Action research in business and management: A reflective review

Abstract

In the context of business and management, action research operates in the realm of strategies, practical tasks, and structured hierarchical organizational systems in diverse industries and across multiple business functions and disciplines. This article reflects on action research in generating actionable knowledge in this particular domain and shares the authors’ perspective on future developments. The reflection explores a small number of action research studies undertaken across multiple fields and disciplines in business and management and advances distinct common denominators that can guide further research and action and aid future reflection. Through the mode of interiority, readers are invited to engage in a similar reflection on their assumptions, questions, and insights in coming to judgement about the state of the field and its future.

Keywords

Action research in business and management review interiority

Introduction

In the context of business and management, action research operates in the realm of strategies, practical tasks, and structured hierarchical organizational systems. Challenges to improve customer service, technology management, human resource management, supply chain management, and organizational change, for example, may occur in diverse business sectors, such as manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, media, and food. Each of these sectors has its respective business context, competitive forces, critical success factors, and technologies. The business and management context is rapidly changing through, for example: the impact of emerging technology, social media, and social tools; the role of new alternative work and organizational designs embedded in design thinking and agility orientations; the increasing emphasis on innovation leadership and leadership capabilities; the impact and increasing global emphasis on sustainable development and sustainable organizations; the emerging role and potential impact of collaborative communities of inquiry, and progressing beyond the traditional mechanisms of change with opportunities for action research to contribute to their implementation and the generation of useful knowledge.

As experienced action researchers in the organization development (OD) tradition and authors and editors of works in these fields, we have been reflecting on the state/our experience of action research in business and management. In contrast to a third person review approach (e.g. Chen, Huang, & Zeng, 2018), we are reflecting on the state of the field in the mode of interiority. By interiority, we mean that we are attentive to both the data of sense (what we are reading in the literature on action research) and the data of our consciousness (how we are experiencing, understanding, and judging the outputs of action research in business and management). Interiority is a philosophical term that expresses a way of holding both our engagement with what we see and hear, etc. (the outer data of sense) with how we are thinking and feeling (inner data of consciousness) (Coghlan 2010, 2017, 2018, 2019). Through the mode of interiority, we are inviting readers to engage in a similar reflection on their assumptions, questions, and insights in coming to judgement about the state of the field and its future. We share our reflections on the role action research has played in generating actionable knowledge in this particular domain and our perspective on future developments. This reflection captures a selection of action research studies undertaken across multiple fields and disciplines in business and management and advances distinct common denominators that can guide further research and action and aid future reflection. The article is structured as follows. First, we provide a general introduction to action research and introduce a comprehensive framework to provide a lens through which we conduct our reflective review. Second, we review some applications of action research in the fields of business and management and functional areas while utilizing the comprehensive framework. Third, in the discussion, we invite readers to engage in their own reflection on how some of these published action research studies demonstrate characteristics of action research. Finally, we describe some future trends which we consider to provide opportunities for action research.

Action research

Action research has come to be understood as a global family of related approaches that integrates theory and practice with a goal of addressing important organizational, community, and social issues together with those who experience them (Bradbury, 2015; Brydon-Miller & Coghlan, 2014). It focuses on the creation of areas for collaborative learning and the design, enactment, and evaluation of liberating actions through combining action and reflection in ongoing cycles of co-generative knowledge. It finds expression in different modalities and is practised across diverse organizational sectors and communities. The context within which action research is practised sets how an action research initiative is conceived, how it is designed and implemented, and what it contributes to theory and practice.

We are working from a definition of action research originally advanced by Shani and Pasmore (2016/1985) and adapted by Coghlan and Shani (2014, p. 535) that expresses the main themes of action research.

Action research may be defined as an emergent inquiry process in which applied behavioural science knowledge is integrated with existing organizational knowledge and applied to address real organizational issues. It is simultaneously concerned with bringing about change in organizations, in developing self-help competencies in organizational members, and in adding to scientific knowledge. Finally, it is an evolving process that is undertaken in a spirit of collaboration and co-inquiry.

Underpinning this reflection is Shani and Pasmore’s (2016/1985) comprehensive action research framework which follows from this definition. Their framework, based on a comprehensive review, analysis, and synthesis of published literature and a set of empirical field studies in a variety of organizations, has four factors.

Context. As action research generates localized theory through localized action, knowledge of context is critical. The context of the action refers to the external business, social, and academic environment and to the internal local organizational/discipline environment of a given organization. Knowledge of the scholarly context of prior research in the field of the particular action proposed and to which a contribution is intended is also a prerequisite.

Quality of relationships. The quality of relationship between members and between members and researchers are paramount. Hence, the relationships need to be managed through building trust, facilitating honest conversations, concern for other, equality of influence, common language, and so on.

Quality of the action research process itself. The quality of the action research process is grounded in the intertwining dual focus on both the action and the inquiry processes. The inquiry process is systematic, rigorous, and reflective such that it enables members of the organization to develop a deeper level understanding and meaning of a critical issue or phenomenon.

Outcomes. The dual outcomes of action research are some level of sustainability (human, social, economic, and ecological), the development of self-help and competencies out of the action and the creation of new knowledge from the inquiry.

These four factors comprise a comprehensive framework as they capture the core of action research and the complex cause-and-effect dynamics within each factor and between the factors. They provide a unifying lens into wide variety of the reported studies in the literature, whether or not the factors are discussed explicitly and a high level guide for the action researcher. It allows the distinct nature of each action research effort to emerge and it magnifies the added value of each study. How do we come to base our reflection on this definition and framework of action research? First, as it was the fruit of an empirical study by one of us (Shani & Pasmore, 2016/1985), it conforms to our judgement of having a firm foundation. Second, each of us has worked from it for over 30 years, and in our reflected experience, it has been a framework that stands up to challenges of rigour, reflectiveness, and relevance in research design, implementation and evaluation, teaching, and doctoral examination (Pasmore, Woodman, & Simmons, 2008).

Action research in the context of business and management

As we have noted above, in the context of business and management, action research operates in the realm of strategies, operational tasks, and structured hierarchical organizational systems, addressing challenges of customer service, innovation, globalization, financial management, human resource management, supply chain management, and organizational change. Different business sectors have their respective business contexts, competitive forces, critical success factors, and technologies.

The foundations of action research in industrial settings lie in the work of Kurt Lewin (1890–1947). Lewin (1944) provided his own account of engaging as an external action researcher (without using the term) in organizational change, and two of his closest associates, Alfred Marrow and John French, described how they engaged as action researchers in enabling change to take place in a manufacturing plant (Marrow & French, 1945). Coch and French’s (1948) engagement in the Harwood pyjama factory is considered to be the seminal action research work in a factory and the foundation of OD (Burnes, 2007), with Shepard’s and Katzell's (1960) action research work in ESSO a significant development. A rich action research tradition developed in OD in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s (Bushe & Marshak, 2009; Clark, 1972; Coghlan, 2015; Cunningham, 1993; Foster, 1972; French & Bell, 1999; Frohman, Sashkin, & Kavanagh, 1976). One of the pillars of OD is the view of organizations as systems and the development of socio-technical systems theory of organizations and management within which the practice of change and development emerged (Mohrman & Winby, 2018; Pasmore, 2001). This foundation provides the context and the orientation for a high level of engagement and the collaborative work between a wide variety of actors.

Over the 70 years of action research projects in industrial settings, there have been multiple approaches, interventions, and studies in diverse industries and business disciplines. Action research is found in industries such as agriculture, biopharma, business and information, construction, education, energy, fashion design, food, defense, health care, automotive, telecommunication, fish farming, mining, pharmaceutical, and public service. It is found in business functions, which include accounting, e-marketing, e-commerce, e-learning, finance, information systems (IS/IT), lean operation management, management, consulting, customer service, marketing, human resource, research and development (R&D), manufacturing, purchasing, supply chain management, research and development, and sales to improve organizational efficiency. It explores interorganizational dynamics, such as in supply chain management and mergers. It is expressed through the lenses of action learning, action science, appreciative inquiry, collaborative management research, intervention research, and learning history within the rubric of OD.

The business and management literature provides many examples of action research implementation. This section presents an illustration of the wide range of action research projects and perspectives that were impactful both in addressing specific organization issues and in advancing our understanding of business and management. To capture the wide range of action research projects and insights, we have grouped examples by industry sector.

Over the years, action research has been utilized in wide variety of industries, such as manufacturing (Pace & Argona, 1989; Pasmore & Friedlander, 1982), agriculture (Meister & Gronski, 2007), biopharma (Roth, Shani, & Leary, 2007), business and information, construction, energy (Baker & Jayaraman, 2012), fashion design (Cirella, Canterino, Guerci, & Shani, 2015), media (Walton & Gaffney, 1989), food (Kocher, Kaudela-Baum, & Wolf, 2011), defense, health care, automotive (Williander & Styhre, 2006), telecommunication, fish farming (Lund, 2008), mining (Blumberg & Pringle, 1983), pharmaceutical (Ngwerume & Themessl-Huber, 2010; Stebbins & Valenzuela, 2015) and electronics (Fredberg, Norrgren, & Shani, 2011; Schuiling, 2014).

Action research also has been utilized in various business functions/disciplines. For instance, in the field of operations management, Coughlan and Coghlan (2002, 2016) have provided theoretical foundations for the enactment of action research in this particular business discipline (e.g. Zhang, Levenson, & Crossley, 2015). Some of the business disciplines’ journal outlets have devoted special issues to action research such as the European Journal of Marketing, Human Resource Management and the Journal of Information Systems. Other function/disciplines included e-commerce (Daniel & Wilson, 2004), marketing (Ballantyne, 2004), finance (Waddell, 2012), human resource management (Lindgren, Henfridsson, & Schultze, 2004), information systems (Avital, 2005), research and development/R&D (Hildrum, Finsrud, & Klethagen, 2009), lean management (Wyton & Payne, 2014), operations management (Rytter, Boer, & Koch, 2007), supply chain management (Coghlan & Coughlan, 2015), and mergers/acquisitions (Canterino, Shani, Coghlan, & Bruneli, 2016).

Some of the action research studies were conducted within a specific modality such as action learning (Coghlan and Coughlan, 2015; Ystrom, Ollila, Agogue, & Coghlan, 2019), action science (Beer, 2011), appreciative inquiry (Avital, 2005), clinical inquiry (Stebbins & Shani, 2009), collaborative management research (Canterino et al., 2016), intervention research (Raedelli et al., 2014), and learning history (Roth & Kleiner, 2000).

A comprehensive review of the emerging action research practice is beyond the scope of this article. Yet, as Table 1 below illustrates, the diverse utilized action research practices in business and management are wide and impactful. The table captures examples of varied AR projects that have taken place during the past 50 years, in different countries and industries, addressing a wide range of issues while utilizing the four factors of context, quality of relationships, and the quality of the action research process and outcomes.

Table 1.

Examples of AR projects: Brief synopsis via the four factors.

	Purpose	Context	Quality of relationships	Quality of AR process	Outcomes
Bhatnagar (2017)	AR project to develop leadership development strategy and enhance leadership development at all levels.	• Automotive component manufacturing company in India.• High turnover of newly appointed senior managers.• Increasing pressures for leadership development at all levels of the firm.• Insider action research project led by Chief HR officer.	• Collaboration between insider AR, the AR committee and AR consultants led to new discoveries and experimentation.• The cascaded execution of actions triggered by the AR committee generated higher levels of engagement, openness, ownership, and improved work relationship.	• AR cycle that included three sequential AR steps –discovery, measurable actions and reflections – was utilized.• AR committee – included individuals who led a specific function or department – was established to carry out the study.• A steering committee composed of the CEO, one business leader, a unit head, and the IAR was established to guide the study.	• Creation of leadership development strategy.• Development of leadership competency framework.• Establishment of leadership development pipeline for delivering business growth objectives.• The adoption of the competing values framework and assessment of culture fit as an HR recruitment talent tool reduced managerial turnover.
Canterino et al. (2016)	Collaborative Management Research (CMR) project to support the actual merger of two companies.	• Merger of two real-estate investment companies in Italy.• The merger viewed as strategically and financially successful, yet the actual companies’ integration and cultural integration were problematic.	• Collaboration between members of the study team in co-leading collaborative effort in co-design of the study, co-design of data collection instruments, co-interpretation of data and identification of experimentations resulted in the development of shared vision and common language.• The quality of the relationships within study team and between the study team and the organization improved significantly from cycle to cycle.	• Two and one half cycles over 13 months period: 1^st cycle devoted to discovery of company’s and its post-merger’s dynamics; 2^nd focused on mapping out current and preferred culture, and the final focused on identification and implementation of specific actions to address the emerging issues.• Study team – composed of 4 researchers and 4 org’l members – was created to design and carry out the study.	• The creation of the study team and its emerging role triggered learning across the organization.• The study team as learning mechanisms institutionalized as learning system crucial for continuous improvements.• Key processes unified into one across the ‘new’ merged company.
Kocher et al. (2011)	AR project to generate detail insights into nature of innovation dynamics to change and enhance SMEs’ capability to innovate.	• Food industry in central Switzerland.• Increasing pressures to improve capacity.• Increasing pressures to enhance organizational innovation capacity.• Authors advanced a hybrid project, systemic-constructionist inquiry and action research.	• Collaboration between external researchers and organizational members (management and innovation teams members) helped to discover and overcome ‘blind spots’.• Collaboration enhanced the quality of the project and innovation outcomes.• Relationships developed through the 1^st AR cycle led to the 2^nd and 3^rd cycles.	• Three sequential AR cycles.• Four AR phases were implemented within each AR cycle.• Research team guided the AR project.	• Insights clustered in three levels: Process, cultural, strategic and structural.• Changes implemented at the three levels resulted in new innovation capabilities, better diffusion of innovations and improved company performance.
Lund (2008)	AR project aimed at innovations’ diffusion across companies within a large conglomerate.	• Media conglomerate industry – press, radio, and TV in Denmark.	• External research team with previous action research experience led the project.	• Research team guided the AR project.• Four phased AR framework.	• Specific set of leadership qualities that enhance innovation diffusion identified.• Design implications enhancing innovation diffusions identified and implemented. • Communication and communication flow identified as crucial for innovation diffusion.• Significant improvement in innovation diffusion recorded.
Ngwerume and Themessl-Huber (2010)	AR project to develop a community pharmacy team, consisting of pharmacist and medicine counter assistants, into a research aware practice.	• Pharmaceutical industry in Australia.• Pressure to enhance capability and capacity of pharmacy teams.• National Health Service push for evidence-based service provisions.• Pharmacy staff desire for professional development.	• Member of the pharmacy network steering committee introduced AR as a potential helpful approach.• All pharmacy staff invited to attend information meeting.• Seven individuals from different levels of the pharmacy agreed to be the AR steering team.• Collaborative orientation as co-researchers generated commitment to work on the tasks ahead and provided the framework within which the collaborative relationships developed.• Each cycle of AR, the AR team considered actions or findings, identified challenges, addressed the challenges, developed shared understanding and advanced implementations.	• Cyclical AR process utilized.• Four activity cycles, each involving network representatives evolved during the project.• Evidence-based approach guided each phase of the AR project.	• Increased awareness of Medical Counter Assistance (MNCs).• New research capacity and capability.• Improved customer-focused information system.
Pace and Argona (1989)	Project focused on implementation of experiential Quality of Working Life programme in a manufacturing division of Xerox Corporation.	• Manufacturing industry in the USA.• Company experience erosion in mkt share and profit.• Competition increase – global and domestic.• Increase level of employee dissatisfaction.• Contract-based discussions led to the idea to establish joint employee involvement.	• Tension between management, employees, and union led to the formation of a joint company-union committee.• Internal consultant team invited external action researchers to co-lead the effort.• Working through addressing unexpected urgent external obstacles led to honest conversations that helped the building of trust among the members of the action research actors, management, and employees.	• Union and management as trainers and coordinators.• Steering committee composed of management and union leaders.• Parallel problem solving teams addressing critical issues.• Deeper levels of understanding led to the experimentation of alternative courses of actions.	• Significant cost savings and productivity improvements.• Improvement in working conditions, work flow processes, quality and safety.
Pasmore and Friedlander (1982)	AR project to address problem of increasing work-related injuries that persisted for over 5 years.	• Manufacturing consumer electronic plant of a large electronics corporation in the USA.• At the time of the study, 30% of the employees had visited the company infirmary to seek treatment for their soreness.• Few traditional scientific studies were conducted during the five year period that yielded minimum improvement.Worsening situation despite efforts made.	• Plant manager turned to behavioural scientists when the results of two independent medical studies showed that injuries showed no connection with the health of the workers.• SCG developed openness and trusting relationship as they worked on task.	• Study and Communication Group (SCG) to guide study and communicate with employees.• The SCG co-designed data collection instruments (interview guide and survey). Researchers summarized results that were interpreted by the SCG and presented to plant management and employees.• Action plans and specific recommendations for change were developed and shared with management.	• After some reluctance and following overcoming some of the fear of losing control, management eventually listened to the SCG recommendations and began to make changes that would alleviate the injury problems.• During the events that occurred in the plant during the AR effort, the soreness problem showed definite signs of subsiding.• Other plant data showed improvement as well such as efficiency increases, increase in annual savings, labour efficiency and improved attendance.
Shani and Eberhardt (1987)	AR project to address increasing tension within and between clinical teams in a hospital setting such that effectiveness and performance can be enhanced.	Hospital located in the Midwest of the USA serving a large metropolitan region.	• Medical director support for the AR study and overall design set the stage for perceived study legitimacy.• New work relationships that began to develop within steering committee members and study group and between steering committee and study group faced some challenges and tension.• Enhanced openness and trust triggered.	• Steering committee and study group established as management advisory entity.• Through collaborative process study scope, research methods and process were developed and implemented.• Following the initial findings, experimental design of teams were created and empirically investigated.	• Parallel organization led action research project.• New team-based design principles and protocol established to guide team design.• New communication channels within and between the medical staff and administrative staff established.• Clinical teams’ effectiveness and performance improved.
Walton and Gaffney (1989)	PAR study focused on exploring variety of strategies to promote organizational change in the Norwegian context.	Merchant shipping company located in Norway.	• External research team with previous action research experience and projects with the industry led the project.	• Five phased AR cycles guided the PAR project.• Steering team, comprised of four union representatives, three government directors, and three researchers, led the PAR project.• Study team composed of managers and seafarers guided the project within the company.• Committees composed of workers and managers carry out specific focused studies and experiments.	• Learning mechanisms viewed as innovations diffused throughout company and the industry.• Insights about optimal number of seamen on board implemented – resulting in significant cost reductions.• New work processes implemented that improved productivity.
Williander and Styhre (2006)	An AR study devoted to the development of environmental strategies and eco-benign automobiles.	• Car manufacturing company located in western Sweden.• Increasing pressures for leadership in development of environmental strategies.• Insider action research project led by a business and product strategy manager.	• Combined insider and outsider AR team led the project.• The dynamics between insider and outside research team resulted in a proposal for collaborative AR project that was presented to top management.• The quality of the relationship within the research team and the three study teams and between them resulted in breakthrough experiments.	• Three AR cycles.• Steering committee and three study teams.• Designing collaborative research experiments.	• Insights about the critical role of the IAR.• New technological inventions.• Facilitation of new managerial practices and roles.
Ystrom et al. (2019)	An action learning study to enhance collaborative innovation in an interorganizational network.	ABC network in the automotive industry in northern Europe composing six partner companies initiated by the vehicle and traffic safety centre (SAFER).	Movement from being a strategic to a transformational network with interorganizational trust and collaboration.	Action learning process of questioning and reflection that supported the learning in the network.	Collaboration between participating organizations.Actionable model of network learning.

What these studies demonstrate is how critical the context is in setting the scene and tasks for the action research work (Table 1). An examination of the ‘context’ reveals variations of limited level of detailed description of the context. For example, Bhatnagar (2017) suggests that the complex cultural context of the Indian’s firm is relevant to the impact the action research effort had within that specific context. Similarly, the work by Lund (2008) claims that the specific Danish cultural context within which the company emerged impacted the action research effort and the attempt to transform the company into a more innovative company, yet the reported study is short on details’ depiction.

An examination of the quality of the relationships elements shows that most of the studies reviewed in this article introduced and briefly discussed the quality of the relationships, yet they fall short on depiction of their richness and impact. For example, Williander and Styhre (2006) point to the fact that they had a combined action research team that included insider and outsider action researchers, yet they do not elaborate on the team’s dynamic and impact. Similarly, Ystrom et al. (2019), in their study of the ABC network in the automotive industry in Northern Europe, composed of six partner companies and initiated by the Vehicle and Traffic Safety Centre (SAFER), suggest that the working relationships were important, yet little information is provided about the quality of the relationships that were developed, and they impacted on the outcomes.

Regarding the quality of the action research process itself, most, but not all, attempt to capture the process, mechanisms, and cycles. Ngwerume and Themessl-Huber (2010) describe four activity cycles of AR, while Canterino et al. (2016) describe two and one half action research cycles in detail. Shani and Eberhardt (1987) present the details of the specific action research mechanism, its composition, and its dynamics, while Bhatnagar (2017) and Williander and Styhre (2006) elude to the action research mechanisms but provide little information about them. Much variation can be found in the reviewed studies about the emphasis and level of details that capture the action research process itself. While some studies are very explicit about the specific action research phases, activities, data collection methods, and data interpretation (such as Pasmore & Friedlander, 1982), some pay attention to the phases (Lund, 2008) and some tend to focus on the methods (such as Bhatnagar, 2017). Some tend to focus on the cycles (such as Näslund, Kale, & Paulraj, 2010), and yet, others tend to focus on the mechanisms (such as Shani & Eberhardt, 1987). This finding suggests that more systematic rigour needs to be utilized in the scientific reporting such that deeper level appreciation can be generated.

Each of the reviewed studies claims significant results that were outcomes of the respective action research effort. The reported practical results vary based on the specific purpose of the study. While some report on improved performance and productivity (Pasmore & Friedlander, 1982), process improvement (Canterino et al., 2016), and innovation (Lund, 2008), others focused on development of new capabilities for innovation (e.g. Kocher et al., 2011), leadership development (Bhatnagar, 2017), and new work processes (Shani & Eberhadt, 1987). What is surprising to us is the fact that while most discussed the practical outcomes for the firm, the discussion about the creation of new knowledge seems limited. This finding suggests that more systematic rigour needs to be utilized such that new knowledge creation process is designed into the action research process. For example, Von Kroch, Ichijo, and Nonaka’s (2000) five knowledge creation steps – sharing tacit knowledge, creating concept, justifying a concept, building a prototype, and cross-levelling knowledge – can serve as a departure point for the exploration of possible steps that can be integrated into the action research process that are likely to enhance new knowledge creation. Furthermore, Mohrman and Lawler (2011) suggest that movement towards the creation of actionable knowledge as a desired outcome is likely to result in the creation of new knowledge.

Discussion

Our reflection from this selection of action research studies in the field of business and management is that action research has failed to realize its potential for generating robust actionable knowledge. While debates as to whether action research is ‘real’ research have largely abated, action research has not become mainstream and is frequently marginalized (Coghlan, 2011; Greenwood, 2002). There are many reasons for this. Some are due to the dominance in the academy of a philosophy of social science that is modelled on that of the natural sciences, a position firmly rebutted by Susman and Evered (1978) and Shani and Coghlan (2014). Published accounts of consulting projects have claimed to be action research merely because they were collaborative and followed cycles of action and reflection. In this regard, Schein (2010) comments action research has often been diminished by being a glib term for involving clients in research and has lost its role as a powerful conceptual tool for uncovering truth on which action can be taken. As Shani and Bushe (1987) point out, accounts of action research have undoubtedly been useful for practitioners, but they have often failed to address the intricacies of generating valid knowledge. What has been lacking has been a rigorous reflection on the choices that are made, in relation to, for example: contextual analysis, design, purposes, degrees of collaboration, planning, implementation, review, and so on (Coghlan & Shani, 2005).

The focus of this article is our reflection on how action research has generated actionable knowledge in the field of business and management and its challenges for the future. Through the mode of interiority, we have been explicit about how we have attended to both the data of the published studies and how we have understood those data and come to judgement. By drawing on Shani and Pasmore’s comprehensive framework and how it shapes our way of understanding and judging action research outputs, we are inviting readers to attend to their own cognitive processes in engaging with both the literature and how they form judgements about it.

Based on our judgement that the four factors form a comprehensive framework and how we have reflected on some published action research studies, we invite readers to engage in interiority and consider the key factors of (a) understanding the context, (b) quality of the relationships, (c) the quality of the action research process itself, and (d) the twin outcomes of practical value to the business and the generation of practical knowledge by means of the following questions. The following questions invite you, the reader, to think about both the presentation of any action research account and of how your mind is working as you make judgements about that account.

With regard to the presentation of context, how might you judge that contextual data are captured in a rigorous, systematic manner so that the rationale for the action and the research is solidly grounded? How might you be satisfied that the action research builds on both the organization’s experience and on previous research?

Is there an explicit discussion of how the action research relationships were formed, built, and sustained, with an account of enablers, obstacles, and difficulties that may have arisen? Is the work evaluated in terms of the quality of the relationships? How might you judge that the quality of relationships meet a standard of collaborative endeavour that action research espouses?

Does the account demonstrate a rigorous and collaborative engagement in the action research project’s design, and subsequent enactment of cycles of planning, taking action, and reflection, so that the path to the organizational and theoretical outcomes are transparent? How might you weigh the action research account to your satisfaction?

Are both forms of outcomes presented? To what extent are they humanly, socially, economically, and ecologically sustainable? How is organizational learning demonstrated? What actionable knowledge has been cogenerated? What are your criteria for actionable knowledge?

The future

Shani and Coghlan (2018) point to six clusters of emerging areas of interests in the field of business and management that provide distinct opportunities for action research scholars and practitioners: the impact of emerging technology, social media, and social tools; the role of new alternative work and organizational designs embedded in design thinking and agility orientations; the increasing emphasis on innovation leadership and leadership capabilities; the impact and increasing global emphasis on sustainable development and sustainable organizations and the emerging role and potential impact of collaborative communities of inquiry (Table 2).

Table 2.

Emerging areas of contextual change as future opportunities for action research.

Action research factors	Future
Context	• Impact of emerging technology, social media and social tools; • Role of new alternative work and organizational designs embedded in design thinking and agility orientations; • Increasing emphasis on innovation leadership and leadership capabilities.
Quality of relationships	Emerging role and potential impact of collaborative communities of inquiry.
Quality of the AR process	Impact of the new technology, spatial work spaces, and work style preferences provide opportunities for the exploration of new ways of organizing and conducting the action research process.
Outcomes	Impact and increasing global emphasis on sustainable development and sustainable organizations.

Technology, social media, and social tools

Technology is continuously developing and at an ever faster pace, thus creating learning opportunities for the development of new skills and knowledge, increasing human development and capabilities (Birkinshaw, 2018). In some cases, technology is replacing humans. This radical shift creates opportunities for action researchers to guide the process of rethinking work and ways of organizing that will enhance human development. Technology also allows organizations and individuals to become more connected. The new ways of connectivity provide opportunities to engage more individuals in collaborative work and collaboration in new ways. For example, the new emerging technology driven social tools and platforms (such as Slack, Yammer, and Chatter) facilitate new ways of employee communication. The emerging hybrid virtual working social systems creates an opportunity for action researchers to facilitate the process of developing new individual and organizational capabilities. This is one of the significant driving contextual forces of today’s business world and makes new demands on the action research process and the quality of relationships.

Socio-technical system theory, a design and planned change process that is one of the early theoretical framework upon which the field of system-wide change and development was developed, provides a foundational point of departure of OD theory and practice (Pasmore, 1988; Trist, 1981). While action research and socio-technical system have been interwoven from its conception (Pasmore, 2001), utilizing and advancing their confluence within the context of the emerging technology is likely to enhance practice and generate new knowledge. Accordingly, the design of the action research process and the quality of relationships need to be solidly based in a socio-technical mindset.

New alternative work and organization’s designs embedded in design thinking and agility

Technological, social, and environmental changes trigger the emergence of new work design orientations that attempt to enhance efficiency and flexibility simultaneously. Mergers, acquisitions, globalizations, and virtual organizations create the opportunity for action research projects that focus on new thinking about design principles and planned change processes and technology (Repenning, Kieffer, & Repenning, 2018). Integrating an action research orientation into the discovery process of the exploration of appropriate designs can serve as the engine for implementation and action. Design thinking has evolved to be one of the fastest growing approaches to innovation across the globe (Verganti, 2017). Such orientation enhances rapid prototyping, the creative process, and innovation which creates an opportunity for human development and increasing organizational capabilities. Coupling the action research process with the emerging new agile work design practices provides employees with collaborative ways to study and design optimal balance between autonomy and oversight.

Innovation leadership and leadership capabilities

Innovation leadership links innovation and leadership. This emerging phenomenon has gained increasing attention as the pressure to increase innovation is mounting. Thus, creating the climate for innovation within organizations presents a unique opportunity for the action research field. Leadership capabilities to foster and lead innovation processes are critical. Integrating design thinking and innovation are key drivers of business growth and transformation (Verganti, 2017). Leaders are increasingly looked upon to deliver the value of both innovation and design. Each requires processes, methods, and tools. Yet, the most important factor to fuel innovation is engaging people at all levels. One of the challenges that leaders face is how to progress from one or two agile innovation teams in a specific business area and diffuse the design of many agile innovation teams throughout the company (Rigby, Suthetrland, & Noble, 2018). Creating an innovative culture-by-design through collaborative action research processes provides space for the field to have a major impact and to generate new knowledge.

Sustainable development and sustainable organizations

The established context and field of sustainability and sustainable value, with its complexities in organizational, environmental, and social expressions is now seen to be at the centre of organization and business concerns. The renewed global interest in sustainability and sustainable value provides an opportunity for action research to engage and have an impact. Impacting the sustainable value, an emerging key driver of competitive advantage for companies, generates an important arena for the field to make a difference (Mohrman & Winby, 2018). Sustainability cross institutional and geographical boundaries is a complex phenomenon that involves many stakeholders. Existing models of ways of organizing, changing, and learning are limited. This suggests that learning and change must be continuous and core orientation and practise such that learning at all levels takes place (individual, collective, organizational, networks, coalitions, and systems). The utilization of an action research orientation, as documented by few recent studies, demonstrates a field of opportunities (Mohrman & Shani, 2011; Williander & Styhre, 2006). The field’s knowledge-base in the creation and sustaining tapestry of learning mechanisms and tools can provide additional platform and opportunity for the field to have impactful outcomes for practice and knowledge.

Emerging collaborative communities of inquiry

The emerging nature of work and organizations suggests that the complexity of social systems is increasing. One such emerging system was labelled communities of practice (Coughlan, Hargaden, Coghlan, Idris, & Åhlström, 2018; Wenger, 1998). At the most basic level, communities of practice are groups of individuals in organizations who share an interest in generating new understanding, knowledge, and action about a specific challenge. Such communities evolved as a response to the increasing complexities of systems and seem to be a collaborative effort of engaging in action, inquiry, and development (Coghlan & Shani, 2008; Mohrman, Pasmore, Shani, Stymne, & Adler 2008). While the notions of communities as a business construct is relatively new, the practice of action research since its beginning has presented a philosophy, a professional orientation and approach to social action, an orientation to inquiry through rigorous inquiry methodologies and wide array of action research modalities. As such, at the centre of the past 70 years of action research’s evolution, one can find an emphasis on collaborative communities of inquiry in different shapes and forums. The emerging complex business context can benefit from the accumulated action research practice and knowledge-base (Coghlan & Shani, 2016). Further development of our understanding of such communities and their impact, while utilizing action research processes, presents great future opportunities and likely to increase the relevancy and impact of action research. As such, the opportunity and purposeful choice to design the action research community of practice around a specific project is seen as a possible integral part of the action research context within which the quality of the relationships begin to develop that are likely to influence the quality and outcomes of the effort.

In his classic book, Productive Workplaces, Marvin Weisbord (1977) created a framework that showed the shift through the decades from experts solving organizational problems to everyone solving organizational problems. In a parallel vein, we suggest that action research over the coming decades needs to reclaim its unique collaborative research philosophy that is at the heart of the OD tradition (Coghlan, 2012, 2017; Coghlan & Shani, 2018; Schein, 2010). This philosophy is characterized by collaborative involvement in researching change initiatives, such as framed by Shani, Mohrman, Pasmore, Stymne, and Adler (2008) as collaborative management research and by Bushe and Marshak (2015) as dialogic OD. Such approaches combine engagement in research-in-action with relevant stakeholders in collaborative cycles of shared action and shared inquiry and co-generation of actionable knowledge within a specific context.

Conclusion

We have reflected on action research in business and management and have found some important common denominators, many variations and some major gaps. Most of the variations and gaps relate to the unsystematic use of acceptable quality standards, key espoused action research features, and the design features of learning mechanisms. Although studies tend to be reported selectively, we were able to conclude that certain features, such as context, quality of relationships, quality of the action research phases and activities, the collaborative design of the inquiry, and the learning mechanisms’ configurations, were frequently employed across the studies.

One of the many learnings obtained from this review, probably the most important is the need to pay closer attention to systematic and comprehensive reporting of the action research effort such that better understanding of the context, phases, mechanisms, relationships, outcomes, and the impact that they have can be generated. In our view, it is not enough to discuss any of the four factors but that each factor – context, quality of relationships, quality of the action research process, and outcomes – be discussed explicitly in itself and in relation to each of the others. Action research provides potential vehicle for meeting the increasing challenges that systems and organizations faced, but as currently practised and researched in business and management, the potential has barely been tapped.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to Danielle Zandee and Rob Warwick for the exercise of their role as successive editors and to the two reviewers who pushed us beyond our original formulation into deeper thinking. We welcome and invite your comments and reactions at our action research community’s interactive ARJ blog housed at AR+ .

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Abraham B. (Rami) Shani is professor of Management at the Orfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo. He is co-editor of the Handbook of Collaborative Management Research and of the annual series, Research in Organization Change and Development (Emerald). He and David Coghlan are authors of Conducting Action Research for Business and Management Students (2018, Sage) and co-editors of two four volume sets “Action research in business and management (2016, Sage)” and “Fundamentals of organization development (2010, Sage)”.

David Coghlan is professor emeritus at the Trinity Business School, University of Dublin Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. He is author of Doing Action Research in your Own Organization (5th ed. Sage, 2019) and co-editor of The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research.

References

Avital

(2005). Innovation information systems education I: Accelerated systems analysis and design with appreciative inquiry-an action learning approach. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15, 289–314.

Baker

Jayaraman

(2012). Managing information and supplies inventory operations in a manufacturing environment, Part 1: An action research study. International Journal of Production Research, 50(6), 1666–1681.

Ballantyne

(2004). Action research reviewed: A market-oriented approach. European Journal of Marketing, 38(3/4), 321–337.

Beer

(2011). Developing an effective organization: Intervention method, empirical evidence and theory. In (Rami) Shani

A. B.

Woodman

R. W.

Pasmore

W. A.

(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 19, pp. 1–54). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Bhatnagar

(2017). Systemic development of leadership: Action research in an Indian manufacturing organization. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 30, 339–376.

Birkinshaw

(2018). What to expect from agile. Sloan Management Review, 59, 40–43.

Blumberg

Pringle

C. D.

(1983). How control groups can cause loss of control in action research: The case of Rushton coal mine. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(4), 409–425.

Bradbury

(2015). The Sage handbook of action research. 3rd ed. London, UK: Sage.

Brydon-Miller M., & Coghlan D. (Eds.) (2014). The Sage encyclopedia of action research. London, UK: Sage.

10.

Burnes

(2007). Kurt Lewin and the Harwood studies: The foundations of OD. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 213–231.

11.

Bushe

Marshak

(2009). Revisioning organization development: Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(3), 248–368.

12.

Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

(2015). Dialogic organization development: The theory and practice of transformational change. Oakland, CA: Berrett Koehler.

13.

Canterino

Shani

A. B. (Rami)

Coghlan

Bruneli

M. S.

(2016). Collaborative management research as a modality of action research: Learning from a merger-based study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(2), 157–186.

14.

Chen

Huang

Zeng

(2018). Comments on systematic methodologies of action research in the new millennium: A review of publications 2000–2014. Action Research, 16(4), 341–360.

15.

Cirella, S., Canterino, F., Guerci, M., & Shani, A. B. (Rami). (2015). Organizational learning mechanisms and creative climate: Insights from an Italian fashion design company. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(4), 1–12.

16.

Clark

P. A.

(1972). Action research and organizational change. London, UK: Harper and Row.

17.

Coch

French

J. R. P.

(1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512–532.

18.

Coghlan

(2010). Interiority as the cutting edge between theory and practice: A first person perspective. International Journal of Action Research, 6(2 + 3), 288–307.

19.

Coghlan

(2011). Action research: Exploring perspective on a philosophy of practical knowing. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 53–87.

20.

Coghlan

(2012). Organization development and action research: Then and now. In Boje

Burnes

Hassard

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to organizational change (pp. 47–58). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

21.

Coghlan

(2015). Action research for organizational change. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Action Research (3rd ed., pp. 417–424). London: Sage.

22.

Coghlan

(2017). How might we learn about the philosophy of ODC research from 24 volumes of ROCD? An invitation to interiority. In (Rami) Shani

A. B.

Noumair

D. A.

(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 25, pp. 335–361). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

23.

Coghlan

(2018). Edgar Schein at 90: A celebratory and exploratory metalogue. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(4), 385–398.

24.

Coghlan

(2019). Doing action research in your own organization. 5th ed. London, UK: Sage.

25.

Coghlan

Coughlan

(2015). Effecting change and learning in networks through network action learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(3), 375–400.

26.

Coghlan

Shani

A. B. (Rami).

(2005). Roles, politics and ethics in action research design. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(6), 533–546.

27.

Coghlan

Shani

A. B. (Rami).

(2008). Collaborative management research through communities of inquiry: Challenges and skills. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, S. A. Mohrman, W. A. Pasmore, B. Stymne, & N. Adler (Eds.), Handbook of collaborative management research (pp. 601–614). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Coghlan

Shani

A. B.

( Rami ) (2014). Creating action research quality in organization development: Rigorous, reflective and relevant. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 27, 523–536.

29.

Coghlan

Shani

A. B.

( Rami ) (Eds.) (2016). Action research in business and management, (4 volumes). London, UK: Sage.

30.

Coghlan

Shani

A. B. (Rami)

(2018). Conducting action research for business and management students. London, UK: Sage.

31.

Coughlan

Coghlan

(2002). Action research for operations management. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22(2), 220–240.

32.

Coughlan

Coghlan

(2016). Action research. In Karlsson

(Ed.), Research Methods in operations management (pp. 236–264). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

33.

Coughlan

Hargaden

Coghlan

Idris

Åhlström

(2018). The role of OM EDEN in building the EurOMA community. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 38(6), 1664–1682.

34.

Cunningham

B. C.

(1993). Organizational development and action research. New York, NY: Praeger.

35.

Daniel

Wilson

H. N.

(2004). Action research in turbulent environments: An example in e-commerce prioritisation. European Journal of Marketing, 38(3/4), 355–377.

36.

Foster

(1972). An introduction to the theory and practice of action research in work organizations. Human Relations, 25, 529–526.

37.

Fredberg

Norrgren

Shani

A. B. (Rami)

(2011). Developing and sustaining change capabilities via learning mechanisms: A longitudinal perspective on transformation. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, R. W. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 19, pp.117–162). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

38.

French

Bell

(1999). Organization development. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

39.

Frohman

M. A.

Sashkin

Kavanagh

M. J.

(1976). Action-research as applied to organization development. Organization and Administrative Science, 7, 129–161.

40.

Greenwood

(2002). Action research: Unfilled promises and unmet challenges. Concepts and Transformation, 7(2), 117–140.

41.

Hildrum

J. D.

Finsrud

H. D.

Klethagen

(2009). The next generation of national RandD programmes in Norway: Consequences for action research and regional development. International Journal of Action Research, 5(3), 255–288.

42.

Kocher

Kaudela-Baum

Wolf

(2011). Enhancing organisational innovation capability through systemic action research: A case of a Swiss SME in the food industry. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 24(1), 17–44.

43.

Lewin

(1944). The solution of a chronic problem in industry. In Proceedings of Second Brief Psychotherapy Council.

44.

Lindgren

Henfridsson

Schultze

(2004). Design principles for competence management systems: A synthesis of an action research study. MIS Quarterly, 28, 435–472.

45.

Lund

A. B.

(2008). Diffusion of innovations in news organizations: Action research of middle managers in Danish mass media. In Dal Zotto

Van Kranenburg

(Eds.), Management and innovation in the media industry (pp. 199–214). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

46.

Marrow

A. J.

French

(1945). Changing a stereotype in industry. Journal of Social Issues, 1(3), 33–37.

47.

Meister

D. B.

Gronski

C. M.

(2007). Action research in a virtual setting: Cautions from a failed project. In N. Koch (Ed.), Information systems action research (pp. 217–239). New York, NY: Springer.

48.

Mohrman

S. A.

Lawler

E. E.

(2011). Useful research: Advancing theory and practice. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

49.

Mohrman

S. A.

Pasmore

W. A.

Shani

A. B. (Rami)

Stymne

Adler

(2008). Towards building a collaborative research community. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, S. A. Mohrman, W. A. Pasmore, B. Stymne, & N. Adler (Eds.), Handbook of collaborative management research (pp. 615–633). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

50.

Mohrman, S., & Shani, A. B. (Rami) (Eds.) (2011). Research in organizing for sustainability (Vol. 1). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publications.

51.

Mohrman

S. A.

Winby

(2018). Consulting to the eco-system. In D. A. Noumair, & A. B (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 26, pp. 1–41). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

52.

Näslund

Kale

Paulraj

(2010). Action research in supply chain management-a framework for relevant and rigorous research. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(2), 331–355.

53.

Ngwerume

K. T.

Themessl-Huber

(2010). Using action research to develop a research aware community pharmacy team. Action Research, 8(4), 387–406.

54.

Pace

L. A.

Argona

D. R.

(1989). Participative action research: A view from Xerox. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), 552–565.

55.

Pasmore

W. A.

(1988). Designing effective organizations: The socio-technical systems perspective. New York, NY: Wiley.

56.

Pasmore

W. A.

(2001). Action research in the workplace: The socio-technical perspective. In Reason

Bradbury

(Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 38–47). London, UK: Sage.

57.

Pasmore

W. A.

Friedlander

(1982). An action research program for increasing employee involvement in problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 343–362.

58.

Pasmore

W. A.

Woodman

R. W.

Simmons ., A. V. (2008). Toward a more rigorous, reflective, and relevant science of collaborative management research. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, S. A. Mohrman, W. A. Pasmore, B. Stymne, & N. Adler (Eds.), Handbook of collaborative management research (pp. 567–582). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

59.

Raedelli

Guerci

Cirella

Shani

A. B. (Rami)

(2014). Intervention research as management research in practice: Learning from a case in the fashion design industry. British Journal of Management, 25(2), 335–351.

60.

Repenning

N. P.

Kieffer

Repenning

(2018). A new approach to designing work. Sloan Management Review, 59, 28–38.

61.

Rigby

D. K.

Suthetrland

Noble

(2018). Agile at scale. Harvard Business Review, 96(3), 88–96.

62.

Roth

Kleiner

(2000). Car launch: The human side of managing change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

63.

Roth

Shani

A. B.

( Rami ), & Leary

(2007). Insider action research: Facing the challenges of new capability development within a biopharma company. Action Research, 5(1), 41–60.

64.

Rytter

N. G.

Boer

Koch

(2007). Conceptualizing operations strategy processes. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 27(10), 1093–1114.

65.

Schein

E. H.

(2010). Organization development: Science, technology or philosophy?. In Coghlan

(Rami) Shani

A. B.

(Eds.), Fundamentals of organization development (Vol. 1, pp. 91–100). London, UK: Sage.

66.

Schuiling

(2014). Changing leadership dynamics at agility-critical interfaces: Action research as a 25 year longitudinal study. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, & D. A. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 22, pp. 219–297). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

67.

Shani

A. B. (Rami)

Bushe

G. R.

(1987). Visionary action research: A consultation process perspective. Consultation, 6, 3–19.

68.

Shani

A. B. (Rami)

Coghlan

(2014). Collaborate with practitioners: An alternative perspective. A rejoiner to Kieser and Leiner (2012). Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(4), 433–437.

69.

Shani

A. B. (Rami)

, & Coghlan, D. (2018). Enhancing action, research and collaboration in organization development. Organization Development Journal, 36(3), 37–43.

70.

Shani

A. B. (Rami)

Eberhardt

(1987). Parallel organization in a health care institution: An exploratory action research study. Group and Organization Studies, 12(2), 147–173.

71.

Shani, A. B. (Rami), Mohrman, S. A., Pasmore, W., Stymne, B., & Adler, N. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of collaborative management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

72.

Shani

A. B. (Rami)

Pasmore

W. A.

(2016). Organization inquiry: Towards a new model of the action research process. In D. Coghlan, & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Action research in business and management (Vol. 1, pp. 191–200). London, UK: Sage. [Original publication: D.D. Warrick (Ed.) (1985). Contemporary organization development: Current thinking and applications. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company].

73.

Shepard

Katzell

R. A.

(1960). An action research program for organization improvement. Foundation for Research on Human Behavior. Reproduced in B. Cooke, & J. Woolfram-Cox (Eds.), Fundamentals of action research (Vol. II, pp. 317–334). London, UK: Sage.

74.

Stebbins

Shani

A. B. (Rami).

(2009). Clinical inquiry and reflective design in a secrecy-based organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(1), 59–89.

75.

Susman, G.I. & Evered, R.D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582–601.

76.

Stebbins

M. W.

Valenzuela

J. L.

(2015). Evolution of a parallel learning mechanism: Thirty-five years with the Kaiser Permanente communication forum. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, & D. A. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 23, pp. 39–90). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

77.

Trist

(1981). The evolution of sociotechnical systems. In A. Van de Ven, & W. F. Joyce (Eds.), Perspectives on organization design and behavior (pp. 19–75). New York, NY: Wiley.

78.

Verganti

(2017). Overcrowded: Designing meaningful products in a world awash with ideas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

79.

Von Kroch

Ichijo

Nonaka

(2000). Enabling knowledge creation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

80.

Waddell

(2012). Global finance as an action research domain: Testing the boundaries. Action Research, 10(1), 40–60.

81.

Walton

R. E.

Gaffney

M. E.

(1989). Research, action and participation: The merchant shipping case. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), 582–611.

82.

Weisbord

(1977). Productive workplaces. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

83.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

84.

Williander

Styhre

(2006). Going green from the inside: Insider action research at the Volvo Car Corporation. Systematic Practice and Action Research 19, 239–252.

85.

Wyton

Payne

(2014). Exploring the development of competence in Lean management through action learning groups: A study of the introduction of Lean to a facilities management function. Action Learning: Research and Practice 11(1), 42–61.

86.

Ystrom

Ollila

Agogue

Coghlan

(2019). The role of a learning approach in building an inter-organizational network aiming for collaborative innovation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 55(1), 27–49.

87.

Zhang

Levenson

Crossley

(2015). Move your research from the ivy tower to the board room: A primer on action research for academics, consultants and business executives. Human Resource Management 54(1), 151–174.