An assessment of the scientific merits of action research

Journal title STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI
Author/s Gerald I. Susman, Roger D. Evered
Publishing Year 2023 Issue 2022/2
Language English Pages 27 P. 135-161 File size 343 KB
DOI 10.3280/SO2022-002006
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

This article describes the deficiencies of positivist science for generating knowledge for use in solving problems that members of organizations face. Action research is introduced as a method for correcting these deficiencies. When action research is tested against the criteria of positivist science, action research is found not to meet its critical tests. The appropriateness of positivist science is questioned as a basis for judging the scientific merits of action research. Action research can base its legitimacy as science in philosophical traditions that are different from those which legitimate positivist science. Criteria and methods of science appropriate to action research are offered.

  1. Ackoff, Russell, and F. E. Emery (1972) On Purposeful Systems. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
  2. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958) Intention. Oxford: Blackwell.
  3. Barrett, William (1958) Irrational Man. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
  4. Bateson, Gregory (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.
  5. Bergson, Henri (1911) Creative Evolution. New York: MacMillan.
  6. Bernstein, Richard J. (1971) Praxis and Action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl- van ia.
  7. Bion, W. R. (1946) “The leaderless group project.” Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 10: 77-81.
  8. Blake, R. R., and J. S. Mouton (1964) The Managerial Grid. Hous- ton: Gulf.
  9. Blau, P. M., and R. A. Schoenherr (1971) The Structure of Organizations. New York: Basic Books.
  10. Blumer, Herbert (1956) “Sociological analysis and the Ivariable.' “ American Sociological Review, 21: 683-690.
  11. Bridger, Harold (1946) “The Northfield experiment.” Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 10: 71-76.
  12. Carnap, Rudolf (1936) “Testability and meaning.” Philosophy of Science, 3: 419-471.
  13. Carnap, Rudolf (1937) “Testability and meaning.” Philosophy of Science, 4: 1-40.
  14. Carnap, Rudolf (1950) Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago.
  15. Cassirer, Ernst (1957) The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, 3: The Phenomenology of Knowledge. Ralph Manheim, trans. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  16. Chein, Isador, Stuart W. Cook, and John Harding (1948) “The field of action re- search.” American Psychologist, 3: 43-50.
  17. Cherns, A. B., P. A. Clark, and W. I. Jenkins (1976) “Action research and the development of the social sciences.” In Alfred W. Clark (ed.), Experimenting with Organizational Life: The Action Research Approach: 33-42. New York: Plenum.
  18. Collier, John (1945) “United States Indian administration as a laboratory of ethnic relations.” Social Re- search, 12: 275-276.
  19. Comte, Auguste (1864) Cours de Philosophie Positive, 2d ed. Paris: Bailliere.
  20. Davis, Louis E., and J. Taylor (eds.) (1972) Design of Jobs. Baltimore: Penguin.
  21. Dray, William (1957) Laws and Explanation in His- tory, chap.5Oxford: University Press.
  22. Duckles, Margaret M., Robert Duckles, and Michael Maccoby (1977) “The process of change at Bolivar.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13: 387-399.
  23. Evered, Roger D. (1976) “A typology of explicative models.” Technological Fore-casting and Social Change, 9: 259-277.
  24. Foster, Michael (1972) “The theory and practice of action research in work organizations.” Human Rela- tions, 25: 529-556.
  25. Friedmann, John (1973) Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning. Gar- den City: Doubleday.
  26. Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1975) Truth and Method. New York: Seabury.
  27. Habermas, Jurgen (1971) Knowledge and Human Inter- ests. Boston: Beacon.
  28. Habermas, Jurgen (1973) Theory and Practice. Boston: Beacon.
  29. Heidegger, Martin (1962) Being and Time. New York: Harper & Row.
  30. Hempel, Carl G. (1950) “Problems and changes in the empiricist criterion of meaning.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 11: 41-63.
  31. Hempel, Carl G. (1965) Aspects of Scientific Explanation, and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press.
  32. Hickson, David J., D. S. Pugh, and Diana C. Phesey (1969) “Operations technology and organization structure: an empirical reappraisal.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 378-397.
  33. Husserl, Edmund (1931) Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Lon- don: Allen and Unwin.
  34. Jaques, Elliott (1951) The Changing Culture of a Factory. London: Tavistock.
  35. Leach, E. R. (1961) Rethinking Anthropology. London: Atholone Press.
  36. Lewin, Kurt (1946) “Action research and minority problems.” Journal of Social Issues, 2: 34-46.
  37. Lewin, Kurt (1951) Field Theory in Social Sciences. New York: Harper.
  38. Luthans, Fred, and R. Kreitner (1975) Organizational Behavior Modification. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
  39. Malcolm, Norman (1964) “Behaviorism as a philosophy of psychology.” In T. W. Wann (ed.), Behaviorism and Phenomenology: 141-155. Chicago: University of C hicago.
  40. Mann, Floyd C. (1957) “Studying and creating change: a means to under- standing social organization.” In Conrad M. Arensberg (ed.), Research in Industrial Human Relations: A Critical Appraisal: 146-167. New York: Harper.
  41. Marrow, Alfred J. (1969) The Practical Theorist. New York: Basic Books.
  42. Marx, Karl (1963) Economic and philosophical manuscripts. In T. B. Botto- more (ed.), Karl Marx: Early Writings: 61-219. New York: McGraw-Hill. (Originally writ- ten in German in 1844.)
  43. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1963) The Structure of Behavior. Alden L. Fisher, trans. Bos- ton: Beacon. (Originally published in French, by Presses Universitaries de France, 1942.)
  44. Nadler, David A. (1977) Feedback and Organization Development: Using Data- Based Methods. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  45. Oquist, Paul (1978) “The epistemology of action research.” Acta Sociologica, 21, 143-163.
  46. Peirce, Charles S. (1955) Philosophical Writings of Peirce. J. Buckler (ed.). New York: Dover.
  47. Perls, Frederick, Ralph F. Hefferline, and Paul Goodman (1965) Gestalt Therapy. New York: Dell. (Originally published 1951.)
  48. Polanyi, Michael (1958) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  49. Popper, Karl (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.
  50. Popper, Karl (1968) Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Harper. (Originally published 1962.)
  51. Radnitsky, Gerard (1970) Contemporary Schools of Metascience. Gateway. (Originally published (1968) by Scandinavian University Books, G6teberg, Sweden.)
  52. Rapoport, Robert N. (1970) “Three dilemmas of action research.” Human Relations, 23, 499-513.
  53. Reinhardt, Kurt F. (1952) The Existential Revolt. New York: Frederick Vugan.
  54. Rice, A. K. (1958) Productivity and Social Organization: The Ahmedabad Experiment. London: Tavis- tock.
  55. Rogers, Carl R. (1961) On Becoming a Person. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
  56. Schacht, Richard (1972) “Husserlian and Heideggerian phenomenology.” Philosophical Studies, 23, 293-314.
  57. Schon, Donald, and C. Argyris (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  58. Schutz, Alfred (1967) The Phenomenology of the Social World. George Walsh and Frederick Lehnert, trans. Evanston: Northwestern University. (Originally published in German in 1932.)
  59. Seashore, Stanley, and David G. Bowers (1964) Changing the Structure and the Functioning of an Organization. Ann Arbor: Survey Re- search Center.
  60. Silverman, David (1971) The Theory of Organizations. New York: Basic Books.
  61. Smuts, Jan C. (1926) Holism and Evolution. New York: Viking:
  62. Sommerhoff, Gert (1969) “The abstract characteristics of living systems.” In F. E. Emery (ed.), Systems Think- ing: 147-202. Baltimore: Penguin.
  63. Susman, Gerald I. (1976) Autonomy at Work: A Sociotechnical Analysis of Participative Management. New York: Praeger.
  64. Torbert, William R. (1972) Learning from Experience: New York: Columbia University Press.
  65. Trist, Eric L. (1976) “Engaging with large-scale systems.” In Alfred W. Clark (ed.), Experimenting with Organizational Life: The Action Research Approach: 43-57. London:
  66. Trist, Eric (1977) “A concept of organizational ecology.” The Australian Journal of Management, 2: 171-175.
  67. Trist, Eric L., Gerald I. Susman, and Grant R. Brown (1977) “An experiment in autonomous working in an American underground coal mine.” Human Relations, 30: 201- 236.
  68. Whitehead, Alfred N. (1929) Process and Reality. Cam-bridge: University Press.
  69. Whyte, William Foote, and Edith L. Hamilton (1964) Action Research for Management. Homewood, IL: Ir- win, Dorsey.
  70. Wilson, A. T. M., E. L. Trist, and A. Curle (1952) “Transitional communities and social reconnection: a study of the civil resettlement of British prisoners of war.” In G. E. Swanson, T. M. New- comb, and E. L. Hartley (eds.), Readings in Social Psychol- ogy, 2d ed: 561-579. New York: Holt.
  71. Vaill, Peter B. (1976) “The expository model of science in organization design.” In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, and D. P. Slevin (eds.), The Management of Organization Design, vol. 1: Strategies and Implementation: 73-88. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.

Gerald I. Susman, Roger D. Evered, An assessment of the scientific merits of action research in "STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI " 2/2022, pp 135-161, DOI: 10.3280/SO2022-002006