Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 523–536 | Cite as

Creating Action Research Quality in Organization Development: Rigorous, Reflective and Relevant

  • David CoghlanEmail author
  • A. B. Shani
Original Paper


The purpose of the paper is to present a framework that enables action researchers to create quality action research projects within the organization development (OD) domain using the broad criteria of being rigorous, reflective and relevant and so contribute to the realm of practical knowing. What constitutes good quality action research within OD is a difficult question, given the broad range of approaches that operates in a wide variety of settings and with great diversity. It advances specific dimensions by which action researchers can create, review and assess quality in action research work. This integrative framework and criteria are practical tools to enable action researchers to create quality action research in OD.


Action research Organization development Quality creation Practical knowing 


  1. Argyris C (2004) Reasons and rationalizations. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartunek JM, Woodman RW (2012) The spirits of organization development, or why OD lives despite its pronounced death. In: Cameron KS, Spreitzer GM (eds) The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradbury H, Mirvis P, Neilsen E, Pasmore WA (2008) Action research at work: creating the future following the path from Lewin. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of action research, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnes B, Cooke B (2012) The past, present and future of organization development: taking the long view. Hum Relat 65:1395–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bushe GR, Marshak R (2009) Revisioning organization development: diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. J Appl Behav Sci 45:248–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cassell C, Johnson P (2006) Action research: explaining the diversity. Hum Relat 59:783–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandler D, Torbert WR (2003) Transforming inquiry an action: interweaving 27 flavors of action research. Action Res 1:133–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cirella S, Guerci M, Shani (Rami) AB (2012) A process model of collaborative management research: the study of collective creativity in the luxury industry. Syst Pract Action Res 25:281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coghlan D (2009) Toward a philosophy of clinical inquiry/research. J Appl Behav Sci 45:106–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coghlan D (2010) Seeking common ground in the diversity and diffusion of action research and collaborative management research action modalities: toward a general empirical method. In: Pasmore WA, Shani (Rami) AB, Woodman RW (eds) Research in organization change and development, vol 18. Emerald, BrinkleyGoogle Scholar
  11. Coghlan D (2011) Action research: exploring perspective on a philosophy of practical knowing. Acad Manag Ann 5:53–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coghlan D (2012) Organization development and action research: then and now. In: Boje D, Burnes B, Hassard J (eds) The Routledge companion to Organizational change. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  13. Coghlan D, Brannick T (2010) Doing action research in your own organization, 3rd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Coghlan D, Shani (Rami) AB (2005) Roles, politics and ethics in action research design. Syst Pract Action Res 18:533–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coghlan D, Shani (Rami) AB (2013) Organization-development research interventions: perspectives from action research and collaborative management research. In: Skipton H, Lewis R, Freedman A, Passmore J (eds) The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of leadership, change and organization development. John Wiley & Sons, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Dick B, Stringer E, Huxham C (2009) Theory in action research. Action Res 7:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eden C, Huxham C (2006) Researching organizations using action research. In: Clegg S, Hardy C, Lawrence T, Nord W (eds) The Sage handbook of organization studies. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  18. French W, Bell C (1999) Organization development, 6th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  19. Hildrum J, Strand CL (2007) Overcoming challenges to writing about action research—the promise of the development story. Syst Pract Action Res 20:77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klev R, Levin M (2012) Participative transformation learning and development in practicing change. Gower, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  21. Levin M (2012) Academic integrity in action research. Action Res 10:133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lonergan BJ (1992) Insight: an essay in human understanding. In: Crowe F, Doran R (eds) The collected works of Bernard Lonergan, vol 3. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  23. McArdle K, Reason P (2008) Action research and organization development. In: Cummings TG (ed) The Sage handbook of organization development. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  24. Meynell H (1998) Redirecting philosophy: reflections on the nature of knowledge from Plato to Lonergan. Toronto University Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  25. Pasmore WA (2001) Action research in the workplace: the socio-technical perspective. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The Sage handbook of action research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Pasmore WA, Friedlander F (1982) An action research program for increasing employee involvement in problem solving. Adm Sci Q 27:343–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pasmore WA, Woodman R, Simmons AL (2008) Toward a more rigorous, reflective, and relevant science of collaborative management research. In: Shani (Rami) AB, Mohrman SA, Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Adler N (eds) Handbook of collaborative management research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  28. Peters M, Robinson V (1984) The origins and status of action research. J Appl Behav Sci 20:113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Putnam H (1978) Meaning and the moral sciences. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Reason P (2006) Choice and quality in action research practice. J Manag Inq 15:187–203Google Scholar
  31. Reason P, Bradbury H (2008) The Sage handbook of action research, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reason P, Torbert WR (2001) The action turn: toward a transformational social science. Concepts Transform 6:1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schein EH (1989) Organization development: science, technology or philosophy? MIT Sloan School of Management working paper, No. 3065-89-BPS. [Reproduced in: Coghlan D, Shani (Rami) AB Fundamentals of organization development, vol 1. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Schein EH (1995) Process consultation, action research and clinical inquiry: are they the same? J Manag Psychol 10(6):14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schein EH (1997) Organizational learning. What is new? In: Rahim MA, Golembiewski RT, Pate LE (eds) Current topics in management, vol 2. JAI Press, GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  36. Shani (Rami) AB, Bushe GR (1987) Visionary action research: a consultation process perspective. Consultation 6:3–19Google Scholar
  37. Shani (Rami) AB, Docherty P (2003) Learning by design. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Shani (Rami) AB, Pasmore WA (1985) Organization inquiry: towards a new model of the action research process. In: Warrick DD (ed) Contemporary organization development: current thinking and applications. Scott Foresman and Company, Glenview. [Reproduced in Coghlan D, Shani (Rami) AB (eds) (2010) Fundamentals of organization development, vol 1, Sage, London]Google Scholar
  39. Stebbins MW, Snow CC (1982) Processes and payoffs of programmatic action research. J Appl Behav Sci 18:69–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Toulmin S (1990) Cosmopolis: the hidden agenda of modernity. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  41. Walker B, Haslett T (2002) Action research in management-ethical dilemmas. Syst Pract Action Res 15:523–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessTrinity CollegeDublinIreland
  2. 2.Orfalea College of BusinessCalifornia Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis ObispoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Management, Economic & Industrial EngineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations