Advertisement

Action Research as a Viable Methodology in Entrepreneurship Research

  • Christian SchultzEmail author
  • Dana Mietzner
  • Frank Hartmann
Chapter
Part of the FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship book series (FGFS)

Abstract

Although the roots of action research trace back to the works of Kurt Lewin throughout the 1940s, there exists a great nescience concerning this methodology. This is largely due to a kind of Babylonian confusion where, depending on the literature stream, small differences result in new labeling and inconsistent usage of definitions across the methodological derivatives. However, the core action research approach has the potential to derive pioneering research results. In entrepreneurship research, the understanding of complex phenomenon through retrospective sense-making with self-reporting instruments has its inherent limitations. Action research through its real-time assessment by a researcher who is involved in the ongoing process and plans frequent learning circles, can result in superior research results. To reach this goal, the action researcher needs to follow specific rules and procedures in his or her research endeavor. The acquisition of individual social research skills is essential as they directly influence the results’ quality.

Keywords

Action research Entrepreneurship research Innovative methods Research methodology 

References

  1. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain-Smith, D. (1982). Action science: Concepts: methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Babüroglu, O. N., & Ravn, I. (1992). Normative action research. Organization Studies, 13(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskerville, R. L. (1999). Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of AIS, 3(2), 2–31.Google Scholar
  4. Baskerville, R. L., & Lee, A. S. (1999). Distinctions among different types of generalizing in information systems research. In O. Ngwenyama, L. D. Introna, M. D. Myers, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), New information technologies in organizational processes (Vol. 20, pp. 49–65). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloodgood, J., Hornsby, J. S., Burkemper, A. C., & Sarooghi, H. (2015). A system dynamics perspective of corporate entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cassell, C., & Johnson, P. (2006). Action research: Explaining the diversity. Human Relations, 59(6), 783–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Action research: Its nature and validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (2007). Action research: Its nature and validity. In N. Kock (Ed.), Information systems action research: An applied view of emerging concepts and methods (pp. 3–17). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coghlan, D., Coughlan, P., & Brennan, L. (2004). Organizing for research and action: Implementing action researcher networks. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17(1), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawford, G. C., & Kreiser, P. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: Extending the integrative framework through the lens of complexity science. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 403–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crook, T., Shook, C., Morris, M. L., & Madden, T. M. (2010). Are we there yet? An assessment of research design and construct measurement practices in entrepreneurship research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 192–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dash, D. P. (1997). Problems of action research—as I see it (Working Paper No. 14). Lincoln School of Management, University of Lincolnshire and Humberside.Google Scholar
  13. Davison, R., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14(1), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeLuca, D., Gallivan, M. J., & Kock, N. (2008). Furthering information systems action research: A post-positivist synthesis of four dialectics. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(2), 48–72.Google Scholar
  15. Gedajlovic, E., Honig, B., Moore, C. B., Payne, G. T., & Wright, M. (2013). Social capital and entrepreneurship: A schema and research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 455–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (Vol. 5019). New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  17. Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greckhamer, T., & Koro‐Ljungberg, M. (2005). The erosion of a method: Examples from grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(6), 729–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenman, A. (2013). Everyday entrepreneurial action and cultural embeddedness: An institutional logics perspective. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 25(7–8), 631–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenwood, D. (1993). Participatory action research as a process and as a goal. Human Relations, 46(2), 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gummesson, E. (2006). Qualitative research in management: Addressing complexity, context and persona. Management Decision, 44(2), 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hindle, K. (2004). Choosing qualitative methods for entrepreneurial cognition research: A canonical development approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(6), 575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang, H. B. (2010). What is good action research? Why the resurgent interest? Action Research, 8(1), 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaplan, R. S. (1998). Innovation action research: Creating new management theory and practice. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10(1), 89–118.Google Scholar
  25. Kuckertz, A., & Mandl, C. (2013). Neue Themen, neue Methoden? Ergebnisse einer weltweiten Umfrage des FGF-Arbeitskreises Entrepreneurshipforschung. Zeitschrift für KMU & Entrepreneurship, 61(4), 333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leitch, C. (2007). An action research approach to entrepreneurship. In H. Neergaard & J. P. Ulhøi (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship (pp. 144–168). Cheltenham: Northampton.Google Scholar
  27. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 197–211). New York: Hartley, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  29. McKelvey, B. (2004). Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 313–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mellor, N. (2001). Messy method: The unfolding story. Educational Action Research, 9(3), 465–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mietzner, D., & Schultz, C. (2014). Collaborative discovery of technology-driven business opportunities—Lessons learnt from innovation camps. Poster session presented at the G-Forum Conference, Oldenburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  32. Mingers, J. (2006). A critique of statistical modelling in management science from a critical realist perspective: Its role within multimethodology. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(2), 202–219.Google Scholar
  33. Molina-Azorín, J. F., López-Gamero, M. D., Pereira-Moliner, J., & Pertusa-Ortega, E. M. (2012). Mixed methods studies in entrepreneurship research: Applications and contributions. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(5–6), 425–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mumford, E. (2001). Advice for an action researcher. Information Technology and People, 14(1), 12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nagel, A. (1983). Aktionsforschung, Gesellschaftsstrukturen und soziale Wirklichkeit: Zum Problem der Vermittlung von Theorie und Praxis im sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschungsprozess. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
  36. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Riel, M. (2010). Understanding action research. Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 17(1), 89–96.Google Scholar
  38. Sarasvathy, S. D., & Venkataraman, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship as method: Open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schindehutte, M., & Morris, M. H. (2009). Advancing strategic entrepreneurship research: The role of complexity science in shifting the paradigm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 241–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schneider, U. (1980). Sozialwissenschaftliche Methodenkrise und Handlungsforschung. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  41. Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56.Google Scholar
  42. Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). Research methods in entrepreneurship opportunities and challenges. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Unger, H., von Block, M., & Wright, M. T. (2007). Aktionsforschung im deutschsprachigen Raum: Zur Geschichte und Aktualität eines kontroversen Ansatzes aus Public Health Sicht. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
  47. van Burg, E., & Romme, A. G. L. (2014). Creating the future together: Toward a framework for research synthesis in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 369–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Winkler, C. (2014). Toward a dynamic understanding of entrepreneurship education research across the campus–social cognition and action research. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 4(1), 69–93.Google Scholar
  49. Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4), 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang, W., Levenson, A., & Corssley, C. (2015). Move your research from the ivy tower to the board room: A primer on action research for academics, consultants, and business executives. Human Resource Management, 54(1), 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Schultz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dana Mietzner
    • 2
  • Frank Hartmann
    • 2
  1. 1.HWTK—University of Applied SciencesBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Technical University of Applied Sciences WildauWildauGermany

Personalised recommendations