Action Research involves identifying multiple iterations of a research process that has specific steps. Different proponents advocate for different numbers of steps, from three to seven, but the basic structure of the cycle is the same: Design a protocol to collect data on the identified issue, analyze the data to develop a proposed solution, implement the solution and observe the results, reflect on those results to modify your proposed solution, and re-implement until the final solution is found. Planning, Action, Monitoring, and Reflection may seem simple, but the action component combined with an expectation of repetition through multiple cycles delivers a proactive methodological approach that stands apart from the more traditional objective contemplation approach.<\/p>\n
The Temporal Factor<\/h2>\n
Depending on the nature of the issue being addressed, the multiple iterations that characterize an Action Research project can occur within hours, days or weeks. Kurt Lewin, the social psychologist who fled to the United States from Nazi Germany and became one of the founding fathers of this collaborative research methodology, believed that the power of Action Research lay in both the participation of all stakeholders as well as the changing dynamic that reduced the pressure to solve the problem in one study. Multiple attempts, with often the smallest adjustments at each iteration, he believed, could generate positive outcomes much faster than developing a complex model based on multiple hypotheses.<\/p>\n
For this reason, Action Research has become the preferred methodology for onsite real-time research that needs direct input from the stakeholders who are most familiar with the variables of the situation. Rather than bringing in methodological experts who face a sharp learning curve in becoming familiar with the situational specifics, AR simplifies the methodology to facilitate a \u2018trial-and-error\u2019 pursuit of solutions onsite instead of building controlled environments (virtual or otherwise) offsite.<\/p>\n
Limitations and Weaknesses<\/h2>\n
Critics argue that the perceived abandonment of the purity of the Scientific Method<\/a> in order to achieve \u2018quick and dirty\u2019 workable solutions, limits the greater potential of Action Research:<\/p>\n Proponents of Action Research and Participatory Action Research are equally dismissive of the criticism levied at this methodology. The collaborative approach<\/a> combined with an action orientation built around multiple iterations, produces results. It may seem disconcertingly frenzied and amateur in its implementation, but if it works for the situation in which it is utilized, and produces the results that work for that situation, why should it be considered to be any less valid of an approach?<\/p>\n\n
It\u2019s All about the Results<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-generator-for-wp\/admin\/src\/images\/PDF_Tray.svg\" "\\"Generate")
<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"