Article

Action Research
0(0) 1–24
Action research in ! The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
business and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1476750319852147
management: A journals.sagepub.com/home/arj

reflective review

Abraham B. (Rami) Shani

California Polytechnic State University, USA

David Coghlan
Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

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

Corresponding author:
David Coghlan, Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
Email: [email protected]
2 Action Research 0(0)

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 opportuni-
ties for action research to contribute to their implementation and the genera-
tion of useful knowledge.
As experienced action researchers in the organization development (OD) tra-
dition 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 busi-
ness 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 invit-
ing 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 action-
able knowledge in this particular domain and our perspective on future develop-
ments. 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 frame-
work 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.
Coghlan and Shani 3

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 knowl-
edge and applied to address real organizational issues. It is simultaneously con-
cerned 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 organiza-
tional/discipline environment of a given organization. Knowledge of the schol-
arly 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
4 Action Research 0(0)

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 frame-
work 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 hier-
archical organizational systems, addressing challenges of customer service, inno-
vation, 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) engage-
ment 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 devel-
opment. 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.
Coghlan and Shani 5

Over the 70 years of action research projects in industrial settings, there have
been multiple approaches, interventions, and studies in diverse industries and busi-
ness disciplines. Action research is found in industries such as agriculture, bio-
pharma, 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 sys-
tems (IS/IT), lean operation management, management, consulting, customer ser-
vice, 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, collab-
orative 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), fash-
ion design (Cirella, Canterino, Guerci, & Shani, 2015), media (Walton & Gaffney,
1989), food (Kocher, Kaudela-Baum, & Wolf, 2011), defense, health care, auto-
motive (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 develop-
ment/R&D (Hildrum, Finsrud, & Klethagen, 2009), lean management (Wyton &
Payne, 2014), operations management (Rytter, Boer, & Koch, 2007), supply chain
6 Action Research 0(0)

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.
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 exam-
ple, 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 relation-
ships 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
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
Automotive component
Collaboration between
AR cycle that included three
Creation of leadership
leadership develop- manufacturing company in insider AR, the AR com- sequential AR steps –discov- development strategy.
ment strategy and India. mittee and AR consultants ery, measurable actions and
Development of leadership
enhance leadership
High turnover of newly led to new discoveries and reflections – was utilized. competency framework.
Coghlan and Shani

development at appointed senior manag- experimentation.
AR committee – included indi-
Establishment of leadership
all levels. ers.
The cascaded execution of viduals who led a specific development pipeline for

Increasing pressures for actions triggered by the function or department – was delivering business growth
leadership development at AR committee generated established to carry out the objectives.
all levels of the firm. higher levels of engage- study.
The adoption of the com-

Insider action research ment, openness, owner-
A steering committee com- peting values framework
project led by Chief ship, and improved work posed of the CEO, one busi- and assessment of culture
HR officer. relationship. ness leader, a unit head, and fit as an HR recruitment
the IAR was established to talent tool reduced mana-
guide the study. gerial turnover.
Canterino et al. Collaborative
Merger of two real-estate
Collaboration between
Two and one half cycles over 13
The creation of the study
(2016) Management investment companies in members of the study months period: 1st cycle team and its emerging role
Research (CMR) Italy. team in co-leading collab- devoted to discovery of com- triggered learning across
project to support the
The merger viewed as orative effort in co-design pany’s and its post-merger’s the organization.
actual merger of strategically and financially of the study, co-design of dynamics; 2nd focused on
The study team as learning
two companies. successful, yet the actual data collection instru- mapping out current and pre- mechanisms institutional-
companies’ integration ments, co-interpretation ferred culture, and the final ized as learning system
and cultural integration of data and identification focused on identification and crucial for continuous
were problematic. of experimentations implementation of specific improvements.
resulted in the develop- actions to address the emerg-
Key processes unified into
ment of shared vision and ing issues. one across the ‘new’
common language.
Study team – composed of 4 merged company.

The quality of the relation- researchers and 4 org’l mem-
ships within study team bers – was created to design
and between the study and carry out the study.
team and the organization
improved significantly
from cycle to cycle.

(continued)
7
 8
Table 1. Continued.
Purpose Context Quality of relationships Quality of AR process Outcomes

Kocher et al. AR project to generate
Food industry in central
Collaboration between
Three sequential AR cycles.
Insights clustered in three
(2011) detail insights into Switzerland. external researchers and
Four AR phases were imple- levels: Process, cultural,
nature of innovation
Increasing pressures to organizational members mented within each AR cycle. strategic and structural.
dynamics to change improve capacity. (management and innova-
Research team guided the
Changes implemented at
and enhance SMEs’
Increasing pressures to tion teams members) AR project. the three levels resulted in
capability to innovate. enhance organizational helped to discover and new innovation capabili-
innovation capacity. overcome ‘blind spots’. ties, better diffusion of

Authors advanced a hybrid
Collaboration enhanced the innovations and improved
project, systemic-con- quality of the project and company performance.
structionist inquiry and innovation outcomes.
action research.
Relationships developed
through the 1st AR cycle
led to the 2nd and
3rd cycles.
Lund (2008) AR project aimed at
Media conglomerate indus-
External research team with
Research team guided the AR
Specific set of leadership
innovations’ diffusion try – press, radio, and TV previous action research project. qualities that enhance
across companies in Denmark. experience led
Four phased AR framework. innovation diffusion iden-
within a large the project. tified.
conglomerate.
Design implications
enhancing innovation dif-
fusions identified and
implemented.

Communication and com-
munication flow identified
as crucial for innovation
diffusion.

Significant improvement in
innovation diffu-
sion recorded.

(continued)
Action Research 0(0)
Table 1. Continued.
Purpose Context Quality of relationships Quality of AR process Outcomes
Coghlan and Shani

Ngwerume and AR project to develop a
Pharmaceutical industry in
Member of the pharmacy
Cyclical AR process utilized.
Increased awareness of
Themessl-Huber community pharmacy Australia. network steering com-
Four activity cycles, each Medical Counter
(2010) team, consisting of
Pressure to enhance capa- mittee introduced AR as a involving network representa- Assistance (MNCs).
pharmacist and medi- bility and capacity of potential helpful approach. tives evolved during the proj-
New research capacity and
cine counter assis- pharmacy teams.
All pharmacy staff invited to ect. capability.
tants, into a research
National Health Service attend information meet-
Evidence-based approach guided
Improved customer-
aware practice. push for evidence-based ing. each phase of the AR project. focused informa-
service provisions.
Seven individuals from dif- tion system.

Pharmacy staff desire for ferent levels of the phar-
professional development. macy agreed to be the AR
steering team.

Collaborative orientation as
co-researchers generated
commitment to work on
the tasks ahead and pro-
vided the framework
within which the collabo-
rative relationships devel-
oped.

Each cycle of AR, the AR
team considered actions
or findings, identified
challenges, addressed the
challenges, developed
shared understanding and
advanced
implementations.

(continued)
9
Table 1. Continued.
Purpose Context Quality of relationships Quality of AR process Outcomes 10
Pace and Project focused on
Manufacturing industry in
Tension between manage-
Union and management as
Significant cost savings and
Argona (1989) implementation of the USA. ment, employees, and trainers and coordinators. productivity improve-
experiential Quality of
Company experience ero- union led to the formation
Steering committee composed ments.
Working Life pro- sion in mkt share and of a joint company-union of management and union
Improvement in working
gramme in a profit. committee. leaders. conditions, work flow
manufacturing division
Competition increase –
Internal consultant team
Parallel problem solving teams processes, quality
of Xerox global and domestic. invited external action addressing critical issues. and safety.
Corporation.
Increase level of employee researchers to co-lead the
Deeper levels of understanding
dissatisfaction. effort. led to the experimentation of

Contract-based discussions
Working through address- alternative courses of actions.
led to the idea to establish ing unexpected urgent
joint employee external obstacles led to
involvement. honest conversations that
helped the building of
trust among the members
of the action research
actors, management,
and employees.
Pasmore and AR project to address
Manufacturing consumer
Plant manager turned to
Study and Communication
After some reluctance and
Friedlander problem of increasing electronic plant of a large behavioural scientists Group (SCG) to guide study following overcoming
(1982) work-related injuries electronics corporation in when the results of two and communicate with some of the fear of losing
that persisted for the USA. independent medical employees. control, management
over 5 years.
At the time of the study, studies showed that inju-
The SCG co-designed data col- eventually listened to the
30% of the employees had ries showed no connec- lection instruments (interview SCG recommendations
visited the company infir- tion with the health of the guide and survey). Researchers and began to make
mary to seek treatment workers. summarized results that were changes that would allevi-
for their soreness.
SCG developed openness interpreted by the SCG and ate the injury problems.

Few traditional scientific and trusting relationship presented to plant manage-
During the events that
studies were conducted as they worked on task. ment and employees. occurred in the plant
during the five year period
Action plans and specific rec- during the AR effort, the
that yielded minimum ommendations for change soreness problem showed
improvement. were developed and shared definite signs of subsiding.
Worsening situation despite with management.
Other plant data showed
efforts made. improvement as well such
as efficiency increases,
increase in annual savings,
labour efficiency and
improved attendance.
Action Research 0(0)

(continued)
Table 1. Continued.
Purpose Context Quality of relationships Quality of AR process Outcomes

Shani and AR project to address Hospital located in the
Medical director support
Steering committee and study
Parallel organization led
Coghlan and Shani

Eberhardt increasing tension Midwest of the USA serv- for the AR study and group established as manage- action research project.
(1987) within and between ing a large metropoli- overall design set the ment advisory entity.
New team-based design
clinical teams in a tan region. stage for perceived study
Through collaborative process principles and protocol
hospital setting such legitimacy. study scope, research meth- established to guide team
that effectiveness and
New work relationships ods and process were devel- design.
performance can that began to develop oped and implemented.
New communication chan-
be enhanced. within steering committee
Following the initial findings, nels within and between
members and study group experimental design of teams the medical staff and
and between steering were created and empirically administrative staff estab-
committee and study investigated. lished.
group faced some chal-
Clinical teams’ effectiveness
lenges and tension. and perfor-

Enhanced openness and mance improved.
trust triggered.
Walton and PAR study focused on Merchant shipping company
External research team with
Five phased AR cycles guided
Learning mechanisms
Gaffney exploring variety of located in Norway. previous action research the PAR project. viewed as innovations dif-
(1989) strategies to promote experience and projects
Steering team, comprised of fused throughout compa-
organizational change with the industry led four union representatives, ny and the industry.
in the the project. three government directors,
Insights about optimal
Norwegian context. and three researchers, led the number of seamen on
PAR project. board implemented –

Study team composed of man- resulting in significant cost
agers and seafarers guided the reductions.
project within the company.
New work processes

Committees composed of implemented that
workers and managers carry improved productivity.

(continued)
11
 12

Table 1. Continued.
Purpose Context Quality of relationships Quality of AR process Outcomes

out specific focused studies

and experiments.
Williander and An AR study devoted to
Car manufacturing company
Combined insider and out-
Three AR cycles.
Insights about the critical
Styhre (2006) the development of located in western sider AR team led the
Steering committee and three role of the IAR.
environmental strate- Sweden. project. study teams.
New technological inven-
gies and eco-benign
Increasing pressures for
The dynamics between
Designing collaborative tions.
automobiles. leadership in development insider and outside research experiments.
Facilitation of new manage-
of environmental strate- research team resulted in rial practices and roles.
gies. a proposal for collabora-

Insider action research tive AR project that was
project led by a business presented to top manage-
and product strate- ment.
gy manager.
The quality of the relation-
ship within the research
team and the three study
teams and between them
resulted in breakthrough
experiments.
Ystrom et al. An action learning study ABC network in the auto- Movement from being a stra- Action learning process of ques- Collaboration between par-
(2019) to enhance collabora- motive industry in north- tegic to a transformational tioning and reflection that ticipating organizations.
tive innovation in an ern Europe composing six network with interorgani- supported the learning in Actionable model of net-
interorganizational partner companies initiat- zational trust and the network. work learning.
network. ed by the vehicle and collaboration.
traffic safety
centre (SAFER).
Action Research 0(0)
Coghlan and Shani 13

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 N€aslund, 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 exam-
ple, Von Kroch, Ichijo, and Nonaka’s (2000) five knowledge creation steps – shar-
ing 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 gen-
erating 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 practi-
tioners, 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
14 Action Research 0(0)

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 compre-
hensive 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.

1. 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 previ-
ous research?
2. Is there an explicit discussion of how the action research relationships were
formed, built, and sustained, with an account of enablers, obstacles, and diffi-
culties 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?
3. Does the account demonstrate a rigorous and collaborative engagement in the
action research project’s design, and subsequent enactment of cycles of plan-
ning, 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?
4. Are both forms of outcomes presented? To what extent are they humanly, social-
ly, 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
Coghlan and Shani 15

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 lead-
ership capabilities.
Quality of relationships Emerging role and potential impact of collaborative commu-
nities 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 develop-
ment and sustainable organizations.

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 organiza-
tions and the emerging role and potential impact of collaborative communities of
inquiry (Table 2).

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, technol-
ogy 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 indi-
viduals to become more connected. The new ways of connectivity provide oppor-
tunities 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 communi-
cation. 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.
16 Action Research 0(0)

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 simul-
taneously. 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 orien-
tation 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 phenome-
non 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 inno-
vation 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 inno-
vative culture-by-design through collaborative action research processes provides
space for the field to have a major impact and to generate new knowledge.
Coghlan and Shani 17

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 phe-
nomenon 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 sus-
taining 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, & Åhlstr€ om, 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, knowl-
edge, 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 commu-
nities 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 under-
standing 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
18 Action Research 0(0)

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 out-
comes 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 orga-
nizational 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 collabora-
tive 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 learn-
ing 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 impor-
tant 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 gen-
erated. 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.

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 formu-
lation into deeper thinking. We welcome and invite your comments and reactions at our
action research community’s interactive ARJ blog housed at ARþ http://actionresearch
plus.com.
Coghlan and Shani 19

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

ORCID iD
David Coghlan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3741-9959

References
Avital, M. (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, T., & Jayaraman, V. (2012). Managing information and supplies inventory opera-
tions in a manufacturing environment, Part 1: An action research study. International
Journal of Production Research, 50(6), 1666–1681.
Ballantyne, D. (2004). Action research reviewed: A market-oriented approach. European
Journal of Marketing, 38(3/4), 321–337.
Beer, M. (2011). Developing an effective organization: Intervention method, empirical evi-
dence and theory. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, R. W. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 19, pp. 1–54). Bingley,
UK: Emerald.
Bhatnagar, V. (2017). Systemic development of leadership: Action research in an Indian
manufacturing organization. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 30, 339–376.
Birkinshaw, J. (2018). What to expect from agile. Sloan Management Review, 59, 40–43.
Blumberg, M., & 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, H. (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.
Burnes, B. (2007). Kurt Lewin and the Harwood studies: The foundations of OD. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 213–231.
Bushe, G., & Marshak, R. (2009). Revisioning organization development: Diagnostic and
dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
45(3), 248–368.
Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. (2015). Dialogic organization development: The theory and
practice of transformational change. Oakland, CA: Berrett Koehler.
Canterino, F., Shani, A. B. (Rami), Coghlan, D., & 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.
20 Action Research 0(0)

Chen, S., Huang, F., & Zeng, W. (2018). Comments on systematic methodologies of action
research in the new millennium: A review of publications 2000–2014. Action Research,
16(4), 341–360.
Cirella, S., Canterino, F., Guerci, M., & Shani, A. B. (Rami). (2015). Organizational learn-
ing mechanisms and creative climate: Insights from an Italian fashion design company.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(4), 1–12.
Clark, P. A. (1972). Action research and organizational change. London, UK: Harper
and Row.
Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations,
1, 512–532.
Coghlan, D. (2010). Interiority as the cutting edge between theory and practice: A first
person perspective. International Journal of Action Research, 6(2 þ 3), 288–307.
Coghlan, D. (2011). Action research: Exploring perspective on a philosophy of practical
knowing. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 53–87.
Coghlan, D. (2012). Organization development and action research: Then and now. In D.
Boje, B. Burnes, & J. Hassard (Eds.), The Routledge companion to organizational change
(pp. 47–58). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Coghlan, D. (2015). Action research for organizational change. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The
Sage Handbook of Action Research (3rd ed., pp. 417–424). London: Sage.
Coghlan, D. (2017). How might we learn about the philosophy of ODC research from 24
volumes of ROCD? An invitation to interiority. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, & D. A.
Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 25, pp.
335–361). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Coghlan, D. (2018). Edgar Schein at 90: A celebratory and exploratory metalogue. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(4), 385–398.
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization. 5th ed. London,
UK: Sage.
Coghlan, D., & Coughlan, P. (2015). Effecting change and learning in networks through
network action learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(3), 375–400.
Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. B. (Rami). (2005). Roles, politics and ethics in action research
design. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(6), 533–546.
Coghlan, D., & 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.
Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. B. (Rami) (2014). Creating action research quality in organization
development: Rigorous, reflective and relevant. Systemic Practice and Action Research,
27, 523–536.
Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. B. (Rami) (Eds.) (2016). Action research in business and manage-
ment, (4 volumes). London, UK: Sage.
Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. B. (Rami) (2018). Conducting action research for business and
management students. London, UK: Sage.
Coughlan, P., & Coghlan, D. (2002). Action research for operations management.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22(2), 220–240.
Coughlan, P., & Coghlan, D. (2016). Action research. In C. Karlsson (Ed.), Research
Methods in operations management (pp. 236–264). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Coghlan and Shani 21

Coughlan, P., Hargaden, V., Coghlan, D., Idris, A., & Åhlstr€
om, P. (2018). The role of OM
EDEN in building the EurOMA community. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 38(6), 1664–1682.
Cunningham, B. C. (1993). Organizational development and action research. New York,
NY: Praeger.
Daniel, E., & Wilson, H. N. (2004). Action research in turbulent environments: An example
in e-commerce prioritisation. European Journal of Marketing, 38(3/4), 355–377.
Foster, M. (1972). An introduction to the theory and practice of action research in work
organizations. Human Relations, 25, 529–526.
Fredberg, T., Norrgren, F., & Shani, A. B. (Rami) (2011). Developing and sustaining
change capabilities via learning mechanisms: A longitudinal perspective on transforma-
tion. 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.
French, W., & Bell, C. (1999). Organization development. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Frohman, M. A., Sashkin, M., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1976). Action-research as applied to
organization development. Organization and Administrative Science, 7, 129–161.
Greenwood, D. (2002). Action research: Unfilled promises and unmet challenges. Concepts
and Transformation, 7(2), 117–140.
Hildrum, J. D., Finsrud, H. D., & Klethagen, P. (2009). The next generation of national
RandD programmes in Norway: Consequences for action research and regional devel-
opment. International Journal of Action Research, 5(3), 255–288.
Kocher, P., Kaudela-Baum, S., & Wolf, P. (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.
Lewin, K. (1944). The solution of a chronic problem in industry. In Proceedings of Second
Brief Psychotherapy Council.
Lindgren, R., Henfridsson, O., & Schultze, U. (2004). Design principles for competence man-
agement systems: A synthesis of an action research study. MIS Quarterly, 28, 435–472.
Lund, A. B. (2008). Diffusion of innovations in news organizations: Action research of
middle managers in Danish mass media. In C. Dal Zotto, & H. Van Kranenburg (Eds.),
Management and innovation in the media industry (pp. 199–214). Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Marrow, A. J., & French, J. (1945). Changing a stereotype in industry. Journal of Social
Issues, 1(3), 33–37.
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.
Mohrman, S. A., Lawler, E. E. (2011). Useful research: Advancing theory and practice.
Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Mohrman, S. A., Pasmore, W. A., Shani, A. B. (Rami), Stymne, B., & Adler, N. (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.
Mohrman, S., & Shani, A. B. (Rami) (Eds.) (2011). Research in organizing for sustainability
(Vol. 1). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publications.
22 Action Research 0(0)

Mohrman, S. A., & Winby, S. (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.
N€aslund, D., Kale, R., & Paulraj, A. (2010). Action research in supply chain management-a
framework for relevant and rigorous research. Journal of Business Logistics,
31(2), 331–355.
Ngwerume, K. T., & Themessl-Huber, M. (2010). Using action research to develop a
research aware community pharmacy team. Action Research, 8(4), 387–406.
Pace, L. A., & Argona, D. R. (1989). Participative action research: A view from Xerox.
American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), 552–565.
Pasmore, W. A. (1988). Designing effective organizations: The socio-technical systems per-
spective. New York, NY: Wiley.
Pasmore, W. A. (2001). Action research in the workplace: The socio-technical perspective.
In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 38–47). London,
UK: Sage.
Pasmore, W. A., & Friedlander, F. (1982). An action research program for increasing
employee involvement in problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 343–362.
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.
Raedelli, G., Guerci, M., Cirella, S., & 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.
Repenning, N. P., Kieffer, D., & Repenning, J. (2018). A new approach to designing work.
Sloan Management Review, 59, 28–38.
Rigby, D. K., Suthetrland, J., & Noble, A. (2018). Agile at scale. Harvard Business Review,
96(3), 88–96.
Roth, G., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Car launch: The human side of managing change. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Roth, J., Shani, A. B. (Rami), & Leary, M. (2007). Insider action research: Facing the
challenges of new capability development within a biopharma company. Action
Research, 5(1), 41–60.
Rytter, N. G., Boer, H., & Koch, C. (2007). Conceptualizing operations strategy processes.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 27(10), 1093–1114.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organization development: Science, technology or philosophy?. In D.
Coghlan, & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Fundamentals of organization development (Vol.
1, pp. 91–100). London, UK: Sage.
Schuiling, G. (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.
Shani, A. B. (Rami), & Bushe, G. R. (1987). Visionary action research: A consultation
process perspective. Consultation, 6, 3–19.
Shani, A. B. (Rami), & Coghlan, D. (2014). Collaborate with practitioners: An alternative
perspective. A rejoiner to Kieser and Leiner (2012). Journal of Management Inquiry,
23(4), 433–437.
Coghlan and Shani 23

Shani, A. B. (Rami), & Coghlan, D. (2018). Enhancing action, research and collaboration in
organization development. Organization Development Journal, 36(3), 37–43.
Shani, A. B. (Rami), & Eberhardt, B. (1987). Parallel organization in a health care institu-
tion: An exploratory action research study. Group and Organization Studies,
12(2), 147–173.
Shani, A. B. (Rami), Mohrman, S. A., Pasmore, W., Stymne, B., & Adler, N. (Eds.) (2008).
Handbook of collaborative management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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].
Shepard, H., & 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.
Stebbins, M., & Shani, A. B. (Rami). (2009). Clinical inquiry and reflective design in a
secrecy-based organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(1), 59–89.
Susman, G.I. & Evered, R.D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action
research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582–601.
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.
Trist, E. (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.
Verganti, R. (2017). Overcrowded: Designing meaningful products in a world awash with ideas.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Von Kroch, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Waddell, S. (2012). Global finance as an action research domain: Testing the boundaries.
Action Research, 10(1), 40–60.
Walton, R. E., & Gaffney, M. E. (1989). Research, action and participation: The merchant
shipping case. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), 582–611.
Weisbord, M. (1977). Productive workplaces. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Williander, M., & Styhre, A. (2006). Going green from the inside: Insider action research at
the Volvo Car Corporation. Systematic Practice and Action Research 19, 239–252.
Wyton, P., & Payne, R. (2014). Exploring the development of competence in Lean man-
agement 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.
Ystrom, A., Ollila, S., Agogue, M., & Coghlan, D. (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.
24 Action Research 0(0)

Zhang, W., Levenson, A., & Crossley, C. (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.

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.