Abstract
The objectiveof this paper is to provide “practitioner researchers” with insights into the initial findings around the challenges of conducting “business action research in practice” in “commercial” settings on the basis of experiences of a PhD cohort at Monash University in the first 18 months of candidature. In performing the role of a concluding paper, it sets out a generic framework for action research that the cohort has come to embrace. In doing so, it draws on emergent themes spread across the six diverse topics that are the subject of action research interventions of the cohort members. The paper then identifies and analyses the common patterns that have emerged and offers observations and conclusions for those involved in practitioner research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Checkland, P., and Howell, S. (1998). Information, Systems, and Information Systems, Wiley, Chichester, NY.
Checkland, P. B., and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester, NY.
Coghlan, D., and Brannick, T. (2001). Doing Action Research in Your OwnOrganization, Sage, London.
Fine, C. (1998). Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage, Perseus Books, London.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformation theory of adult learning. In Welton, M. (ed.), In Defence of the Lifeworld. Critical Perspectives on Adult Learning, SUNY, pp. 39-70.
Nonaka, I., and Konno, N. (1998). The concept of ‘Ba’: Building a foundation for knowledge creation, Calif. Manage. Rev. 40(3), 40-54.
Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.) (2001). Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage, London.
Schrage, M. (2000). Serious Play, HBS Press, Boston, MA.
Senge, P., and Scharmer, O. (2001). Community action research. In Bradbury, H., and Reason, P. (eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage, Lodon, pp. 238-249.
West, D., and Stansfield, M. H. (2001). Structuring action research and reflection in information systems action research studies using Checkland's FMA Model. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 14(3), 251-281.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sarah, R., Haslett, T., Molineux, J. et al. Business Action Research in Practice—A Strategic Conversation About Conducting Action Research in Business Organizations. Systemic Practice and Action Research 15, 535–546 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021068805269
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021068805269