of the central problem are clearly defined and an outline solution can be identified but how to persuade stakeholders of a way forward is uncertain. The research had three phases beginning with the preparatory phase which examined the situation in depth to be able to propose a feasible solution. The second phase involved seeking ideas from another sector with similar characteristics. The third phase consisted of engagement with stakeholders across six stakeholder groups. It is suggested that the ‘action research case study’ is particularly suited to the challenge of sustainability and may have wider utility.

Keywords

Action research case study sustainability sustainable aviation action research action research methodology

Introduction

The context of the research reported here is an investigation into how to embed sustainability within policy. Aviation was selected because it is widely regarded as one of the most difficult areas of application of sustainability (Gössling & Upham, 2009; Nijkamp, 1999). Here the focus is on the interface between economic and environmental policy requiring trade-offs between, on the one hand the benefits of fast affordable transport facilitating trade and tourism; on the other, it is a significant source of CO₂ emissions implicated in causing climate change. The ‘action research case study’ proved to be effective in this context and could be useful in other studies which have similar characteristics.

Aviation has come a long way since the first sustained powered flight by the Wright Brothers in 1903. It was propelled by a simple and inefficient engine they had built themselves. For one flight, on one day, over a century ago the pollution hardly mattered. Since that day, aviation has moved forward in leaps and bounds and now provides a high capacity and reliable global air transport infrastructure. The aircraft are vastly better and the aviation industry is hugely successful in connecting people and acting as an enabler for the global economy.

Alongside this success there is the downside of CO₂ emissions, an issue which is only now moving to centre stage as concern over climate change grows. Despite improvements in engine and aircraft design, jet aircraft are inherently energy intensive machines. Aviation now accounts for 2–3% of global CO₂ emissions. These emissions are set to rise in line with growth in aviation capacity, which has been running at over 4% annually since 1989, and expected to continue to grow at a similar rate up to 2030 and beyond (Preston, Lee, & Hooper, 2012).

The future of aviation has become a highly polarised debate between the environmental movement and an informal alliance of government, industry and passengers (Daley, 2010; Sustainable Development Commission, 2007). An environmentalist view is that aviation stands out like a sore thumb, pouring out emissions at a time when the evidence is clear that man-made CO₂ emissions are causing climate change (Watson, 2014). Meanwhile the aviation industry has responded to pressure to reduce emissions by proposing aspirational targets (International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 2010). However advances, such as improvements in jet aircraft efficiency, are eclipsed by the overall growth in global air transport capacity. The majority view tends towards defence of the current state of affairs, with most mainstream policy analysts, politicians and business people agreeing that aviation is vital to the economy and a key facilitator of international trade (Hummels, 2007). The research showed that currently passengers also tend towards passive defence of the status quo, liking the speed, ease and affordability of flying. A debate about sustainability and aviation policy has started in the UK but the mind-set does not yet exist, at national or international level, to take effective and substantive action (Gössling & Upham, 2009).

The research had two primary aims: first, to identify a way forward for sustainability in the aviation sector; second, discover insights into the challenge of implementing sustainable policy which might be applicable, not just in aviation, but also in other sectors and other areas of policy. This paper focuses on the research process, outlining the phases of the research, explaining the process, and reflections on what worked well, what didn’t and any relevant insights into the research process. It begins with outlining what is an action research case study, leading into a detailed description of the methodology employed. The three phases of the research are explained, starting with the preparatory phase followed by the second phase searching for ideas from another sector with similar characteristics. The third phase was the main empirical research consisting of a series of 28 interviews across six stakeholder groups. Discussion of the analysis is presented and the findings outlined before closing with the conclusions. First, let us consider why action research was selected as the research methodology.

Action research

As the methodology was being considered, it became clear from the nature of the problem that it would require an amalgam of research methods. A useful pointer from the literature was that the method should be designed to suit the research objectives rather than a hammer applied indiscriminately (Poteete, Janssen, & Ostrom, 2010). The potential of action research to be instrumental in the movement for a sustainable world has been recognised (Gustavsen, 2008). It has also been used with regard to mobilising grass roots action to influence climate policy (Hall, Taplin, & Goldstein, 2010). The notion of critical pragmatism and deliberative practice (Forester, 2013) was also relevant in this case. Previous research into sustainability in aviation had failed to go much beyond identifying the nature of the challenge and proposing marginal changes. There seemed little point in repeating a similar process; it was felt that the research method needed to be more incisive, go deeper, challenge assumptions and take an activist approach. Action research therefore seemed to provide a suitable methodological umbrella under which to build the specific research process.

The attraction of action research is summed up by the editor of this journal writing, ‘Action Research is not a method, but an orientation to inquiry’ (Bradbury, 2013, p. 3). Hilary Bradbury recommends a working definition of action research (Reason & Bradbury-Huang, 2000, p. 1) which reflects a focus on the investigation of social phenomena. It may seem odd to apply the methodology in this case, to what amounts to a macroeconomic challenge, but on examination this is not so odd at all. The economic policies adopted arise from the social interaction between economists, politicians and others. Part of the problem is that economics is considered to be superior to other policy; it is only through mediation that the acceptance of other priorities can be brokered. It is suggested that solving current challenges at the interface between economic and environmental policy may boil down to solving the social challenge of persuading people to accept deep-rooted change to contemporary value systems currently based on a narrow economic outlook.

The action research case study

The intention was to take an action research approach to carrying out a case study into aviation. To ensure academic rigor, an established case study methodology was employed using the procedures defined by Robert Yin (2014). Initially, this structured case study methodology appeared to contradict the notion of a flexible action orientated approach. It became clear through the conduct of the research that clear structure was actually a help rather than a hindrance, provided it was applied in support of the action orientated inquiry. The analogy of scaffolding rather than a cage comes to mind; the two might have a similar look but their purpose is quite different.

In crafting the process of the action research case study, care is needed to ensure it is sufficiently rigorous and can be defended as reliable research. In action research it is hard for the researcher to remain neutral (McNiff & Whitehead, 2000). A key challenge is to ensure that the research component is sufficiently rigorous without sacrificing relevance (Argyris & Schön, 2005). Such dangers cannot be eliminated entirely but the structured approach followed in this research underpins the integrity of the research process.

The general notion of action research, to determine real-world solutions to real-world problems, is attractive but what specifically is an action research case study? A tight prescriptive definition could inhibit further development (Altrichter, Kemmis, McTaggart, & Zuber-Skerritt, 2002) but a definition is offered which gets to the heart of what is different about the action research case study:

An action research case study employs an action orientated approach to a prescriptive case study process combining problem solving with research in a way that is appropriate to the circumstances of the research to provide both academic rigour and practical relevance.

It is argued here that such action research is particularly relevant to the resolution of conflicted policy at the interface between the value systems of the environmentalist and the economist. The degree of distrust and potential for misunderstanding requires that the researcher fully engages with understanding the opposing viewpoints to be able to propose solutions. There are parallels with arbitration services where the arbitrator is careful to be neutral but also needs to understand and be respected by the parties either side of the dispute. A neutral observer would achieve little; a successful arbitrator has to develop a deep understanding of the problem and competing viewpoints to be able to formulate and propose a solution. The parallel with arbitration is not exact but the analogy helps to explain and justify the approach taken in this research. The intention was to become an objective participant and develop ideas to feed back to the subjects of the research and test their validity within a robust research framework.

Methodology

The methodology was designed with the intention of getting inside the industry and its network of stakeholders to develop a visceral understanding of the issues. Whereas most research and consultancy is carried out by an outsider looking in; in this case, the objective was to mimic the role of an insider (Coghlan & Brannick, 2000). It was hoped that the methodology would allow the research to benefit from both perspectives: the insight that comes with close engagement and the objective view of arriving new to the issues.

Phase 1 was a comprehensive analysis of aviation, and international aviation policy, including previous research focussed on aviation and sustainability. The objective was to identify the key parameters of how the industry operates, including the main issues and potential fault lines in policy, as well as start to outline possible ways forward. Comprehensive preparatory work in this phase would allow the empirical research to be incisive and focussed on searching for solutions.

Phase 2 was about seeking ideas from a related sector facing similar challenges, in this case the car industry. The aim was to collect insights from a parallel perspective which could be useful in the research and help in crafting the protocol for the Phase 3 research.

Phase 3 was the main empirical research consisting of 28 interviews across six stakeholder groups. The research protocol for this drew heavily on well-established case study methodology (Yin, 2014). The protocol was crafted with the subsequent analysis in mind to ensure the data was collected with a structure that would make the analysis more straightforward than it would otherwise be.

Phase 1 – Preparatory research

The aim of the preparatory phase was to enter the action research with a comprehensive and accurate picture of business-as-usual and a vision of a low-carbon future. Developing the latter was not entirely straightforward in a complex industry where the current approach to sustainability is somewhat opaque. In this phase, the notion that drives the process is to establish the groundwork for the researcher to be able to wear a number of hats to empathise with a variety of stakeholders without taking ownership of any one hat.

In this case, aviation is a highly regulated industry with the overarching policy framework overseen by the ICAO, a UN agency created in 1944 upon the signing of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). The convention covers everything from airport design and air traffic control to aircraft noise and aviation fuel specifications (ICAO, 2006). The environmental impact of aviation is well documented, particularly with regard to emissions at ground level close to airports (Stettler, Eastham, & Barrett, 2011). There are also documents explaining the impact of CO₂ emissions in the context of climate change including long-term and short-term effects such as Lee et al. (2010). The viewpoint of environmentalists is captured in a number of books following the general thrust of recommending flying less or not at all (Bridger, 2013; Watson, 2014). The economic aspects of the current model are also well documented (Holloway, 2008; O'Connor, 2001; Vasigh, Fleming, & Tacker, 2010). Interestingly, the environment did not feature in these text books of aviation economics; even though the economic impact when policy makers start to deal seriously with emissions will be significant. Quite why the aviation industry and its economic advisors have not factored in emissions reduction measures was an interesting point to test in the empirical research. The UK aviation industry’s approach to sustainability was documented by the industry organisation Sustainable Aviation with documents such as their CO₂ Road-Map (Sustainable Aviation, 2012) and Sustainable Fuels UK Road-Map (Sustainable Aviation, 2014). There were also reports of previous analysis of sustainability in aviation (Gössling & Upham, 2009; McManners, 2012; Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment (SSEE), 2010).

The output from the preparatory research phase was a clear understanding of continuation of business-as-usual and a scenario ‘Low-Carbon Future’.

Phase 2 – Seeking ideas

In addition to the preparatory research focussed on the case under the analytic microscope, it proved useful to develop a parallel perspective from a different sector. The aim was to arm the action researcher with ideas to apply in the main empirical research.

This parallel perspective was gathered from a half-day in-depth exploratory interview with an entrepreneur applying an ambitious and uncompromising sustainability agenda within the car industry. This sector of ground transportation has some similarities with aviation, dominated by big corporations and heavily dependent on petroleum fuels. Like aviation, there is inertia within an industry where levels of investment are high and there are strong commercial reasons to defend the status quo. Within the car industry it is considered likely that the hydrogen fuel-cell will be the basis for propulsion in the long future but not in the near-term. This entrepreneur was taking the view that the hydrogen fuel-cell could be deployed much sooner than the industry was expecting and he was pushing back against industry assumptions in driving his business forward.

One insight from the car industry was the crucial role that government has to support the introduction of new technologies. Another useful insight was that care must be taken not to be blinkered by the current industry model, seeking only to insert and replace individual elements. The research has to examine the whole system and consider the possibility of systemic change. For example, the entrepreneur in ground transportation had not defined his business as building cars but the purpose was, “To pursue, systematically, the elimination of the environmental impact of personal transport”. The words are illustrative of openness to solutions other than the car. The action research case study would not therefore focus on the sustainability of each element – the current approach to sustainability in aviation – but focus on a complete sustainable low-carbon model for air transportation.

There was considerable value arising from this loosely structured discussion about a related sector before embarking on the case study sparking ideas without the risk of compromising the rigorous research process applied to the particular case study. In the general case, it would be worthwhile to search through the growing body of literature on ‘sustainable transitions’ (Markard, Raven, & Truffer, 2012) to discover insights into what has worked in other cases and other sectors.

Crafting the case study protocol

The intense preparatory work established a solid foundation and structure for the action research. The analysis had defined the current aviation model, the historic path it had followed and explored how aviation could change in response to concerns about CO₂ emissions. From this foundation, a particular scenario ‘Low-carbon Future’ had been developed to be put forward and tested on its merits. It was not claimed that this was a precise prediction of the future but it showed that sustainable aviation is feasible. Stakeholders interviewed were much more willing to engage in a discussion about change when presented with a positive alternative rather than focussed on simply curtailing air transportation. This vision of the future was used to explore whether people could be persuaded to embrace change and the steps required to realize it. The action researcher had in effect become an advocate for a particular model of change but care was needed that this advocacy did not compromise objectivity. This is where the case study protocol was important in providing a structured framework for the research. The protocol was structured to ensure the proposal was ‘presented’ rather than ‘sold’ allowing people space to give freely of their view.

Phase 3 – The main empirical research

The plan for the main empirical research was to engage with stakeholders on a one-to-one basis, probing, testing and challenging views. The stakeholders were selected across six stakeholder groups as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Interview and stakeholder table structure.

Stakeholder groups (SG):			Additional stakeholder group:
Aviation industry (AV)			Potential change maker (CM)
Passenger (PASS)
Environmentalist (ENV)
Governmental (GOV)
Industry (not aviation) (IND)
Package holiday passenger (PACK)
Interview	Primary SG	Secondary SG	Name	Organisation	Date
1	AV
2	GOV	CM
3	ENV
4	PASS
5	IND
6	GOV
7	PACK	AV
8	AV

The aviation industry was broadly defined to include airlines and aircraft manufacturers. For this group and governmental stakeholders, it was decided to target people with either a direct interest or some knowledge of sustainable aviation so that they would have the insight to make a substantive contribution. Similarly, stakeholders drawn from industry outside aviation were chosen where air transportation was important to their business so they would have strong interest in the research. For passengers, the selection was made to cover a range of socio-economic groups. An issue which emerged from the research was potential unfairness of policy which would restrict the choices for less affluent people; therefore a passenger sub group was formed of ‘package holiday passengers’. Environmentalists were selected from across a broad range and not just those known to be hostile to aviation.

Some interviewees could be a member of more than one stakeholder group. For example one of the package holiday customers worked as an air traffic controller so he had good insights into both the aviation industry and passenger perspectives. It was decided that in such cases that the interviewee could belong to a primary and a secondary stakeholder group. A further classification was added as the research progressed of ‘potential change-maker’. These were people with a seniority or role with the potential to influence the future of aviation. It was useful to identify these people to gauge their willingness and the likelihood that they might lead change and what it might take to persuade them to do so. These people were a Member of Parliament, Chief Executive of an aviation industry body, a Chief Scientist to one of the government departments, a member of the UK Committee on Climate Change and a key government official.

From the preparatory research a number of propositions had been extracted (37 in total). These were placed within a nested hierarchy of primary, secondary and tertiary propositions. An example of a proposition and stakeholder reactions is shown in Exhibit 1.

There were also ‘alternative propositions’ which equated to Robert Yin’s ‘plausible rival explanations’ (Yin, 2014, p. 140). These were not supported by robust evidence but were put into the same rigorous process to be tested. An example of an alternative proposition is ‘The difficulties in finding an alternative to the current model of aviation are so great that it should be accepted as a special case for exemption.’ This was noted in the literature but not supported (Ekins & Speck, 1999). However it was tested in the empirical research and produced very interesting results. First, there was near universal agreement, even from those inside the industry, that this was a false proposition. Second, in almost every interview it was stated that someone else should take the lead. The key insight from examination of this alternative proposition was the lack of ownership of the challenge. So feeding alternative propositions into the empirical research is not just an important check on the research process but can also produce useful additional insights.

The interview questions were then designed to test the propositions. Both the propositions and alternative propositions were put into a matrix cross-referenced with the interview questions and the stakeholder groups (see Table 2). Not all propositions were relevant to all stakeholders so different interview plans were generated for each stakeholder type with the wording of the specific question designed to test the proposition within that stakeholder group. Some questions were designed to test more than one proposition. The interviewer had the freedom to alter the question to suit the stakeholder and to ask additional questions to tease out deeper insights. This meant that despite the tight structure, the interviewer could build empathy with the interviewee by asking questions in a way that suited them. The dialogue with an environmentalist, for example, developed quite differently to someone in the aviation industry even though many of the same propositions were being explored.

Table 2.

Interview matrix (showing propositions linked to questions and stakeholder).

Question	Prop. (e. g.)	Stakeholder group
Question	Prop. (e. g.)	Aviation industry	Passenger	Environmentalist	Governmental	Industry (not aviation)	Package holiday passenger
1	1.3.2	X	X	X	X	X	X
1	2.3	X			X	X
2	3.1			X

Exhibit 1.

Stakeholder reactions to proposition 1.1.8.

1.1.8 Current passenger attitudes will not embrace curtailing the availability of affordable flights.

Package Holiday Passenger:

“I think someone could put a case forward to the human rights thing saying we have been disadvantaged.”

Aviation Industry:

“It is obviously cheap fares that allow the growth of aviation. That is the driving force behind growth in aviation, cheap fares. If you put fares up, you can go back to making it the preserve of the rich, business and wealthy.”

Environmentalist:

“I think the public good would be served by curtailing the availability of all flights, affordable and expensive.”

Government:

“The way that you improve the sustainability of the environment is to price people out of taking flights; I don’t think that is realistic.”

This structured approach was rigorously applied which gave consistency across interviews despite the considerable variety in the outlook and scope of the interviews. Building the research protocol in this way was time consuming but the time expended was recouped in the analytic stage because the data already had a clear structure supporting drawing together insights from all the interviews relating to each proposition. For example, the proposition: ‘cost-conscious travellers would be willing to sacrifice speed of travel to keep costs affordable.’ When all the data were collated the conclusion was that leisure passengers would sacrifice speed of travel to keep costs affordable; whilst business passengers would pay the premium to travel fast. A view from an aviation industry stakeholder was that “once passengers had done it once or twice they would be happy.” A key insight was that a better quality experience would diffuse concern over a longer journey time. Such collation and analysis were repeated for all 37 propositions. Overall this was an efficient and effective method but required care in the way it was conducted to ensure that the structure was supportive of drawing out the most from the interview rather than a straightjacket limiting people’s response.

As the interviews were carried out, an immediate reflection soon after the interview was used to confirm whether the research protocol could be improved or should be adjusted. The most significant change arising from this was an adjustment to the planned stakeholder groups in response to the emerging issue of the potential inequity of policy which limited affordable flying for the general public. It was therefore decided to form a sub stakeholder group of package holiday customers.

Interviews

The interviews were structured in three parts. First, attitudes to, and opinions about, the current model of aviation were explored. Second, possible changes and improvements were discussed. Finally, the interview looked to the future including putting forward the alternative model Low-Carbon Future developed within the preparatory stage. The interviews were conducted in such a way as to maintain the position of the researcher as ‘objective participant’. The questions were designed to test and probe the propositions coming out of the preparatory research using neutral phrases and ensuring the questions were not leading. The pre-planned question was the starting point to probe for further insights and clarification to draw out a full and rich picture of the interviewee’s views.

The interviewer aimed to be empathetic with the views of the interviewee. Where stakeholder views were challenged this was through presenting the proposition, not through confronting the views expressed. Each interview was therefore a meeting of minds even though the interviews took widely diverse directions. It was particularly interesting to discuss aviation from an industry perspective counterpoised with the environmental view. In the former, a picture emerged of an industry with tight margins and under threat; in the latter, there was deep concern at the environmental impact and a belief that flying should be curtailed. Both positions were articulated well but the researcher could see and understand at first-hand the polarised nature of the debate.

Some interviewees started the interview with a very clear position. For example, one of the package holiday customers knowing only the general theme of the research, started the interview with a robust defence of his ‘right to fly’ even before the interview started: “unless you are going to tell me there is a new way… I cannot see how we cannot burn the fuel. We will meet that expense one way or another in order to continue.” The interview evolved along the lines that flying “is the most direct and economic way to get from A to B in a given timeframe.” He also explained that, “Yes, I am very keen on the idea of protecting the environment but at the same time there is a cost to protect the environment.” This discussion developed into a positive discussion around a new model of sustainable aviation. The interviewee came around to the view by the end of the interview, “We might as well start with aviation because it is the one everyone sees, everyone uses, everyone is aware of.”

Most interviews were face-to-face and all were recorded and transcribed. This is important when the interviewer is taking a participatory role as it is so easy to fall into the trap of thinking you have heard what you were hoping to hear as you seek to shape policy (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The transcribed interview does not lie. It also became clear on the first few interviews that the interviewer had, in small ways compromised neutrality by offering a personal view. This was good in terms of building rapport but it was decided best avoided for subsequent interviews.

During the interview, the Low-Carbon Future was introduced after exploring issues around the current model. The interview was paused to introduce the model and the interviewee was allowed to ask informal questions to ensure they understood the model before the interview resumed. In a few cases the interview took place over Skype; in this case an e-mail to support the presentation of the new model was sent once the interview had commenced and the interviewee invited to open it at the appropriate stage of the interview to support the discussion.

Overall, data gathered through interviews within the structured framework was of good quality. Some of the most useful data came out of the additional probing and on-the-fly questions responding to the initial answer to the pre-planned question. This interview process could not have been contracted out to someone without deep engagement in the research or placed within a questionnaire. The engagement between the interviewer and interviewee was based upon capturing a deep shared understanding of the particular stakeholder perspective.

Analysis

The first stage of the analysis of the empirical data was to cross-reference the responses from each interviewee with the propositions generated in Phase 1 of the research. These data were considered together to build a case about whether the proposition was supported, or not, and to draw out associated insights. This themed presentation of the data around the propositions became the prime way to access the data for the subsequent high-level analysis and drawing together the overall findings.

Whilst sorting the data according to the structure established in the research protocol, the data was also examined for other emerging issues or themes that had not been anticipated. One of these was ‘noise’ which was not judged to be a major issue in this research because of the focus on the overall emissions from aviation. However noise was found to be a very important consideration for politicians and the industry because of the vocal and effective opposition by residents near airports. The implication for this research was that where aircraft engine design involved trade-offs between noise and fuel efficiency, it could not be assumed that efficiency would win out. Another issue which was expected, but its importance had been missed in writing the research protocol, was the issue of carbon trading. The initial research had identified this but had concluded that although the industry talked about carbon trading, this appeared to be a public relations exercise and unlikely to act as driver of significant change. However it was found reliance on carbon trading as the way forward for aviation was deep rooted. There was a genuine belief that carbon trading would be the future allowing aviation to continue on its present path with marginally higher costs through paying for reductions elsewhere in the global economy. This position was identified as likely to be one of the barriers to making real progress.

The output from the analytic stage, and foundation for the findings, was a full set of transcribed interviews together with the same data sorted by propositions arising from the analysis carried out at the preparatory phase. These supported well the extraction of the findings.

Findings

The first aim of the research was to identify a way forward for sustainability in aviation. It was known at the outset that this would entail challenging the stalemate in aviation policy and tackling the difficult task of reconciling economic objectives with environmental constraints. The deep analysis of Phase 1 defined the dynamics of the current industry and identified a possible way forward based on the insight that flying slower could be much more fuel-efficient. The analysis supported the notion of deploying a new breed of air vehicle to support a different economic model with an altered passenger experience. It was found that there was near total ignorance amongst all stakeholders that such a future could be possible. The stakeholder reaction was generally favourable, especially amongst environmentalists one of who said “I would be quite happy to change jobs and become part of the PR for this type of thing”. The aviation industry was the main sticking point, believing that the degree of change was more than the industry could handle. This concurred with the Phase 1 analysis which had shown that parts of the industry could face bankruptcy. One notable exception was an aviation company seeking to build and deploy a low-carbon air vehicle which was finding it difficult to make headway. Interestingly everyone in the industry, including this company, believed that the government was unlikely to make the policy changes required. For its part, government stakeholders could see the merits of the future proposed, and accept that in the end it could prevail, but it was felt that there were higher political priorities. It was noted also that the political cycle was a hindrance to the long-term policy thinking required. Although passengers were very resistant to the notion of restrictions on their ability to fly, there was near unanimous support for the idea of a different model where to travel cheaply you would have to accept travelling slower. Overall, the research identified that there is a viable sustainable future path for aviation, if the government were to engage with shaping policy and the aviation industry were to accept it. However without a trigger to persuade the government and the aviation industry to invest time and money, the stalemate is likely to remain.

The second research aim was to discover insights into the challenge of implementing sustainable policy which might be applicable, not just in aviation, but also in other sectors and other areas of policy. The central finding is that applying sustainability concepts without a deep reappraisal of the whole system leads only to marginal change in individual elements. This is the approach applied to aviation up to now and has blocked progress. Deliberation of sustainable policy requires examination of the whole system in its entirety followed by consideration of systemic change. A further observation is that stakeholders will inevitably resist the idea of change if they perceive it as something being taken away from them. The way to overcome such resistance is to be able to justify the action and point to a vision which shows that the package of changes is for the better. Presented in this way, it is possible to include negative components such as restrictions. People can be persuaded to accept these if a big picture of improvement can be communicated.

Reflections on action research case study methodology

The action research case study has proved to be appropriate where the research parameters can be clearly defined allowing a specific research protocol to be crafted. This is likely to be the case for specific management or governmental challenges with well-defined characteristics. In such cases, logical analysis can lead to a logical solution but the unknown is how to bring stakeholders along. Bringing in the philosophy of action research gives the case study transformational power allowing the researcher to engage with stakeholders as an objective active participant. This involves listening, observer and also acting as a proponent for what the analysis shows to be the sensible and logical solution. However, an action research case study can only ever be a catalyst for change, steering stakeholders towards solutions, but the researcher does not have the power to force adoption.

The action research case study is appropriate for situations where there is a stalemate despite the existence of a logical way forward. The carefully structured methodology presented here is thought not to be appropriate in fuzzy situations where the nature of the challenge is hard to define and a more exploratory approach is required.

Conclusions

The action research case study methodology has worked well in support of this investigation into the challenges of sustainability in the aviation industry. The apparent challenge under investigation was economic, technical and environmental; but the main barriers were found to be people’s attitudes; and solutions revolve around what people will embrace. The simple prime conclusion is that active engagement with people can be the key to brokering solutions to economic and technical challenges.

Although the research has not led to immediate change in aviation policy, the action-orientated approach has brought greater focus, depth and insight. When the objective is to broker a solution the researcher has to confront and resolve dilemmas. With other research methodologies it may seem acceptable to record quandaries and note opposing views. The action orientated research conveyed the strong intention to do more than observe and record and thus delivered a stronger analysis and more useful outcome than the researcher as a neutral observer.

The ‘action research case study’ has the potential to tackle difficult issues and is not just the realm of academics; management consultancy engages in activities that can look very much like action research. However clients are often reluctant to pay for consultants to spend time on research, preferring that resources are applied promptly to analyse the problem and provide immediate recommendations for its solution (Frohan, Sashkin, & Kavanagh, 1976; Ormerod, 1996). Academics may bend in the other direction preferring to theorise rather than search for and drive through solutions. This author argues that the ‘academic consultant’ or ‘consultant academic’ is best placed to carry out effective action research, thus ensuring an effective balance between the research component (discovering causes and building hypotheses) and taking action (identifying changes likely to lead to improvements and setting them in train). Such research is an amalgam of academic analysis, consultancy and direct involvement. The challenge is ensuring the rigour expected by academia; maintaining the practicality of consultancy; and channelling the commitment to finding a solution which comes with personal engagement with the issues.

Beyond this research project, the author continues to engage with seeking to transform the aviation sector building on these findings. For further research, it would be interesting to apply the methodology presented here to other sustainability challenges in other sectors, and explore whether the ‘action research case study’ has wider applicability and passes the pragmatic tests of practice.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Emily Boyd and Steven Musson for their feedback on earlier versions of this article. The author would also like to thank Dr. Davydd Greenwood for leading the review process of this article. Should there be any comments/reactions you wish to share, please bring them to the interactive portion (Reader Responses column) of the website: .

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author was supported by a University of Reading Research Studentship in Social Science.

Author biography

Peter McManners is a Doctoral Researcher in the Department of Geography and Environmental Science at University of Reading and Visiting Fellow at Henley Business School. His prime research interest is into the impact that the paradigm of sustainability has on society and the economy. He works across disciplines encompassing engineering, geography, business and economics. This paper arises from his current doctoral research at the interface between economic globalization and environmentalism. He has written a number of books on sustainability and related issues.

References

Altrichter

Kemmis

McTaggart

Zuber-Skerritt

(2002) The concept of action research. The Learning Organisation. 9(3), 125–131; republished in Volume II of Cooke, B., & Cox, J. W. (Eds.), Fundamentals of action research (pp. 101–113). London: Sage Publications.

Argyris

Schön

D. A.

(2005) Participatory action research and action science compared: A commentary. American Behavioral Scientist. 32(5), 612–623; republished in Volume II of Cooke, B., & Cox, J. W. (Eds.), Fundamentals of action research (pp. 137–147). London: Sage Publications.

Bradbury

(2013) Action research: The journal’s purpose, vision and mission. Action Research 11(1): 3–7.

Bridger

(2013) Plane truth: Aviation’s real impact on people and the environment, London: Pluto Press.

Coghlan

Brannick

(2000) Doing action research in your own organisation, London: Sage.

Daley

(2010) Air transport and the environment, Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

Ekins

Speck

(1999) Competitiveness and exemptions from environmental taxes in Europe. Environmental and Resource Economics 13: 369–396.

Forester

(2013) On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory 12(1): 5–22.

Frohan

M. A.

Sashkin

Kavanagh

M. J.

(1976) Action-research as applied to organization development. Organization and Administration Science. 7(1 and 2), 129–161; republished in Volume II of Cooke, B., & Cox, J. W. (Eds.), Fundamentals of action research (pp. 367–405). London: Sage Publications.

10.

Gustavsen

(2008) Action research, practical challenges and the formation of theory. Action Research 6(4): 421–437.

11.

Gössling

Upham

(2009) Climate change and aviation: Issues, challenges and solutions, London: Earthscan.

12.

Hall

N. L.

Taplin

Goldstein

(2010) Empowerment of individuals and realization of community agency: Applying action research to climate change responses in Australia. Action Research 8(1): 71–91.

13.

Holloway

(2008) Straight and level: Practical airline economics, (3rd ed. Aldershot: Ashgate.

14.

Hummels

(2007) Transportation costs and international trade in the second era of globalization. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(3): 131–154.

15.

ICAO. (2010). Statement from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to the Thirty-third Session of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA33) (30 November to 4 December 2010 – Cancun, Mexico). Retrieved from: http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/STATEMENTS/sbsta-33.pdf.

16.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). (2006). Convention on international civil aviation. Document 7300/9, Montréal: ICAO.

17.

Lee

D. S.

Pitari

Grewe

Gierens

Penner

J. E.

Petzold Sausen

(2010) Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Aviation. Atmospheric Environment 44(37): 4678–4734.

18.

Markard

Raven

Truffer

(2012) Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, Special Section on Sustainability Transitions 41(6): 955–967.

19.

McManners

P. J.

(2012) Fly and be damned: What now for aviation and climate change?, London: Zed Books.

20.

McNiff

Whitehead

(2000) Action research in organisations, London: Routledge.

21.

Nijkamp

(1999) Sustainable transport: New research and policy challenge for the next millennium. European Review 7: 551–563. DOI: 10.1017/S1062798700004476.

22.

O'Connor

W. E.

(2001) An introduction to airline economics, (6th ed. Westport: Praeger.

23.

Ormerod

R. J.

(1996) Combining management consultancy and research. Omega International Journal of Management Science 24(1): 1–12.

24.

Poteete

A. R.

Janssen

M. A.

Ostrom

(2010) Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

25.

Preston

Lee

D. S.

Hooper

P. D.

(2012) The inclusion of the aviation sector within the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme: What are the prospects for a more sustainable aviation industry? Environmental Development 2: 48–56.

26.

Reason

Bradbury-Huang

(2000) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice, London: Sage.

27.

Rubin

H. J.

Rubin

I. S.

(2012) Qualitative interview: The art of hearing data, (3rd ed. London: Sage.

28.

Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment (SSEE) (2010) Future of mobility roadmap, (2nd ed. Oxford: SSEE.

29.

Stettler

M. E. J.

Eastham

Barrett

S. R. H.

(2011) Air quality and public health impacts of UK airports. Part I: Emissions. Atmospheric Environment 45: 5415–5424.

30.

Sustainable Aviation. (2012). Sustainable aviation CO₂ road map 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.sustainableaviation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/SA-CO2-Road-Map-full-report-280212.pdf.

31.

Sustainable Aviation. (2014). Sustainable fuels UK road-map. Retrieved from: http://www.sustainableaviation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/SA-SAF-Roadmap-FINAL-24-Nov.pdf.

32.

Sustainable Development Commission. (2007). Findings from the SD panel debate, Aviation – Second session. Retrieved from: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/SDPanelAviationReportSession2.pdf.

33.

Vasigh

Fleming

Tacker

(2010) Introduction to air transport economics: From theory to applications, Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

34.

Watson

(2014) Beyond flying: Rethinking air travel in a globally connected world, Cambridge: Green Books.

35.

Yin

(2014) Case study research: Design and methods, (5th ed. London: Sage.