the quality of an action research

The quality of an action researchthesis in the social sciences

Ortrun Zuber-Skerrit and Margaret FletcherGriffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – The paper seeks to identify the quality characteristics of critical action research andaction research theses compared to traditional research thesis writing.

Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on the literature and the authors’ experience withsupervising and examining action research theses, the paper identifies key problem areas in theliterature and suggests effective strategies for meeting these challenges and avoiding pitfalls throughreflective practice and questioning insight. The paper includes sets of crucial questions for higherdegree students to address.

Findings – The paper presents definitions of and checklists for quality action research, a qualitythesis, and a quality action research thesis. It also presents two conceptual models that illustrate thedifferences between the “research” and thesis “writing” activities and processes in general, and thecollaborative core action research in the fieldwork and the critical action research thesis that needs tobe the candidate’s independent contribution to knowledge in theory and practice.

Originality/value – The definitions, checklists and conceptual models will be useful topostgraduates, supervisors and examiners of action research theses, because they clarify for themthe similarities and differences between a traditional thesis in the social sciences and a thesis by actionresearch.

Keywords Action research, Theses, Education, Postgraduates, Quality

Paper type Conceptual paper

1. IntroductionIncreasing numbers of higher degree students, especially part-time candidates whowant to combine work and study by researching their professional practice, are usingaction research (AR). AR is a relatively new methodology that emerged after the FirstWorld War from the intellectual climate and ethos of an era – a Zeitgeist (mind of theage)[1] – that focussed on empowerment and change, gathering momentum acrosscontexts and cultures. We refer here, for example, to the social work of Kurt Lewin andhis associates, first in Germany and then in America, and in particular to Lewin’s(1951) field theory, and the socio-technical experiments and systems developed at theTavistock Institute (Pasmore, 2001). We also refer to participatory action research andits origins in third world countries, especially the work of Paolo Freire (1972) andOrlando Fals Borda (1991, 1998, 2006) in Latin America. After a pause in the late 1950sand 1960s, the literature on AR re-emerged in the late 1960s and has expanded greatlysince then, especially in the last two decades when the number of higher degree thesesby AR has increased, and so have problems associated with these theses.

Working within the higher education system, we have observed major problemsinvolving action researchers in postgraduate education. These include longercompletion times, higher attrition and increased failure rates, and we identify

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

All URLs referenced in the text were accessed on 6 June 2007.

Quality ofaction research

theses

413

Quality Assurance in EducationVol. 15 No. 4, 2007

pp. 413-436q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0968-4883DOI 10.1108/09684880710829983

mainly three reasons. First, action researchers are usually “doers” interested inimproving their practice through innovation, change and development (the action partof AR). They may find rigour in academic research, writing and publishing (theresearch part of AR) difficult, especially because rigour in AR has a different meaningfrom rigour in traditional scientific research, as will be explained later. They mayassume, erroneously, that AR is easier than traditional research, when indeed it is morecomplex and problematic. Action researchers need to meet traditional researchrequirements of high standards, quality and an original contribution to knowledge inthe field. But as well. they need to demonstrate the requirements of AR, such asexplaining and justifying the action research paradigm (plural ways of knowing),appropriate methodologies, their choice and use of qualitative research methods,different standards of ethics and values, and evidence of learning, reflection and acontribution to knowledge in both theory and practice.

Second, some university academics may be unaware of, unfamiliar with, or hostiletowards this participatory ontology and epistemology of AR. Even if candidates have asupervisor who understands AR, the supervisor is often unable to teach and guidethem in the literature review, problem definition, the “thematic concern” of a system –be it an organisation in education, industry or government, or a group in the widercommunity – they are researching, and the emerging and often unique processes andprocedures of AR. There are not enough role models for postgraduate supervision andnot enough thesis models, although this situation is improving gradually.

The third set of problems – beyond the candidates’ and to some extent thesupervisors’ control – is the examination process in most Western countries. In theGerman-speaking higher education system it is less severe, because the first examineris the supervisor and the second examiner is a professor – often from the sameuniversity – selected by and known to the supervisor and in most cases also to therespective candidate. Circumstances are different in English-speaking universities,where the supervisor is the student’s teacher, mentor and advisor, but not an examinerof the thesis. The supervisor may suggest a list of suitable examiners, but it is theBoard of Postgraduate Research or Higher Degrees that makes the final decision aboutthe selection of two or three examiners, at least one of whom should be international.

The rationale for the latter system is that examiners should not know the candidatepersonally, and examine the work in its own right, similar to the double-blind reviewsystem of international, refereed journals. However, while authors of journal articlescan choose and submit work to an appropriate journal that publishes action research orqualitative research in the non-positivist, phenomenological research paradigm, thehigher degree examination system can be compared to Russian roulette. It is notuncommon that one examiner highly commends an AR thesis and passes it withoutrequesting any changes, while another might fail it, for example arguing that the casestudy does not meet the positivist criteria of quantitative measurement, validity,reliability, generalisability, and third-person writing style.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate on what constitutes a qualityAR thesis. We attempt to address the differences that exist in the social sciencesbetween qualitative research on the one hand that focuses on human beings, groups ofpeople, communities, organisations and institutions, and quantitative research on theother hand that focuses on facts and figures. While there is a growing literaturepublished on AR, little concerns the writing, supervising and examining of action

QAE15,4

414

research theses. In this respect, Coghlan and Brannick (2005), Fisher and Phelps (2006),McNiff and Whitehead (2006), Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) and the seminal work ofDick (2005) require mention here as exceptions. For example, the wide collection ofresources Bob Dick presents on the website at Southern Cross University, Australia(see www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arhome.html) has been highly valued bypostgraduates and supervisors/examiners of AR, particularly his course on AREOL(Action Research and Evaluation On Line; see www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/areol/areolind.html), his paper entitled “You want to do an action research thesis?” (see www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/artesis.html), and a brief version of that paper entitled“Approaching an action research thesis: an overview” (seewww.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/phd.html). There is also a site with abstracts and some full texts ofcompleted action research theses and dissertations (see www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/artsub.html). In this paper we hope to contribute further to these resources anddebates by identifying the key factors affecting the quality of an AR thesis andsuggesting strategies and methods for achieving quality and rigour in AR and writingan AR thesis.

First, we refer to working definitions of quality action research in the literature.Second, we discuss the requirements of a quality thesis in general. Third, we identifyadditional requirements for, and specific characteristics of, a quality AR thesis. Wedraw some conclusions based on our experience as action researchers, thesissupervisors and examiners and offer advice on how to avoid pitfalls. Finally, wepresent our definition of a quality AR thesis. In doing this we hope to stimulatediscussion about what differentiates an action research thesis from a traditionalresearch thesis, to expand the notion of quality in AR writing and to assist candidatesin managing the AR experience.

2. What is quality action research?This is the question participants in the First Symposium on Action Research inBrisbane in 1989 attempted to answer. Following intellectual debate and discussion, weconcluded that it was impossible to arrive at a single, true definition of action research,because it depends on many environmental, situational, personal and organisationalfactors and multiple perspectives. However, we arrived at a mutually agreed workingdefinition that is reprinted below (Zuber-Skerritt, 1991/1996, p. 8).

If yours is a situation in which:. people reflect and improve (or develop) their own work and their own situations;. by tightly interlinking their reflection and action; and. also making their experience public not only to other participants but also to

other persons interested in and concerned about the work and the situation, i.e.their public theories and practices of the work and the situation;

and if yours is a situation in which there is increasingly:. data-gathering by participants themselves (or with the help of others) in relation

to their own questions;. participation (in problem-posing and in answering questions) in

decision-making;


theses

415

. power-sharing and the relative suspension of hierarchical ways of working, in aconscious move towards social and industrial democracy;

. collaboration among members of the group as a “critical community”;

. self-reflection, self-evaluation and self-management by autonomous andresponsible persons and groups;

. progressive (and public) learning by doing and making mistakes in a“self-reflective spiral” of planning, acting, observing, reflective planning, etc.;and

. reflection that supports the idea of the “(self-)reflective practitioner”;

then your is a situation in which action research is occurring.Altrichter et al. (1991, p. 9) suggested that this working definition was acceptable to thefull range of Symposium participants, because it was:

. not too threatening to existing understandings and practices;

. not too vague so that everything was included but was rather rich in exampleswhich might support the development of shared meanings;

. open enough so that further elaboration and development seemed possible; and

. shared with respect to the process of its formulation for a specific context.

Independently, Zuber-Skerritt (1992, p. 2) developed a theoretical framework ofeffective action research, known as the CRASP model:Action research is:

. Critical (and self-critical) collaborative enquiry by

. Reflective practitioners being

. Accountable and making the results of their enquiry public,

. Self-evaluating their practice and engaged in

. Participative problem-solving and continuing professional development.

Both definitions have been influenced by the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory (andother philosophies). Therefore, the type of action research we discuss in this paper is“critical” or “emancipatory”, rather than merely “technical” or “practical” actionresearch (Carr and Kemmis, 1986).

Recently similar efforts have sought to define action research. Here we agree withand summarise the essence of quality action research according to the Handbook ofAction Research (Reason and Bradbury, 2001, p. 1):

. . . action research is a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practicalknowledge in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatoryworldview which we believe is emerging at this historical moment. It seeks to bring togetheraction and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit ofpractical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the flourishingof individual persons and their communities.

Reason and Marshall (2001, p. 413) believe that action research is a personal, politicaland social process and that it is important to help students with the emergent processof inquiry as much as with the content, literature and methodology. They consider the

QAE15,4

416

personal process from three interrelated perspectives – the existential, psychodynamicand transpersonal perspectives – and try to help students to:

. identify their central existential concerns, life issues and choices;

. view “current patterns of experience and behaviour as rooted in unresolveddistress from earlier (often childhood) experiences”; and

. view their “individual experience as a reflection of archetypal patterns of thecollective unconscious” and integrate their intuitive knowledge with theirintellectual and experiential knowledge.

Therefore, Reason and Marshall (2001, p. 415) claim that their style of supervising ARtheses is mainly process-oriented rather than content-oriented. They see their role inhelping students to stay in charge of their own research that has life relevance and tofind their authentic voices and forms for expressing their action research:

. . . our primary attention in supervision is on students’ life energies as they engage with theirresearch. We seek to facilitate the personal learning in research, and so help people realisetheir potential project which has relevance to their lives. In our view, good research is anexpression of a need to learn and change, to shift some aspect of oneself.

Bradbury and Reason (2001, p. 449) address questions of quality and validity of AR.They suggest five key issues in quality AR that we need to consider. These issues are:

(1) ensuring the quality of participation and relationship in AR;

(2) reflecting on the value of the practical outcomes of work;

(3) drawing on and integrating diverse ways of knowing and using differentmethodologies appropriately and creatively in the context of our AR;

(4) evaluating the value of our work against its purpose of creating a better life andworld for us and others; and

(5) achieving systematic, systemic change over time, this means the enduringconsequence of our work, by integrating “the three manifestations of work: foroneself (‘first-person research practice’), work for partners (‘second-personresearch practice’) and work for people in the wider context (‘third-personresearch practice’)”.

To synthesise the research reported in the literature, we conclude from our ownexperience that authors of quality action research need to meet certain requirements,listed below:

. practice-oriented (improving practice);

. participative (including in their research all stakeholders and others who will beaffected by the results of the research);

. focussed on significant issues relevant not only to themselves but also to theircommunity/organisation or fellow human beings in the wider world;

. using multiple perspectives of knowing, triangulation of appropriate methodsand theories, and connecting their own judgements to discussion in the currentliterature;


theses

417

. rigour in their action research methodology and creative, innovative,contributing something new to knowledge in theory and practice within andacross systems;

. explicit about their assumptions so that readers and examiners may useappropriate criteria for judging the quality of their work; and

. reflective, critical, self-critical and ethical.

Planning and doing quality action research are one thing; writing an action researchthesis is another, and supervising it is yet another. Many action researchers in theirformer education have learned how to do quantitative research, but not how to doqualitative research and how to write a qualitative research paper or thesis, let alone anaction research thesis. And yet, they will have to satisfy the general requirements of aMaster’s or doctoral thesis, regardless of the methods used. Action research ispredominantly qualitative and therefore for many candidates presents a new – andpotentially exciting – venture.

An interesting literature has emerged in recent years on qualitative research (e.g.Glesne, 1999; Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Holliday, 2002; Flick, 2006; Marshall, 2006),and on thesis writing (e.g. Brown, 1994, 1998; Gottlieb, 1994; Phillips, 1996; Sillitoe andCrosling, 1999; Brause, 1999; Phillips and Pugh, 2000; Wisker, 2005; Herr andAnderson, 2005). However, it is difficult for postgraduates and supervisors to identifythe literature most relevant for their experience and to put this useful advice into goodpractice. The present paper aims to present the essential guidelines for writing an ARthesis and possible pitfalls. In the next section we briefly address the notion of qualityin a thesis and propose a set of principles that contribute to quality.

3. What is a quality thesis?We doubt that we could even hope to do justice to this topic in a paper of this nature.There are so many different models, approaches, methodologies that may beincorporated, depending on the purpose and the context. In this paper we focus on whatis our strength, which is the translation of action research into the action research thesis.

However, before we do so, we wish to quote a keynote speaker who presented in aseries of four major academic staff development programs on postgraduate research,supervision and training, which one of the authors convened through 1992-1995. Thisprogram was funded by the Australian Government and resulted in four books, aseries of four video programs, and four manuals on “Conducting Workshops onPostgraduate Supervision”. The speaker was at the time the Deputy Vice-Chancellor ofthe University of Queensland, and in 2007 is Vice-Chancellor of the Australian CatholicUniversity. He defined a good postgraduate thesis as follows (Sheehan, 1994, pp. 19-20):

A sound thesis should provide a critical analysis of a topic, be critical of the author as muchas of others and always point to further work that needs to be done. It should bear on aparticular problem [. . .] in a focused fashion and should be written succinctly and in flawlessformat. It should use theory cautiously, not recklessly, and its design should always tallywith the objectives of the work as stated in the text of the thesis at the outset. The programmeof research should flow logically and relentlessly in the text of the thesis, with the main textbeing reserved for the major steps of the developing argument. The thesis must have aposition and it must be stated clearly, and this position must always be argued in a way thatis fair to what others in the literature think about the phenomena with which the thesis isconcerned.

QAE15,4

418

Drawing on this definition and our experience we have developed the followingprinciples affecting the quality of a thesis:

. Quality versus quantity. Many universities now specify the maximum length of athesis to be 200-250 pages. This means:

. Succinctness and concise language in the thesis proper and detailed evidence andsupport materials in appendices.

. Perfect format and freedom from errors. With computer and software packagessuch as “Endnote” and spell check, there is no excuse for errors andinconsistencies of headings, spellings, etc. In addition, professional editors maybe used.

. Critical tone, i.e. the use of self-criticism, constructive criticism of the literature,and recognising multiple perspectives.

. Sound methodology to be clearly defined, explained and argued.

. Original contribution to knowledge in the field in both practice and theory.

The most important criterion on which doctoral theses are examined and judged in alluniversities worldwide is the achievement of an original contribution to knowledge inthe field. What does this mean? In our view this means a new understanding or insight,e.g. a new concept or concepts, a new conceptual framework or model that may bebased on aspects of various theories in the literature and/or on data from the fieldwork.In qualitative research, including action research, the latter is defined as “groundedtheory” (Glaser, 1992), theory grounded in experience and based on data analysis. Thisessential characteristic of a thesis (original contribution to knowledge) applies to anyscholarly work in the human and social sciences, including a thesis by action research.However, an AR thesis is required to contribute to knowledge in both theory andpractice. Knowledge in practice relates to practitioners’ improvement andtransformation of their workplace practices into ones that are new, unique anddifferent from past practices in the particular system.

The challenge for AR candidates is to translate (incorporate/embed) thesecharacteristics into the unique requirements of AR research and writing, as explainedin the following section.

4. What is a quality action research thesis?One of the authors (first author) asked senior managers enrolled in a Doctor ofBusiness Administration (DBA) program in the Business School Netherlands inJohannesburg to provide their views on the features of a quality action research thesis,at the end of a three-day course on “Action Research and Dissertation Writing” in 2004.They collaboratively arrived at the following criteria:

. solving a real, complex problem;

. true participation and collaboration;

. research must enable action;

. contributing to knowledge in theory and practice;

. clear projection of reflective processes;

. critical and self-critical approach;


theses

419

. must have an argument (the golden thread);

. providing evidence/proof for all claims;

. must be ethical;

. emphasising quality, rather than quantity (conciseness);

. must be of publishable standard;

. must be flawless in style, structure and presentation; and

. displaying originality.

4.1 Solving a real, complex problemWe have already mentioned some of the criteria for judging the quality of a thesis ingeneral, but one characteristic of a good action research thesis is the identification andsolution of a complex problem in the real world or workplace, involving allstakeholders, including the workers at the coalface who often have the best knowledgeof that particular problem. In other words, it is not the candidate as an outsideresearcher and detached, “objective” observer who decides on the focal problem forinvestigation. Rather, he or she has to find out first what might be one of the majorsignificant problems shared by a real work group, community or organisation, in orderto obtain their participation and collaboration and support from top management. Thisis what Kurt Lewin called the “thematic concern”. This real-world thematic concern isof primary importance; the candidate’s topic is secondary and should be aligned to theprimary concern. Why would an organisation allow a research student to do fieldworkin their workplace and use their valuable time and resources? The answer must be:only if the research enables action (i.e. practical improvement, professional and/ororganisational learning, therefore change or development for the better) for the peopleinvolved in the AR.

4.2 Contribution to knowledge in theory and practiceIt follows from the above that an AR thesis needs to advance knowledge, not only intheory but also in practice. This is an additional, distinctive criterion for evaluating anAR thesis. Normally, action researchers have no difficulty in facilitating a process thatleads to practical improvement, innovation, positive change or development; but theyoften find it difficult to facilitate the participants’ and their own reflection on and inaction, which leads to conceptual, theoretical knowledge. Therefore the thesis needs toshow a clear projection of reflective processes. We recommend that reflection be anintegral part in each chapter and/or at the end of the thesis as a final chapter orepilogue, reflecting on the whole process of the candidate’s research and writing, ofindividual, group and organisational learning, and of professional and organisationaldevelopment and growth. Reflection needs to be critical and self-critical.

The thesis must have an argument that is briefly introduced in the first chapter(introduction), developed throughout the thesis like “a golden thread”, and summarisedat the end (conclusions). The argument and all knowledge claims must be proven withevidence.

Emphasis is on ethics in research, quality (not quantity) and written to apublishable standard, hence flawless in style, structure and presentation.

A dilemma most candidates of AR theses face is the question of how they ascollaborative action researchers can prove that their resulting contribution to theory

QAE15,4

420

and practice is original and their own work. Therefore, Zuber-Skerritt and Perry (2002)developed a conceptual model of an action research thesis, based on their jointpublication a decade earlier, to make the distinction clear between independent andcollaborative action research, as illustrated in Figure 1.

We distinguish between the core action research – that is, the candidate’s fieldwork– and the thesis action research and writing – which constitutes the candidate’sindividual work. The fieldwork is collaborative and participative. Participants may beinvolved in the data collection, analysis and interpretation, and in the spiral of actionresearch cycles. In each cycle they plan the team project together with the candidate,they act by implementing their plan, they observe and evaluate the action, and thenreflect on the results and on the whole process of this core action research and on whatthey can learn or have learned from it. At the end, one of the participants (and it maywell be the candidate) presents an oral and written report to all stakeholders and to awider audience, if appropriate. The results are made public. However, these results

Figure 1.Conceptual model of an

action research thesis


theses

421

may be owned by all participants in the research, and the publications are jointintellectual property.

The candidate’s role in his/her own independent thesis research and writinginvolves at least four main phases:

(1) planning the thesis (research and writing);

(2) acting in the fieldwork;

(3) observing and evaluating the fieldwork; and

(4) reflecting on the results of the fieldwork in the light of the literature and his/hertheoretical framework, leading to the thesis’s argument and contribution toknowledge in the field.

4.2.1 Planning the thesis. This includes context and situation analysis, defining the focalresearch question of the thesis in alignment with the team’s thematic concern, literaturereview (first of the methodology and second of the problem/content area) and identifyingthe “gap” and the candidate’s potential original contribution(s) to knowledge, setting up abibliographical database, such as “Endnote”, a reflection journal (electronic and as a hardcopy) and making a strategic action plan and a structure for the thesis.

4.2.2 Acting in the fieldwork. To start, the candidate needs to activate the core actionresearch project with the team and then facilitate the whole process of team planning,acting (implementing the plan), observing (evaluating and documenting theinnovations, interventions and evidence for successes and failures), and reflecting onthe above process, on the results, and on their own and their organisation’s learning.This process may be repeated and the plan revised several times until the team issatisfied and ready to report to stakeholders and maybe the public. The candidate’srole is co-researcher, project manager and process facilitator.

4.2.3 Observing and evaluating the fieldwork. Apart from the team’s observation andevaluation in the core action research project, the candidate at this stage needs to take amore distant view or perspective. She or he needs to analyse and evaluate the wholeteam project independently from the team, in the light of the literature and his/her owntheoretical framework. This individual evaluative work will triangulate and synthesisehis/her own perspective during the fieldwork (documented in the reflection journal), theteam’s perspective (in the written report to be treated as a public document like anyother piece of literature), and stakeholder, management and leadership perspectives(based on feedback in interviews, focus groups or qualitative surveys) during and afterthe fieldwork.

4.2.4 Reflecting on the results of the fieldwork. This independent evaluation will alsofacilitate and contribute to the candidate’s own reflection, creative conceptualisationand theorisation of the whole research process and results, leading to the identificationof his/her contribution to knowledge in theory by filling a gap in the literature, and inpractice by making a difference in an organisation, community or group.

4.2.5 The candidate’s own original contribution to knowledge. We refer to our sectionon this topic above, but hasten to point out that an action research thesis in additionneeds to make explicit, and argue for:

. the assumptions underlying the phenomenological paradigm of action research;

. the use of predominantly qualitative research methodology; and

. ethics and values in action research.

QAE15,4

422

It is not within the scope of this paper to explain these three areas in detail, so here wesummarise the essence and refer to the relevant literature.

First, the phenomenological paradigm assumes that knowledge can be created onthe basis of personal and professional experience and reflection on this experience, andthat (grounded) theory can be derived from and grounded in experiential data frommultiple perspectives and through triangulation of methods. Unlike positivists, whobelieve in “objective truth” and facts that can be researched by detached, neutralobservers, action researchers argue that the nature, behaviour and minds of humanbeings constitute a complex whole, which cannot be observed objectively, or beunderstood accurately through a part, by outside researchers. Action researchersrecognise that observations are not neutral, objective or value-free, but are subjectiveand dependent on the observer’s theoretical framework and value system. They holdthat what positivists call “subjects” need to be treated as “participants” in the researchprocess (e.g. in analysing and interpreting data) to make the results as objective aspossible. The criteria of “validity” and “reliability” used in traditional research areinterpreted differently in action research as “authenticity”, that is, the results of theresearch are valid and reliable if they are recognisable and authentic to the peopleinvolved in the research, even if not necessarily to others. For a detailed discussion, seeCarr and Kemmis (1986) and Zuber-Skerritt (2001).

Second, in this phenomenological paradigm of action research, it is moreappropriate to use mainly qualitative, rather than quantitative research methods,because the aim is not to survey large samples of populations or “subjects” in order topredict future trends or to make generalizations about past and present. Rather, theaim is to work with a relatively small group of people in depth as “participants” in theresearch, because they are knowledgeable, interested, motivated and open toparticipating in solving their own problem(s) and improving their own situation.Action research requires a detailed, in-depth study of the case under investigation anduses methods such as interviews, group discussions, focus groups, nominal grouptechnique, reflection journals and so forth to collect and analyse rich data fromindividuals and small groups. The recent literature on qualitative research that werefer to above expands and clarifies this discussion.

Third, there are also differences in ethics and values between traditional and actionresearch. The Special Issue on “Ethics and action research” in a 2006 issue of thejournal Action Research[2] addresses these differences. In particular, we refer to thearticles by Eikeland, Brydon-Miller and Greenwood. Eikeland (2006) discusses thework of Zeni (2001, p. 37) and many ethical dilemmas, concluding that “conventionalresearch is unfit for action research because of its practice of ‘othering’ human beingsas research subjects”. Universities have committees or boards responsible for advisingand monitoring ethical standards related to research. Brydon-Miller and Greenwood(2006) explain that institutional review boards (IRBs) in universities are required toensure that ethical standards are followed to avoid harm to human beings and theinstitution’s legal liability for violation. However, these ethical regulations have beendesigned for conventional positivist research that is able to articulate well-definedhypotheses, pre-determined methods and predictable or expected outcomes in advance.In action research there cannot be such pre-determination, because by its very natureAR is open-ended, collaborative, situation specific, methodologically eclectic, and thusnot prescriptive in its use of methods, processes or final goals.


theses

423

Brydon-Miller and Greenwood (2006, p. 120) argue:

Democratic collaboration, co-generation of knowledge, and a commitment to thedemocratisation of human situations are the major guidelines that AR follows and so itstands to reason that the interests of the human subjects[3] involved would be respected withcare throughout the process. Indeed, AR is, or should be, far from the evils that IRBs aresupposed to combat.

These authors, in the true spirit of AR, involved the institutional stakeholders (Chairand members of the IRB) at Cornell University and the University of Cincinnati in adialogue to come to a common understanding of AR and of how the committee wouldreview AR projects: “Subsequently, IRB reviews of AR projects have been both [sic]thorough, fair-minded, and thoughtful”.

We recommend a similar educational AR process be used in institutions where IRBsapply conventional positivist research ethics and find it difficult to review AR projects.We can work with our IRBs to ensure that review processes are developed that reflect thevalues underlying the theory and practice of action research. Brydon-Miller andGreenwood (2006, p. 126) remind us that there are two aspects of AR: action and research.They suggest that the actions or interventions developed with participants in AR do notconstitute research and should not require IRB approval. “What does require review is theprocess of taking this action and transforming it into research for presentation orpublication”. And so, “we should develop strategies for incorporating the development ofIRB proposals and consent forms into the action research process itself”.

Values are the cornerstones of ethics. Zuber-Skerritt (2005, pp. 53-4) has identifiedseven core values and ethical principles underpinning successful action research andhow these values and principles can be translated into actions that students asresearchers carry out.

5. Problems and strategies in the process of thesis research and writingWe have observed at least four main challenges in practice and have found that theseare confirmed in the literature:

(1) the lonely researcher syndrome;

(2) defining the focal problem or central research question;

(3) understanding the difference between conducting research and writing a thesis;and

(4) overcoming barriers to writing an action research thesis.

5.1 The lonely researcher syndromeUnlike candidates in the natural sciences, who normally work in teams or inlaboratories alongside other research students and staff, postgraduates in the humanand social sciences are often working in isolation at home or in their office. For theselatter students, failure and attrition rates are much higher. Whittle (1992) reports onand explains why postgraduates in science at the University of Adelaide complete theirhigher degrees almost four times faster than their peers in arts. She then suggests howpostgraduate performance in arts degrees might be improved by adopting andadapting some of the supervisory practices in Science. Conrad et al. (1992), on the basisof their research and experience in three different Australian universities, discuss some

QAE15,4

424

alternatives to the single-supervisor model, involving students in their own and eachother’s supervision. Other studies in this volume and its subsequent editions(Zuber-Skerritt and Ryan, 1994; Zuber-Skerritt, 1996; Ryan and Zuber-Skerritt, 1999)are based on our staff development programs on postgraduate supervision mentionedabove, with hundreds of supervisors from nine universities. These suggest that thelonely researcher syndrome and its related problems can be overcome by self-selectedsupport groups and specially designed workshops with postgraduates and supervisorson the key problem areas in the whole process of research and writing.

A recent technological tool being trialled by one of the authors (second author) is theuse of a virtual space or wiki that enables supervisors and students to share ideas,writing, resources and problems as they emerge during the research process. Thisspace connects students and creates a virtual learning community where issues areexplored and permanently recorded for the benefit of all involved (see Fletchspace athttp://fletch2.pbwiki.com/).

5.2 Defining the focal problem or central questionOne common problem area is students’ identification and definition of their centralresearch question to be sufficiently focussed such that the student can address andmanage it within the given time limit. Problem definition is therefore a critical componentof the research process and is central to research design. It will determine the literature tobe reviewed as well as the design of the study, including the sample, methods andanalytical techniques applied to the data that produce informative results and contributeto new knowledge and understandings related to the problem. In the complex world ofqualitative research, including action research, reducing complicated problems to alaconic central question that is realistic and goes to the heart of a significant issue remainsa doctoral student’s greatest challenge. While candidates generally have a research area ofinterest and some idea of a research problem when they commence their studies, theyneed support in refining their research focus. It is very difficult for students to do this inisolation (Fletcher, 2005). They need to engage in dialogue with others, read the literatureand reflect on their own and others’ experiences in the area.

There is an additional issue for action researchers who intend to combine part-timepostgraduate studies and full-time work or vice versa. For it is much more difficult tosuccessfully complete a thesis if the central problem or “thematic concern” for acandidate to address at work is different from the focal research question of thecandidate’s thesis, rather than aligned with it. Therefore, we recommend thatcandidates who are determined to write an action research thesis first explore what isthe central concern in their workplace system; who in the system would be mostinterested in and committed to solving the problem and to working collaboratively inan action research team at work; and only then define their research question to beaddressed in the thesis. This means that the first step is to identify a workplaceproblem for the fieldwork and the interested stakeholders and to do a context analysis,e.g. SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) and resources inventory(what do we have, need, are able to get, access or not?) for the project. Once thisthematic concern is clear, the candidate may be helped by supervisors and peers indefining the action research question for the thesis.

From our workshop experiences, we have refined a strategy where candidates (in asmall group of three or four) can each in turn be helped to formulate their central research


theses

425

question by being in the “hot seat” and asked the five sets of thought-provoking questionslisted in Table I. There is one important ground rule: no one (except the candidate in thehot seat) is allowed to talk in sentences; but non-candidates are only to ask constructivequestions. This Socratic approach to thesis design is not easy for the “critical friends” orfor the candidate in the hot seat who is thus forced – and helped – to probe for answersthrough deeper, critical thought, to make their tacit, implicit knowledge more explicit, andin the process refine their wide-ranging thoughts into an, or even the most, appropriatequestion to guide their research. Once introduced and understood, this Socratic approachto thesis planning may be reiterated and used by small support groups of studentsindependently throughout their candidature.

Guiding questions Your thinking Define

1. What? Focal questionWhat do you want to focus on?What is your central issue, problem or concern?

2. Why? SignificanceWhat has and has not been done previously in thisarea?Is there a gap in the literature?Why are you doing this?What’s the purpose of your work?What will you do differently or new?Why is this worthy of study?Why is it important and who will benefit from it?

3. What? Contribution toWhat will be your new, original contribution topractical and theoretical knowledge in the field?

knowledge

What is new or different in your work that has notbeen done before?

4. How? MethodHow will you address your central researchquestion?How will you argue, demonstrate and produceevidence to substantiate that your work/thesismakes a substantial contribution to new, originalknowledge in the field in theory and practice?What research methods will you use?

5. When? TimelineWhen do you start and finish your thesis?What is your timetable from start of research tosubmission of thesis?Is your research project realistic and manageablein that timeframe?Or what could you change?What are the milestones in your timetable?

Table I.Socratic approach tothesis planning

QAE15,4

426

As students develop a deeper understanding of how their focal question impacts on allaspects of their research, they are in a better position to manage the complex process ofreading the literature and collecting data. They now have a clearer view of what theyare researching and can use this to frame decisions about what, when and how datamust be collected. The guiding question that should underpin every subsequent stageof doctoral research is: “How will this contribute to my answering the focal question?”.

5.3 Understanding the difference between conducting research and writing a thesisUndertaking research is a process very different from writing a thesis. While theseprocesses are co-dependent, a student needs to distinguish the differences betweenthem and recognise the different aspects of each. We have found Wisker’s (2005)building metaphor a helpful illustration of these differences and have adapted themodel in Figure 2 to compare researching with writing an AR thesis.

Undertaking research is engaging in a process-oriented activity, while writing athesis is engaging in a product-oriented activity. The former is chronological, the lattermust be logical. Figure 2 shows how one “builds” research and thesis writing from theground up. It shows how progression in research is often stop/start, as conductingqualitative research involves a journey where most students at some stage hit a “brickwall” that separates their data gathering from their analysis (and sometimes thestudents from their will to complete the thesis!). Students overcome this crisis throughpersistence as they develop skills in managing large data sets. Having a supportnetwork – an “AR group” – and understanding supervisors is very important at thisstage. Removing the “wall” allows the candidates to continue their research journey,proceeding with data analysis and formulating results. A support network can alsoprovide students with a lifeline during writing, which is a solitary process that canleave some students feeling isolated by comparison with the research stage thatusually involves some or much interaction with others.

The research and writing tasks are dissimilar in nature. Thesis writing must beclear and concise, with a logical and cogent argument that weaves a “thread” throughthe thesis. Importantly for producing a focused study with a tight argument, thewriting must exclude what is not essential for developing the argument. In contrast,action research activities are not linear and are seldom logical. Research involves lotsof exploration, experimenting, and trying out ideas – keeping some and rejectingothers. Action research activities usually start with development issues and concernsfor practical improvement and organisational change. It may be long after attending tothe practical problem that the candidates recognise that their contributions in andbeyond the workplace can constitute a valuable contribution to production ofknowledge in their field and can be disseminated through publication in a thesis.

The action research journey winds like a mountain road, with many side tracks,road blocks, detours and cul-de-sacs. The thesis, on the other hand, is a differentjourney where expression, structure and telling the research story in a straightforwardway is the focus. Although candidates are encouraged to write continuously from thebeginning (e.g. writing notes in “Endnote” and in their reflection diary, writing papersor draft chapters), the final thesis needs to be lean, concise, and to the point (i.e. nodetours). The difference is illustrated in Figure 2.


theses

427

5.4 Overcoming barriers to writing an action research thesisMost candidates find writing a thesis a daunting task, involving as it does a transitionfrom the analysis of literature and data to the synthesis of ideas and information,expressed in writing to form “thesis” argument and ultimately contribution toknowledge. Failure to make this transition may leave the candidate immobilised,under-confident, and thus unable to submit the thesis on time or at all.

Figure 2.The two buildings of“research” and “writing”an action research thesis

QAE15,4

428

Considering recent policies on research quantum, including postgraduatecompletions, in Australian, British and New Zealand higher education sectors,universities and supervisors have a vested interest in helping postgraduate students toovercome anxieties about writing a thesis within a specified time limit. The approachwe suggest is cognitive (via information technology, books, handouts and advice fromsupervisors, institutional and/or departmental regulations and guidelines regardingthe format of the thesis, style sheet and reference system, etc.), affective (via supportgroups and discussion) and skill development oriented (in workshops, e.g. on the nutsand bolts of thesis writing, using a bibliographic database such as “Endnote”, “braindumps”, “mind maps”, a “reflection diary” or research journal, and the differencebetween first and final drafts). We have found the following strategies helpful forstudents during thesis writing:

. Brain dumps – This is a simple technique where students scribble down all theycan that is related to their research. There is no right or wrong here and evenseemingly irrelevant words can come to represent significant or emergingconceptual understandings. Each word can become a trigger for other words andideas, making this a valuable knowledge stock-take as well as a confidencebuilding exercise for students, who are often surprised at the extent and depth ofwhat they know about their field. Brain dumps can be a starting point fororganising knowledge in a mind map.

. Mind maps – Mapping what is in one’s mind about the thesis topic meansconceptually organising ideas under headings, elaborating these ideas in detail,and linking them conceptually. Several mind maps can be created using the sameinformation but organising the ideas according to different conceptualconstructs. Construct mapping such as this is an excellent method forclarifying and organising one’s ideas before starting to write a paper or thesis,and model/theory building. Model building is creating “grounded theory”. Itproceeds from experimenting to soliciting feedback from others, and revising themodel until the best way of representing the data, results or conclusions isachieved. Some students using action research find it too difficult orinappropriate to think in concept maps. They may prefer to use a linearapproach to writing and theorising. However, mind mapping can be learned,both manually with paper and pen, and using computer software (for examplewww.mindmanager.com). The advantage of learning the process of conceptmapping to facilitate model building is that it enables students using actionresearch to adapt existing models and create their own models, initially in theirminds, on the basis of their research. Abstract concepts and generalisations areoften easier to represent in the form of a graphic design (e.g. flow-charts ordiagrams) before explaining them in words. Thus mental models – boththeoretical and process models – aid and result from reflection on practice.

. Reflection diaries – Often called “research journals” or “log books”, reflectiondiaries are strong heuristic tools for reflection as well as for formulating theessence of this reflection in written form. The action research journal is alegitimate source of data and a qualitative research method. It constitutes theaction researcher’s subjective perspective that needs to be triangulated withother perspectives. Without a journal, a research student’s reflection is often


theses

429

transitory and vanishes in the sub-conscious mind where it becomes part of theirtacit knowledge. The purpose of systematic diary writing within the thesisprocess is therefore to facilitate the construction or creation of new knowledgeand to enable students as action researchers to make their tacit knowledge moreexplicit through their thesis.

The process we have found most effective for postgraduate students as actionresearchers is:

. recording the most significant events (experiences, meetings, discussions,activities, a major task, project or assignment) in their journal;

. reflecting on these events and on their learning from the events;

. writing down both their reflections and the actions they plan to take as a result oftheir reflection and learning (ticking off the actions when they have beencompleted, or when action is no longer necessary);

. reviewing their journal entries weekly, keeping the important records andtrashing the rest (but trashed items to be kept aside in a folder in case they needto be recovered later); and

. conducting a similar culling process monthly – in this way, the data in thereflection journal are continuously reduced and therefore more manageable andeasier to analyse later.

Keeping a reflection diary in such a systematic manner has the advantage that actionresearch students “learn from experience” (Kolb, 1984), become more effective and“reflective practitioners” (Schon, 1983), and are able to develop learning principles andpersonal theories, and to take appropriate action.

5.5 Difference between first and final draftsIt is important that students understand the difference between first and final drafts ofthe thesis. The role of the first rough draft is for students to:

. capture their main ideas (mind maps);

. clearly design the cohesion and logic of their argument(s);

. build the structure of the whole thesis and of each chapter; and

. commit their ideas to paper as rapidly and un-selfconsciously as possible, in aconcentrated time period, in order to maintain continuity of thought and logicalargument and also to save time, because having long breaks in between writingsessions means that the writers need to go back, to read again and again whatthey wrote before, and to remind themselves of what they intended to do next.

The advantage of writing a first, fast rough draft is that candidates can get feedbackfrom supervisors and “critical friends” at an early stage on the content of their “thesis”,their contribution to knowledge, and problems or shortcomings that can often be fixedquickly, rather than having to go back to the start later on. Another advantage is that ifstudents have a clear picture in mind of what and how to argue, then it is likely thattheir writing will also be clear. But if their ideas are fuzzy, their writing is likely to bevague, disjointed and unconvincing. That is why the student must understand theimportance of planning the thesis and writing the first draft. Finally, a psychological

QAE15,4

430

advantage is that students start writing without inhibitions that impede writing, andwithout excessive concern for detail, precise language or fine-tuning of the argument,all of which are addressed through later revision.

Last touches can be done in the final draft. For it is the role of the final draft toattend to the editorial aspects of concise language, style, perfect format and aconsistent referencing system. The referencing system can be easily attended to byusing a bibliographic database and software package, such as “Endnote”, available inboth IBM and Macintosh formats. Students as action researchers must meet all theserequirements and in addition, they need to understand and make explicit the particularaction research paradigm, its underlying assumptions and values, ethics and validity,and criteria for evaluating a quality action research thesis.

For more strategies to overcome barriers to writing an AR thesis and to sustain theenergies necessary to persevere to completion, we refer the reader to Passfield (1997).

6. ConclusionsThe challenge of action research is to convince scholars in the human and socialsciences that AR is not better or worse than but different from traditionalmethodologies and is just as valid a form of research. This can be achieved onlythrough careful explanation, demonstration and models of quality action researchpapers and theses.

It can be concluded from this paper that undertaking any form of research is acomplex and difficult process with action research as a method having a particular setof problems that need to be considered. However, the whole experience includinglearning from action research has the potential to be more challenging, exciting,enjoyable, practical, educational, and more personally enriching, because it not onlyinvolves research (for understanding and gaining/creating new knowledge), but alsoaction (improvement of practice, and professional and organisational development), aswell as learning through reflection on and in action.

Action research integrates theory and practice, research and development, left andright brain activity (i.e. analytical, logical thinking and intuitive, innovative, creativethinking). This is the essence and great achievement of action research. However, itmust be well argued and supported by strong evidence that is convincingly presented.Evidence may be provided through multiple perspectives, personal views andfeedback from all participants and stakeholders (i.e. from those people who will beaffected by the recommendations and results of the research), as well as throughtriangulation of multiple methods, such as reflection diary (first person), activeparticipants (second person) and interviews, surveys, focus groups, nominal grouptechniques, etc. (third person).

Quality and rigour in an action research thesis are achieved through:. a methodology that is carefully designed, explained and justified;. an individual, original contribution that is well argued, demonstrated,

documented and supported by evidence for every knowledge claim (e.g.through participant confirmation/validation of data analysis and interpretation);

. the use of relevant literature, i.e. the methodological literature first to justify thecandidate’s choice, and the content literature later (after aligning the candidate’s


theses

431

focal research question with the thematic concern of the core action researchgroup), to confirm or disconfirm the candidate’s data and research findings; and

. a writing style that is clear, concise (using appendices for detailed information),conceptually sound, free of errors, and written in the first person singular andplural, as appropriate.

In this paper we have identified the main challenges and criteria for assessing thequality of action research and of an action research thesis. We now conclude with somecrucial questions for a candidate to answer and some advice on how to address thesechallenges, and our definition of a quality AR thesis.

6.1 Addressing crucial questionsFor a higher degree thesis or dissertation by action research students must askthemselves, and know the answers to, the “why?”, “what?”, “where?”, “who?”, “how?”and “when?” questions described below:

. Why do you want to do action research? We have already established that it isnot necessarily easier, and may be more difficult. If you make this choice anddecision, it is mainly because your aims are not only to do research andcontribute to knowledge in the field and perhaps also to advance your career bygetting a higher degree. Your aims are also to make a significant contribution toorganisational change or development – that is, to practical improvement in asection, group, part or across the whole of an organisation – and last but notleast, you want to achieve the participants’ and your own personal andprofessional growth, learning and development. There is strong evidence thatthese aims can best be achieved through action learning and action research (e.g.Passfield, 1996; Dotlich and Noel, 1998).

. What is your vision, focus, research question or problem, and, in Kurt Lewin’sterms, what is the thematic concern of your core action research group?

. Where will you find a group or an organisation to share your thematic concern?Where can you do your fieldwork? In which higher education institution will youenrol? Not all universities, faculties, departments or supervisors support or evenaccept action research as a philosophy and methodology for scholarly research.So it is important to find a supportive environment in which you can thrive andenjoy your work.

. Who are the stakeholders in your project? For example, who is your client orsponsor? We know from the literature on organisational change anddevelopment that it is crucial to have the support of top management for anysubstantial change to occur. Who are the members of your core action researchproject team, and how will you build an effective team spirit? Who are themembers of your action learning set/group, that is, your fellow research studentsor associates in the university?

. How will you achieve your goal, aims and objectives? We have come to theconclusion that you can save a lot of time and problems if you enrol, activelyparticipate, and successfully complete the assignments in the Action Researchand Evaluation On-line AREOL course (see www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/areol/areolind.html) and/or if you complete a qualitative research methods

QAE15,4

432

course. This is especially helpful if you are required to write a detailed researchproposal, including the methodology to be used and a literature review; and ifyou are supported by regular workshops and meetings with your action learningset. We have found that the benefits of these group sessions are great toparticipants. You actually experience, live and model the values and processes ofaction learning and action research; you are more motivated and excited toresearch and write; and you benefit from the networking, synergy and energy inthe group.

. When will you start and finish your thesis? Without making a strongcommitment and a realistic timeline for every phase in the research and writingprocess, the candidature can be a daunting task, a negative experience and resultin late submission or non-completion of the thesis.

Candidates should seek the support of their supervisor and their advice as they developthe skills to ask and answer these questions. Selecting appropriate examiners is afurther important consideration. Appropriate examiners are particularly crucial foraction research theses, because apart from the general criteria for assessment outlinedabove, examiners of AR theses have to be knowledgeable of and sympathetic to the ARparadigm and its underlying philosophical assumptions and values and to the use ofpredominantly qualitative research methods.

The worth or quality of an AR project must be evident to the participants in theresearch (organisation/community) and to peers in the wider community ofprofessionals and scholars. We conclude with our definition of a quality AR thesis.

6.2 Definition of a quality action research thesisA quality AR thesis is one that:

. presents critical analysis of a well defined action research question/problem;

. investigates a significant problem or “thematic concern” or major issue inprofessional, organisational and/or community development – significant notonly to the researcher(s), but also to the whole group, organisation or communitywho are affected by the problem and its solution;

. uses and justifies an appropriate methodology and methods (includingparticipant confirmation and reflection diary);

. creates/advances knowledge in the field (practical, theoretical and/or experientialknowledge);

. provides convincing evidence for this knowledge claim;

. points to limitations and further research to be done;

. demonstrates how critical reflection has contributed to transforming knowledgeand practices;

. communicates all of the above in a clear, logical, succinct and coherent manner;and

. makes the results public in the thesis and where possible in published formthrough journal article(s), book chapter(s), a monograph, occasional paper and/ora book.


theses

433

Notes

1. A German expression, literally translated as “time” ( ¼ Zeit) “spirit” ( ¼ Geist), meaning “themind of the age” and referring to the philosophical, cultural and social attitudes/trends in aparticular era.

2. “Ethics and action research”, a Special Issue of the Action Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, 2006.

3. We understand here that Brydon-Miller and Greenwood (2006) have spoken of “subjects”rather than “participants”, since their task was to convince university ethics staff andtherefore used the language that these staff members would understand.

References

Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., Mctaggart, R. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1991), “Defining, confining orrefining action research?”, in Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.), Action Research for Change andDevelopment, Gower, Aldershot, pp. 3-9.

Bradbury, H. and Reason, P. (2001), “Conclusion: broadening the bandwidth of validity: issuesand choice-points for improving the quality of action research”, in Reason, P. andBradbury, H. (Eds), Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry and Practice, SagePublications, London, pp. 447-55.

Brause, R. (1999), Writing Your Doctoral Dissertation, Routledge Falmer, London.

Brown, R. (1994), “The ‘big picture’ about managing writing”, in Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Ryan, Y.(Eds), Quality in Postgraduate Education, Kogan Page, London, pp. 90-109.

Brown, R. (1998), “How to focus your reader with the main message”, in Conrad, L. andZuber-Skerritt, O. (Eds), Developing as Researchers, 2nd ed., GIHE, Griffith University,Brisbane, pp. 11-24.

Brydon-Miller, M. and Greenwood, D. (2006), “A re-examination of the relationship betweenaction research and human subjects review processes”, Action Research, Vol. 4 No. 1,pp. 117-28.

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986), Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research,Deakin University Press, Geelong.

Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2005), Doing Action Research in Your Own Organisation, SagePublications, London.

Conrad, L., Perry, C. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992), “Alternatives to traditional postgraduatesupervision in the social sciences”, in Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.), Starting Research:Supervision and Training, TEDI, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds) (2000), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Dick, B. (2005), “Making process accessible: robust processes for learning, change and actionresearch”, DLitt thesis, International Management Centres Association, Buckingham,available at www.uq.net.au/ , zzbdick/dlitt/ (accessed 6 June 2007).

Dotlich, D.L. and Noel, J.L. (1998), Action Learning: How the World’s Top Companies AreRe-creating Their Leaders and Themselves, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Eikeland, O. (2006), “Condescending ethics and action research”, Action Research, Vol. 4 No. 1,pp. 37-47.

Fals-Borda, O. (Ed.) (1998), People’s Participation: Challenges Ahead, Tercer Mundo Editores,Bogota.

Fals-Borda, O. (2006), “The North-South convergence”, Action Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 351-8.

QAE15,4

434

Fals-Borda, O. and Rahman, M.A. (Eds) (1991), Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopolywith Participatory Action Research, Apex Press, New York, NY.

Fletcher, M.A. (2005), “Action learning/action research: a teacher-centered approach forself-improving schools”, Literacy Learning: Middle Years, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 16-24.

Fisher, K. and Phelps, R. (2006), “Recipe or performing art? Challenging conventions for writingaction research theses”, Action Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 143-64.

Flick, U. (2006), An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London.

Freire, P. (1972), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Glaser, B. (1992), Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing, Sociology Press,Mill Valley, CA.

Glesne, C. (1999), Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction, Longman, New York, NY.

Gottlieb, N. (1994), “Supervising the writing of a thesis”, in Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Ryan, Y. (Eds),Quality in Postgraduate Education, Kogan Page, London, pp. 110-9.

Herr, K.G. and Anderson, G.L. (2005), The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Studentsand Faculty, Sage Publications, New York, NY.

Holliday, A. (2002), Doing and Writing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London.

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1988), The Action Research Planner, Deakin University Press,Geelong.

Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper and Row, New York, NY.

McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2006), Doing Action Research in Education, Sage Publications,London.

Marshall, C. (2006), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London.

Pasmore, W. (2001), “Action research in the workplace: the socio-technical perspective”,in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds), Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiryand Practice, Sage Publications, London, pp. 38-47.

Passfield, R. (1996), “Action learning for professional and organisational development: an actionresearch case study in higher education”, PhD thesis, Griffith University, Brisbane.

Passfield, R. (1997), “Managing the energy of thesis writing: a Chakra perspective”, ALARJournal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 19-39.

Phillips, E.M. (1996), “The quality of a good thesis”, in Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.), Frameworks forPostgraduate Education, Southern Cross University Press, Lismore, pp. 197-212.

Phillips, E.M. and Pugh, D.S. (2000), How to Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and TheirSupervisors, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds) (2001), Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiryand Practice, Sage Publications, London.

Reason, P. and Marshall, J. (2001), “On working with graduate research students”, in Reason, P.and Bradbury, H. (Eds), Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry and Practice,Sage Publications, London, pp. 413-9.

Ryan, Y. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1999), Supervising Postgraduates from Non-English SpeakingBackgrounds, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Sheehan, P. (1994), “From thesis writing to research application: learning the research culture”, inZuber-Skerritt, O. and Ryan, Y. (Eds), Quality in Postgraduate Education, Kogan Page,London, pp. 14-23.


theses

435

Schon, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, TempleSmith, London.

Sillitoe, J. and Crosling, G. (1999), “Thesis planning and writing: a structured approach”, in Ryan,Y. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Eds), Supervising Postgraduates from Non-English SpeakingBackgrounds, Society of Research into Higher Education and Open University Press,Buckingham, pp. 167-74.

Whittle, J. (1992), “Research culture, supervision practices and postgraduate performance”,in Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.), Starting Research: Supervision and Training, TEDI, Universityof Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 86-107.

Wisker, G. (2005), The Good Supervisor: Supervising Postgraduate and Undergraduate Researchfor Doctoral Theses and Dissertations, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.

Zeni, J. (2001), Ethical Issues in Practitioner Research, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1991/1996), Action Research for Change and Development, Gower, Aldershot.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992), Professional Development in Higher Education: A TheoreticalFramework for Action Research, Kogan Page, London.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.) (1996), Frameworks for Postgraduate Education, Southern CrossUniversity Press, Lismore.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2001), “Action learning and action research: paradigm, praxis and programs”,in Sankaran, S., Dick, B., Passfield, R. and Swepson, P. (Eds), Effective ChangeManagement Using Action Research and Action Learning: Concepts, Frameworks,Processes and Applications, Southern Cross University Press, Lismore, pp. 1-20.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2005), “A model of values and actions for personal knowledge management”,Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 49-64.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Perry, C. (2002), “Action research within organizations and universitythesis writing”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 171-9.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Ryan, Y. (Eds) (1994), Quality in Postgraduate Education, Kogan Page,London.

Corresponding authorOrtrun Zuber-Skerrit can be contacted at: [email protected]

QAE15,4

436

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the quality of an action research

Documents