Action Research: A Remedy to Overcome the Gap

between 'Theory' and 'Practice'

Dr. Saeed Akbar
Lecturer, Liverpool Management School
University of Liverpool
E-mail: saeed@liv.ac.uk




*Dr. Monirul Alam Hossain
Department of Accounting and MIS
University of Hail
P.O. Box 2440, Hail, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Tel: 966-6-5345382 (Residence)
FAX: 966-6-531-0500
E-mail: monirulhossain@yahoo.com
hossain@uoh.edu.sa



(Primary Draft Submitted for the presentation in the 30
th

European Accounting Association Conference (25
Th
27
th
April,
2007), Lisbon, Portugal)

Draft: October, 2009



(*Correspondence to be made to the Second Author)









Action Research: A Remedy to Overcome the Gap between
'Theory' and 'Practice'



Abstract


Action research is an important research methodology in management science. Though action
research has been defined and discussed by many researchers, there are still controversies about
the implication of this research tool in academic world. This article highlighted some important
points about action research, and provides an overview of this research method for showing its
potential as a research technique along with the history, meaning and features of action research.
It has been argued by the earlier researchers that failure of conventional research methodology in
solving organisational problems produces gap between theory and practice, which can be
bridged with the help of action research technique, that action research can be focused on the
collaboration to bring change and solve problems in organisations. About the validity of action
research, some epistemological points of view has been discussed. In this article, the researchers
argued that although action research can help to overcome the gap between theory and
practice, it could be a difficult task for any researcher to achieve.

Key Words: Action research, participation, organisation, social science, social
action


Action Research: A Remedy to Overcome the Gap between
Theory and Practice


INTRODUCTION
Action research is an important research methodology in social science which has evolved over
the last six decades. Many organisational scientists are increasingly raising question regarding
the most fundamental assumption underlying their research activities. This appraisal of purposes,
methods and epistemologies of organisational science is evident in action research. The users of
action research demands a research process that is relevant for both the practitioner who is
struggling with a set of problems, as well as for the scholar whose purpose is to contribute in
advancement of our current knowledge in management research.

Action research may be an effective research tool providing opportunity to make social sciences
applicable to the organisational life. Therefore, the nature of action research has been discussed
in a broader context in many countries and it has been argued that if organisational issues are
considered as social problems, action research can prove to be an effective research method. The
proponents of action research have claimed that action research can overcome the problematic
relationship between theory and practice.

This article provides an overview of the method to show its potential as a research technique in
management research along with the history, meaning and features of action research. The
researchers have shed light on this issue and have presented the views of some researchers in
relation to action research. In order to clarify the issue, some epistemological point of view about
action research have been discussed. Finally, the usefulness of action research as a method to
bridge the gap between theory and practice has been examined.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF ACTION RESEARCH
Action research has the twin aims of practical guidance to people faced with immediate problems
and contributing to the goals of social science (Rapoport, 1970). In its attempt to focus on
practical problems of organisations and people, action research has been concerned with
developing new ways of bringing change and to promote learning to ensure that the change
process is sustainable. In management research Lewin is generally regarded as the first who have
made conscious use of the expression action research in the 1940s (Lewin, 1946 and 1947). He
produced action research as a mode of social research that intended to overcome some of the
shortcomings of positivism. He combined action and research by arguing that a social
situation may be best understood if a change could be introduced into it and its effects are
observable.

After the work of Lewin (1946 and 1947), subsequent researchers like Argris and Schon (1989),
Baburoglu and Ravn (1992), Coch and French (1948), Cock (1994), Cook (1949), Rice (1955),
Emery and Trist (1972), Emery and Thorsud (1976), Elden and Chisholm (1993), Gill (1982),
Gill and Johnson (1991), Greenwood, Whyte, and Harkavy (1993), Karapin (1986), Palmar and
Jacobson (1971), Petter and Robbinson (1984), Rapoport (1970), Rice (1955), Shani and Bush
(1987), Shani and Pasmore (1985), Sommer (1987), Susman and Evered (1978), Walton and
Graffiney and Wilson, Trist and Cule (1952) have made contribution in the area, among others.
MEANING OF ACTION RESEARCH
According to Lewin (1947), the main feature of action research is to lead some kind of action
and research, on the effects of that action by understanding the dynamic nature of change and
studying it under controlled condition as it took place. However, he never provided a
comprehensive definition of the action research. The question thus remains whether Lewin
(1947) was only describing a new applied research strategy or wanted to propose a new
epistemological basis for social research. According to Palmer and Jacobson (1971), action
research is a way of using research to further social action in which "numbers of people can be
organised around tasks of defining problems and finding facts in such a way that the research
itself becomes a part of empowerment and action" (Palmer and Jacobson, 1971).
As observed by Cook,
" a basic hypothesis of action research is that a self survey is more likely
than a survey conducted by outsiders to result in changes in the social practices
of the group surveyed".
(Cook, 1949)
It has been argued that very few researchers have actually picked up the epistemological issue
and tried to link the action research mode of enquiry to a particular interpretation of social
science (Peters and Robinson, 1984). The most widely used definition of action research in
management context is that of Rapoport (1970). As observed by Rapoport:
"Action Research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an
immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint
collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework".
(Rapoport, 1970).

The above definition given by Rapoport is characterised by (a) the immediacy of researcher's
involvement in action, and (b) the action of both parties (researcher on consultant and client
organisation) to be involved in change.

From the above definition we can easily imagine that action research aims to solve practical
problems and at the same time contribute to knowledge. Thus, we are in a position to say that
action research is of higher utility because it is able to bridge the gap between theory and
practice. The definition made by Rapoport (1970) essentially focused on the concept of
collaboration and the aims of action research. In addition to the two aims of action research
highlighted by Rapoport (1970), Susman and Evered (1978) have added a third aim of action
research, that is to develop the self help competencies of people facing problems. Interestingly,
with the addition of this third aim the definition has characterised contemporary action research
more precisely.

The practice of action research can be said to be a cyclical inquiry process which helps to
identify the problem, to plan for action executing the action plan and to evaluate the results there
off. However, it can be argued here that evaluation may lead to another cycle of the above
activities. In this cyclical inquiry process the researcher and the client works in close
collaboration. Put it in the other way, in action research, the research "subjects" have an active
part like co-researchers.

The methodology of action research is somewhat different from other research methods where
the research "subjects" do not participate in the research process in the sense of having a say in
the process. As we have already mentioned two of the main aims of action research are to solve
real organisational problems, and to develop self help competencies in organisational members,
hence those who experience or "own" the real problems must be actively involved in the action
research. In fact, it is the organisational member who have the specific knowledge of the
problems, who must finally live with the changes made, so it is necessary that the organisation
must be directly involved.

The entire process of collaboration and co-enquiry take place at each stage of the action research
process (Gill and Johnson, 1991). Even though different action research projects may have either
the client or the researcher taking the initiative or regulating at any one stage, collaboration and
co-inquiry is accomplished when there is a mutual agreement at each stage of the action research
sequence. It is only through this way that real problems are clearly identified, the action plan
implemented the way it is intended, valid data collected, the effectiveness of the outcome
correctly evaluated, and self-determination capabilities developed. If developing self-help
competencies is a goal, then the organisational members must learn how to make sense of their
own data in terms of their own language and in relation to their own perception and values
(Elden and Chisholm, 1993). Hence, we can say that their direct involvement is crucial.

It is evident from the above discussion that action research has a unique nature in the sense that
the action researcher becomes involved first hand in action research. It is an essential pre-
condition for any action research that the action researcher must develop close relationships with
the organisational members and must thoroughly understood the organisational system
beforehand. Shani and Pasmore (1985) have argued that it is only through intimate first hand
knowledge that the researcher can make appropriate suggestions which provide the foundation
for a better understanding for the findings of his evaluation. In action research, the first hand
role of the researcher essentially enhances the collaborative type of element in it. It is the first
hand role behaviour such as empathetic understanding, taking the role of the other and non-
directive interviewing that are the key elements of success of the action research method (Gill
and Johnson, 1991).

It may be very useful and relevant at this stage to focus on a study of action research approached
by Robert Sommer (1987). Sommer has found the evidence that action research approach have
more favourable results than other approaches in the social sciences. In this study, the surveys
were undertaken in collaboration with a statewide federation of fourteen memorial societies.
Four memorial/co-operative societies were selected for the study, two in the northern portion and
two in the southern portion. For two societies, an action research methodology was used whereby
the societies participated in the survey planning and received both prescriptive results and
technical assistance from the researchers. The other two societies did not participate in planning
and received only descriptive results. Follow up interviews with the societies officers provided
evidence that those societies highly involved in the survey planning and received technical
assistance disseminated and used the results more often, and had more favourable attitudes
towards the researchers than did those societies characterised by low involvement or no
assistance. The researcher found these results supported the efficacy of an action research
approach combining self-survey with technical assistance.
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF ACTION RESEARCH
In order to identify the distinguishing features of action research, several attempts have been
made by many researchers who have analysed the work of action researchers from the view point
of conventional types of social research. Lewin (1947) and subsequent researchers have
conceived 'action research' as a cyclical inquiry process that involves diagnosing a problem
situation, planning action steps and implementing and evaluating outcome. Peter and Robinson
(1984) while analysing relevant action research found that the shared features of action research
are (a) problem focus, (b) action orientation, (c) cyclical process, and (d)
collaboration/participation. Susman and Evered (1978) describes the essential characteristics of
action research as (a) future oriented, (b) collaborative, (c) contributing to system development,
(d) diagnostic, and (e) situational.

In their review of relevant literature, Shani and Bushe (1987) highlighted four key emergent
processes as the salient features of an action research such as (a) the emerging socio-task
system, (b) the co-inquiry process, (c) the integration process, and (d) experimentation process.
On the other hand, Elden and Chisholm (1993) analysed five contemporary action research
cases, and identified (a) contextual focus, (b) purposes and value choice, (c) change base, (d)
participation, and (e) knowledge diffusion, as the five shared features of action research.

From the different views held by different researchers, it can be emphasised that their thought are
not unanimous in their definition of action research and particularly in their methodological
approaches. Nonetheless, all these stand as one when they show that the central features of action
research are collaboration and achievements of its three aims solely through problem focus. As
action research focuses on problems, Susman and Evered (1978) held the opinion that it takes on
an approach that is concerned with the development of action principles or guides that evaluate
actions within organisational contexts. It was further argued by them that action research
" facilitates the developments of 'practices' which provide the action
researcher with know-how such as how to act in un-prescribed non programmed
situations, how to generate organisational self-help , how to establish action
guides where none exist, how to review, revise, redefine the system of which we
are part, how to formulate fruitful metaphors, constructs, and images for
articulating a more desirable future".

(Susman and Evered, 1978)
In addition, the unique feature of action research is that essentially it provides different kind of
epistemological base which helps in achieving its goals in contributing to our knowledge, solving
real problems and enabling organisations to develop self-help competencies (Susman and
Evered, 1978).

THE GAP BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE
The main thrust in this section is to what extent action research can help to overcome the gap
between 'theory' and 'practice'. For the solution of organisational problems, conventional
research has generally failed to assist managers which is called the theory-practice gap. It may be
argued that conventional methods of social research can be criticised as theory focused and
hence, it has a very little value to managers as well as practitioners. Then a question normally
arises why? Thomas (1993) has made a valuable discussion on this issue, and has mentioned
that there are three areas where this lack of integration is visible.

The first point raised by Thomas (1993) is the lack of integration between various social science
disciplines like sociology, psychology, and economics with their different terminologies, theories
and research methods, no wonder they find it difficult to communicate across disciplinary
boundaries. This becomes particularly tangible when we look at the curriculum for management
programmes. On the one hand, subjects like organisational behaviour draw heavily from the
theories of psychology and sociology, and on the other hand, subjects like finance and
accounting rely heavily on the theoretical foundations of econometrics, economics, mathematics,
and operational research, and it is not unusual to find, would be managers specialising in one or
few functional areas as many a time paying very inadequate attention to particular disciplines.
This continues on their jobs as well, because of higher level of specialisation involved in the
nature of jobs. Thomas (1993) has made it clear that why most of the time managers question the
utility of social science in practice.

The second point raised by Thomas (1993) is that the problem faced by managers and the
problem addressed by social scientists do not match. In the third point Thomas (1993) argues that
there is a lack of social integration between social scientists and managers. The requirements of
social scientists and managers are different. Social scientists live in their academic world with
different career interests and have got preferences for making contributions to knowledge, while
managers live in the world of business and industry with different career interests and desires. In
spite of this, managers are facing the pressure of competition in the fast growing modern
business and industry world, and sometimes short perspective of the situation.

In practice, these the above mentioned difficulties are responsible for limited acceptance and
utilisation of social sciences. However, action research approach provides the opportunity to
overcome these difficulties for the client organisation, as s/he works closely with the client. Due
to its participatory nature and directly addressing the organisational problems, action research
has the potential to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Through action research
approach, action researcher has to keep his or her academic goals in mind as well as to do
something useful.

According to Susman and Evered (1978), as a social science, the aim of action research is not
formulation of universal laws, but to focus situation specific insights. The action researcher
intervenes the problem situation for improving the self-help action taking competencies of the
individuals as well as to facilitate learning at the level of the organisation. The purpose of action
research is to advance theories about the new organisation and the range process that produced it
(Walten and Gaffney, 1989).

Baburgo and Ravn (1992) has criticises action research on the ground that the relation between
practical knowledge and scientific knowledge produced through action research is not clear.
It is very difficult to say whether action research is a synthesis of action and research or a
mere juxtaposition of action and research. These researchers provided a new concept of scientific
organisational knowledge which can be produced through what they called 'normative action
research'. They introduced three closely related normative planning approaches, which they
argue may serve as a new basis for scientific knowledge of organisational research. These three
approaches are (a) the concepts of 'active adaptive planning' proposed by Emery and Trist
(1972); (b) 'normative planning' proposed by Ozbekhan (1970); and (c) 'interactive planning'
proposed by Ackoff (1975). These three approaches share that social action must be guided by
an imagined, desirable future rather than by a fragmented problematic present alone. These
approaches are quite different from conventional planning approaches in which the future is
mere extension and extrapolating of present and past.

Normative planning process takes the future as the starting point. It encourages the stakeholders
of the system to question the self-imposed constraints and assumptions as well as transcend the
conventional definitions of what is possible and realistic and engage in creating more desirable
state of affairs. The question is what has normative planning approaches with explicit futures
orientation got to do with action research? This question have been answered by Susman and
Evered (1978) as follows:
"Action Research is future oriented. In dealing with practical concerns of the
people, action research is oriented toward creating a more desirable future for
them. Human beings are therefore recognised as purposeful systems the actions of
which are guided by goals, objectives and ideas. Being future oriented, action
research has close affinities to the planning process, so that planning research
may be potentially useful in informing action research and vice versa".
(Susman and Evered, 1978)

From the above discussion, it is evident that action research possesses some unique properties to
bridge the gap between theory and practice. We have identified certain reasons for theory
practice gap and if each one is evaluated against the properties of action research, one may be
able to determine the extent to which it can overcome the theory-practice gap.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW ABOUT ACTION RESEARCH
It has been argued by several researchers that from the epistemological point of view action
research is not scientific, which is a clear contradiction of the principles of positivism and
empiricism (Schon, 1983; Elden and Chisholm, 1993; and Susman and Evered, 1978). If social
science is to be held by the principles of positivism, then action research cannot contribute to
knowledge and thus will be incapable to achieve one of its aims. If action research can be
accepted as a kind of science with a different epistemological base, that is capable of producing a
kind of knowledge which is contingent in the particular situation, and which develops the
capacity of members of the organisation to solve their own problems (Susman and Evered,
1978) then action research is acceptable to bridge the gap between theory and practice.

Whereas, Karapin (1986) argued that "it is less certain that social science researchers actually
use positivists methodologies in their work", Elden and Chisholm (1993) supported the view of
Susman and Evered (1978) when they defined action research as an enabling science. Further,
since action research is based on change, there is no other science that can better study
change which is a continuous and unpredictable phenomenon in an organisation. Apart from
this, social science has failed to address whole practical problems. Action research attempts to
enhance knowledge that is grounded on the real world problems, and real problems are not
grounded on a single discipline. As such the emphasis is on getting the manager to define the
problem, agree on an appropriate framework, decide and implement a change strategy to make
himself reliant. In order to do so, it is important that one should be able to view the problem from
the angle of the various disciplines. Participative and collaborative work promotes this and
hence, action research does help to overcome the gap between theory and practice.

Another problem is the 'interesting study acceptable to the specific community' which expects to
exist until the concept of 'practice generates theory' becomes acceptable to the social scientists.
Finally, there is a lack of social integration between social scientists and managers, which seems
to continue for an equally long time. The soothing point is that collaboration in action research
forces mental agreement and mutual education at every stage of the process between the social
scientists and the managers. This has greatly enhanced communication between the two and
promotes the bridging between theory practice gap.

It may be emphasised here that collaboration is not an easily achievable phenomenon as many
factors can hinder such collaborations. Ethical issues may arise, one may attempt to control the
other, change being a new experience may cause partnerships to fall apart, and the social
scientists and the managers has always set different priorities to the two main aims of action
research. In such a situation, one may argue that though action research may help to overcome
the gap between the theory and practice, it may be a difficult process to achieve.

CONCLUSIONS
In essence, action research focuses on the collaboration to bring change in an organisation and
to solve real problems faced by organisation. Organisations are always in a dynamic state with an
ever-changing environment to their problems. Hence, the most significant contribution of action
research is not to solve an immediate problem, but to facilitate the development of self-help
competencies so that the organisational members are able to continue the cyclical process of
action research even after the social scientists has left the scene. This would be the greatest
contribution the social scientists can make to bridge the theory practice gap.

All organisations have important problems to solve and opportunities for significant
improvements. The task of action researcher is to refine and improve the generalisability of the
theory, which encourages others. Research opportunities have been made available to
researcher, which would probably not, otherwise, have come to light. Professionals have been
able to work with academic researchers and vice versa with the objective of, mutually, satisfying
their goals.

The action research methodology is particularly helpful when the certainties of the past and the
present cannot be assumed to hold true for the future, and searching for causal links in the past
may shed light on the reality of the future. Despite various stages of action research which
evolve working closely with the client system, the researcher has to try and keep his/her
academic goals in mind as well as deliver something useful to the client system. Although the
action researcher faces some dilemmas, it is not an unusual issue in social science research only;
it is there in the natural science as well. Looking at the potential of action research to reduce the
gap between knowledge and action, the dilemmas needs to be faced and action research needs to
be encouraged. As a matter of fact there is a need for a bridge to link the knowledge producing
action research and the application of that knowledge. Action research methodology can be that
bridge, perhaps standing on epistemological pillars which is different from those supporting the
positivist methodologies.


REFERENCES

Ackoff, R. L. Redesigning the Future, New York: Wiley, 1974.

Argyris, C and D. A. Schon.: Participatory action research and action science compared: a
commentary. American Behavioral Scientist, 1989, 32, 612-623.

Baburoglu, O. N. and I. Ravn: Normative Action Research. Oganisational Studies, 1992, 13, 19-
34.

Coch, L., and French J. R. Overcoming Resistance to Change. Human Relations,1948, 1, 512-
532.

Cock, C. de. Action Research: In Search Of A New Epistemology? International Journal of
Management,1994, 11, 791-797.

Cook, S. W. Introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 1949, 5, 2-4.

Elden, M. and Chisholm, R. F. Emerging Varieties of Action Research: Introduction to the
Special Issue, Human Relations, 1993, 46, 121-142.

Emery, F., and Trist, E. Towards a Social Ecology. London: Plenum, 1972.

Emery, F., and Thorsrud, E. (1976), Democracy at Work. Leiden, the Netherlands: Nijhoff.

Gill, J. and Johnson, P. Research Methods for Managers, London: Paul Chapman, 1991..

Gill, J. Research as Action: An Experiment in Utilising the Social Sciences, Personnel Review,
1982, 11(2), 25-34.

Greenwood, D. J., Whyte, W. F. and Harkavy, I. Participatory Action Research as a Process and
as a Goal, Human Relations, 1993, 40 (2), 175-191.

Karapin, R. S. What is the Use of Social Science? A Review of the Literature, in F. Heller (ed.),
The use and abuse of social science, 236-265, London: Sage, 1986.

Lewin, K. Action research and minority problems, Journal of Social Issues, 1946, 2, 34 -46.

Lewin, K. Frontiers in group dynamics, Human Relations, 1947, 1(5), 143-153.

Ozbekhan, H. Towards a General Theory Planning, in Perspective of Planning, E. Jantsch (ed.),
111-125. Paris: O.E.C.D, 1970.

Palmer, P. J., and Jacobson, E. Action-research: A new style of politics, education and ministry,
New York: National Council of Churches, 1971.

Peters, M., and Robinson, V. The Origins and Status of Action Research, Journal of Applied
Behavioural Science, 1984, 20, 113-124.

Rapoport, R. N. (1970), Three Dilemmas in action research, Human Relations, 1970, 23, 488-
513.

Rice, K. The experimental reorganization of non automatic weaving in an Indian Mill, Human
Relations, 1955, 8 (3), 199-249.

Schon, D. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books, 1983.

Shani, A. B. and Bushe, G. Visionary Action Research: A Consultation Perspective.
Consultation, 1987, 6(1), 3-19.

Shani, A. B.and Pasmore, W. A. Organisational Enquiry: Towards a New Model of the Action
Research Process, in D. Warwick, (ed.), Contemporary Organisation development.
Glenview, Illions: Scott Foresman, 1985.

Sommer, R.(1987), An Experimental Investigation Of Action Research Approach, The Journal
of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 185-199.

Susman, G. I, and Evered, R. D. An Assessment Of The Scientific Merits Of Action Research,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 582-603.

Thomas, A. B. Controversies In Management, London: Routledge, 1993.

Walton, R. E. and Graffiney, M. E. Research action, and participation: the merchant shipping
case, American Behavioral Scientist, 1989, 32 (5), 612-623.

Wilson, A. T. M., Trist, E.L. and Curl, A. A Transitional communities and social reconnections:
A study of civil resettlement of British prisoners of war, in N. E. G. Swanson, T. M.
Newcombe, and E. L. Heartley (Eds.), Readings in social Psychology (second ed.), 561-
579, New York: Holt, 1952.
REFERENCES

Ackoff, R. L Redesigning the future, New York: Wiley, 1974.

Argyris, C and D. A. Schon.: Participatory action research and action science compared: a
commentary. American Behavioral Scientist 32 (May/June, 1989): 612-623.

Baburoglu, O. N. and I. Ravn: Normative Action Research. Oganisational Studies 13 (1992): 19-
34.

Coch, L., and J. R. French: Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations 1 (1948): 512-
532.

Cock, C. de. : Action Research: In Search Of A New Epistemology? International Journal of
Management 11 (1994): 791-797.

Cook, S. W. (1949). Introduction. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 5, pp. 2-4.

Elden, M. and R. F. Chisholm (1993), Emerging Varieties of Action Research: Introduction to
the Special Issue, Human Relations, Vol. 46, pp. 121-142.

Emery, F., and Trist, E (1972) Towards a Social Ecology. London: Plenum.

Emery, F., and E. Thorsrud (1976), Democracy at work. Leiden, the Netherlands: Nijhoff.

Gill, J. and Johnson, P.(1991), Research Methods for Managers, Paul Chapman, London.

Gill, J.(1982), Research as Action: An Experiment in Utilising the Social Sciences, Personnel
Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 25-34.

Greenwood, D. J., Whyte, W. F. and Harkavy, I (1993), Participatory Action Research as a
Process and as a Goal, Human Relations, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 175-191.

Karapin, R. S.(1986), What is the Use of Social Science? A Review of the Literature, in F.
Heller (ed.), The use and abuse of social science, Sage London, pp. 236-265.

Lewin, K (1946), Action research and minority problems, Journal of Social Issues, 2, pp.34 -
46.

Lewin, K (1947), Frontiers in group dynamics, Human Relations, Vol. 1, No.5, pp.143-153.

Ozbekhan, H (1970) Towards a General Theory Planning in Perspective of Planning, E.
Jantsch (ed.) pp. 111-125. Paris: O.E.C.D.

Palmer, P. J., and Jacobson, E. (1971). Action-research: A new style of politics, education and
ministry, New York: National Council of Churches.

Peters, M., and V. Robinson (1984), The Origins and Status of Action Research, Journal of
Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 20, pp. 113-124.

Rapoport, R. N. (1970), Three Dilemmas in action research, Human Relations, Vol. 23, pp.
488-513.

Rice, K. (1955), The experimental reorganization of non automatic weaving in an Indian Mill,
Human Relations, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 199-249.

Schon, D. (1983) The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Shani, A. B. and Bushe, G. (1987) Visionary action research: A consultation perspective.
Consultation. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 3-19.

Shani, A. B.and W. A. Pasmore (1985), Organisational Enquiry: Towards a New Model of the
Action Research Process, in D. Warwick, (ed.), Contemporary Organisation
development. Glenview, Illions: Scott Foresman.

Sommer, R.(1987), An Experimental Investigation Of Action Research Approach, The Journal
of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 185-199.

Susman, G. I, and R. D. Evered (1978), An Assessment Of The Scientific Merits Of Action
Research, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 582-603.

Thomas, A. B.(1993), Controversies In Management, Routledge, London.

Walton, R. E. and Graffiney, M. E. (1989) Research action, and participation: the mechant
shipping case., American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp 612-623.

Wilson, A. T. M., E.L. Trist and A. Curl (1952), A Transitional communities and social
reconnections: A study of civil resettlement of British prisoners of war, in N. E. G.
Swanson, T. M. Newcombe, and E. L. Heartley (Eds.), Readings in social Psychology
(second ed.), New York: Holt, pp. 561-579.