Search results

As the field of action-oriented research becomes increasingly diffuse and diverse, this paper seeks to identify common ground across the multiple modalities of action research and collaborative management research through articulating and exploring a general empirical method that is grounded in the recognizable structure of human knowing. This method is grounded in: attention to observable data (experience), envisaging possible explanations of that data (understanding), and preferring as probable or certain the explanations, which provide the best account for the data (judgment). Engaging this method requires the dispositions to perform the operations of attentiveness, intelligence, and reasonableness, to which responsibility is added when we seek to take action. This paper seeks to provide insight into the multiple modalities of action research and collaborative management research and to illustrate how each modality engages the recognizable operations of human knowing.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a rationale for the epistemological and ontological development of total quality management (TQM) utilising action modalities. The ability to harness and transfer knowledge is a key attribute of research‐led universities, and a factor which is able to bring education and industry into cooperative relationships. However, Imai views that there is a tendency to place too much emphasis on teaching knowledge, whilst disregarding group learning of fundamental values, established through gemba kaizen and through the learning organisation.

Established through the results of a survey of 50 manufacturing companies in the UAE, and based on the andragogical learning concept in both solving a problem and generating new knowledge, this paper investigates a conceptual basis for action learning. The paper offers a rationale for the epistemological and ontological development of total quality management (TQM) utilising action modalities. This reflects the underpinning philosophy of TQM toward the continuous improvement in quality of the organisations' processes, people, products, and services.

The findings of the construct of andragogical gemba establish the robustness of the methodological move from pedagogy to andragogy. The applicability of andragogical gemba being underpinned by the required interaction of democracy and collaboration. The survey of UAE SMEs confirms a lack of engagement within this concept, and recommendations are given to support development.

The paper has been developed within Dubai's socio economic mix, Dubai being a constituent Emirate within a Country where expatriates form approximately 93 per cent of the total workforce population. The transient nature of the workforce produces pressures on the learning organisation, and the context of knowledge transfer and creation.

The purpose of this paper was to explore how the two groups of action learning experts (Korean and non-Korean experts) define success of action learning to see whether there are any cultural differences. To this end, the authors conducted a total of 44 interviews with action learning experts around the world. Research questions guiding our inquiry included: How do action learning experts around the world define the success of action learning? Are there any cultural differences in action learning experts’ definitions of success? What do we learn from action learning experts’ definitions of success?

The authors approached willing participants first and then recruited more participants using a snowball sampling technique by requesting them to help us make contact with additional participants. Due to interview participants’ busy schedule at an international conference and work, individual interviews took approximately 30 min to complete using an interview protocol of 10 questions regarding the definitions of success in action learning.

To answer RQ1 (How do action learning experts around the world define the success of action learning?) and RQ2 (Are there any cultural differences in action learning experts’ definitions of success?), the authors analyzed interview data using a content analysis method. Analysis of interview participants’ narratives generated four themes including: definitions of success in action learning, the context where action learning is being practiced, challenges in action learning practice and the comparison of action learning with other approaches. The authors compared and contrasted cultural differences in the review of non-Korean and Korean experts’ narratives.

The authors presented four significant discussion agendas including: cultural differences, relationships between interview questions, typology of definitions of success and comparing action learning with other approaches. Based on the discussion, the authors presented four propositions, three research questions, two methodological questions and two more questions for cultural differences for future investigation.

To answer RQ3 (What do we learn from action learning experts’ definitions of success?), the authors provided at least three practical implications for action learning practitioners.

Previous studies, using research methods such as Delphi and surveys, have not captured a complete picture of the meaning of success in action learning, and the interview method was used for a small number of experts only. In addition, as action learning originally emerged from the UK and Europe, and Korean companies adopted a US approach to action learning with little effort at indigenization, international comparison studies were called for, so the authors turned to action learning experts around the world to learn how they define success in action learning.

Action learning is a term that is used with a wide range of meanings: from an equivalent term for experiential learning to a philosophy of learning. This chapter takes the latter position and focuses on action learning as a scholarly activity. The chapter has two main sections. In the first part the breadth and depth of action learning is introduced: its variations and applications are discussed. The second part explores how action learning is at the cutting edge of engaging practitioners in real change and at the development of scholar–practitioners and actionable knowledge of how organizations change, how it offers a modality of an action-oriented approach to inquiry that accords with contemporary paradigms of useful and relevant research, its contribution to organization and management theory comes through how critical action learning engages with issues of power and social relations and through its critique of management education.

The main aim of this paper is to develop guidelines on the critical issues to consider in research design in an action research (AR) environment for SME network capability development.

The issues in research design for AR studies are developed from the authors' experience in running learning sets but, in particular, by an SME owner‐manager learning set established to develop and test theory about network capability.

The authors present a comprehensive set of research design issues for AR across seven areas – sampling; the facilitator; learning set interaction; set design; measurement; data collection decisions; and data analysis.

While action research is inherently situational in approach, for those researchers wishing to use it to develop or test theory, the authors' framework will provide a benchmark for research design decisions.

The methodology is ideally suited to knowledge exchange settings and for collecting research data in such contexts and, if used in this way, could be an incentive to encourage more academic engagement with practice. Management and organisational development using AR is often reported on, but rarely in an SME context. The paper provides an example of a study conducted in this setting.

The main contribution of this article is to present an implementation framework for research design using AR. In addition, given policy goals now often require firms to collaborate with each other and in partnership with training organisations and universities, it makes sense to develop a mechanism to enhance the understanding of research methodologies that can be used in these contexts.

In the context of tourism and hospitality studies, the potential of action research for generating robust actionable knowledge has not been yet realized. This chapter provides an account of the theory and practice of action research, demonstrates how it may be designed and implemented, and how it may generate actionable knowledge. It provides illustrative examples and shows how this research approach aligns effectively with some of the themes that currently engage the attention of researchers in the fields of tourism and hospitality such as process improvement, sustainability, and community-based tourism development. Thus, it makes a case for more widespread use of action research in the field.

This chapter argues for the development of a model of tutor/student interaction, applying experiential theory and using a learning community framework to improve the student learning experience and to enhance the quality of course curriculum and content. A further value is the opportunity for students, to ‘find’ potential solutions to workplace problems and, as public sector managers, to challenge and change workplace practices and attitudes.

This chapter explores the practice of using course participants’ own experiences to inform course content and increase the currency and value of teaching and initiates development of what could eventually become a real co-production process.

The chapter applies an experiential approach to education and learning, contending that this could lead to a potential co-production process. It argues that this combined approach is a useful model by which to examine current workplace issues using the professional experiences of course participants.

The chapter advances the argument put forward in ‘Another Look at Research’ (Oldfield, 2016) by placing experiential learning within the context of a co-production approach to the delivery of education and learning and delineating a distinctive pedagogical approach to mid-career education.