Search results

This article seeks to draw out some of the principles and concepts of action research in order to better inform student work based learning. After an introduction that explains the application of action research to work based learning, the article explores the essence of action research. The action research cycle and the notion of meta learning are introduced. A section on taking action research forward addresses pragmatic issues such as: journal keeping, managing role duality, and managing politics and ethics. Finally suggestions are offered for writing an action research dissertation or work based project report.

Reflecting on 25 years of collaborating in action learning research initiatives in interorganizational settings, the authors have framed three key theoretical contributions: (1) a formula for action learning in networks, (2) the notion of action learning research, and (3) the application of action learning research in networks. This chapter reviews how each of these three key theoretical contributions emerged as insights and were developed over time through three large-scale funded interorganizational action learning projects. The chapter provides insights into the process of theorizing as the authors show how these frameworks emerged through inquiry into experience and were consolidated through collaborative action as practice-based research, research as practice, and practice as research toward designed-in impact.

The purpose of this paper is to propose an integrated model of action learning based on an examination of four reviewed action learning models, definitions, and espoused outcomes.

A clear articulation of the strengths and limitations of each model was essential to developing an integrated model, which could be applied to Lynham's general method of theory‐building research in applied disciplines. The paper examined common themes according to the model structure, methods, and methodologies. The four models selected for this review were Gregory's Group Action Learning Process Model, Paton's Systemic Action Learning Cycle, Paton's Systemic Action Learning Spiral, and Watkins and Marsick's Continuous Learning Model.

A comparison of the key variations in the definitions of action learning and desired outcomes explained differences in model designs. HRD practitioners need a better understanding of the variables that affect the outcomes of action learning through exploring learning transfer issues and through testing multiple methodologies. Similarly, the integrated model was designed to indicate how change takes place within an organization, dictated by either internal or external factors. A description of the construction of the integrated model is provided.

Owing to the disconnect between the conceptual development and application phases of theory‐building research, more empirical evidence is needed to support the connection between action learning models and methodologies and desired outcomes. The integrated model was designed from a systems perspective with particular emphasis on soft systems in the problem and analysis phases to illustrate the role of organizational modeling of the relationships among members, processes, and the internal and external environment. HRD practitioners could re‐examine their decision making, particularly in approaching large‐scale change. HRD practitioners could document their specific approaches to action learning, including a combination of action research methods and soft systems methodologies. A comparison of outcomes versus the methodologies could be made.

The objective of the integrated action learning model is to improve decision making related to facilitating change from an HRD perspective, given the theories and principles underlying each model. The integrated model could serve as the basis for gaining new knowledge about critical systems theory and action research as it relates to action learning and change facilitation. It is the paper's intent that the proposed integrated model will spur further theory‐building research in employing action learning as an organizational change intervention.

This paper is an edited version of an interview that presents information and insight into the background of ALARPM (action learning, action research and process management) not only as a field but also as a worldwide network association, thus facilitating understanding of the evolution and nature of these three concepts. The interviewee’s responses reflect her personal perspective, informed by both life experience and a theoretical framework that conceives of ALARPM first as a philosophy, a theory of learning and a methodology, and second as a method and technique.

Defines “action research” and “action learning” as forms of emancipatory and democratic learning, and describes their use as a model of professional development which empowers the individual as both learner and critically reflective social researcher. Some of the issues in developing an accreditation programme for action research at master′s level are discussed and a number of areas are identified for further research based around an action research Master of Arts degree in human resource strategy. Suggests that the notion of continuing professional development and professional fellowship can be delivered and accredited within the higher education system, using practitioner‐centred and problem‐solving approaches and the idea is promoted that the methodological use of action research in professional development is a means by which the divide between academia and industry‐based practitioner experience can be bridged.

This chapter describes the change efforts and action research projects at a Dutch multinational which, over a period of 25 years, produced in one of its businesses a zigzag path toward collaborative leadership dynamics at the horizontal and vertical interfaces. The chapter also identifies the learning mechanisms that helped achieve this transformation. Changing the patterns at the vertical interfaces proved to be a most tricky, complex, and confusing operation. The data show that organizations need hierarchical interfaces between levels, but are hindered by the hierarchical leadership dynamics at these interfaces. The data furthermore show that competitive performance requires more than redesigning horizontal interfaces. A business can only respond with speed and flexibility to threats and opportunities in the external environment when the leadership dynamics at agility-critical vertical interfaces are also changed.

Since 1973, the pharmacy operations division of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program (KPMCP) has used long-term action research programs as the principal method for orchestrating change. This chapter covers the evolution of action research theory within large, complex organizations, with particular attention to health care organizations. Four case examples from KPMCP are discussed in depth and mapped to the recently advanced Roth model of insider action research. This model considers external and internal business context, the perceived need to create new organizational capabilities, as well as insider action research theory and learning mechanisms used in change programs. Issues posed by the Roth model are explored, and new theory is advanced regarding the need for a long-term perspective, the advantages and difficulties posed when managers act as insider action researchers, and the quality of data gathering that takes place during insider action research change programs.

This chapter describes two change efforts involving participatory action research within the pharmacy operations division of Kaiser Permanente. Focus is on a parallel learning mechanism that has been used to support communications and change during two large-scale information technology interventions. It begins with basic background information on participatory action research in organizations. Since the case setting is Kaiser Permanente, the chapter provides some information on the U.S. healthcare industry context and then shifts to Kaiser’s communication forum, a learning mechanism that has been in place for 35 years. Cognitive, structural, and procedural aspects of the learning mechanism are explored, and the chapter features interviews with some of the key forum players. Both in the forum’s infancy and in its current more institutionalized state, the pharmacy organization has been in crisis. Implications for the use of parallel learning structures on a long-term basis to support long-term participatory action research are explored along with contributions to theory on insider/outsider action research.