Talk:Action research

Article misnamed
The learning method originated by Chris Argyis at MIT was "Action Science" (1 million Google hits), not "Action Research" (4 million Google hits). Both methods seem to use a cyclic learning approach.

The name confusion may have existed for some time, I don't know, but the two domains of systems science seem very different. Action Science seems to be about how to reach deductively reasoned conclusions on how to act, taking a distinctly analytical approach.

"Action Research" is not deductive and deterministic, but inductive and participatory. It's for engaging with environments of independently behaving systems and stake-holders. It was originated by Kurt Lewin and Jacob Moreno asa disciplined method engagement in complex environments, populated by multiple stake-holders and their complex systems of relationships. Many have made major contributions, like Danny Burns, Robert L Flood, Mike Jackson, Gerald Midgley at the University of Hull.

Given the considerable differences I think it would be only proper to try not to confuse them, to mention both but revert to their original names in referring to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfhenshaw (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Geopolitics
Last paragraph of the article:

"Since action research is as much about creating a better life within more effective and just social contexts as it is about discovering true facts and theories, it should not be surprising that it has flourished in Latin America, Northern Europe, India, and Australia as much or more than within university scholarship in the US."

What is the factual basis for this editorializing? Mike 14:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose those are the places that need it most. Shouldn't be hard to survey the number of Action-Research projects underway in different countries. But why bias it with contrast: does the US not want a better life for it's citizens?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.189.176.160 (talk • contribs).

Merger
There are many kinds of action research, I think bringing them to the action research page would make more sense.--Kenneth M Burke 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that video method --the third paragraph of the intro doesn't really fit there. I want to read more about it to see if there is a theory implied. If so it could be moved to the next section. Alternately, we might want to add a section on the way in which technology can support action research. --mriel 07:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. PAR has its own body of literature and support that go far beyond action research. Each article needs to exist on its own. • Freechild   'sup?   15:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But both articles seem to equate the names... Is one a subset of the other? If there is a difference, I think one of the articles should explain what that is. Swooch (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Lewin's model for unfreeze-change-freeze has been heavily criticised. I think the basis of this criticism is that change is a constant agent in the modern organisation, and there may be no chance to get to a frozen state. Sorry, I do not remember citations for this perhaps someone else can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.72.172 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Participatory video
I have re written and renamed this section, mainly a cut and paste from the main Participatory Video page, to highlight the participatory aspect of the process. the previous version read as though don snowden made the video, rather than facilitated the islanders to make their own video. I know little about PV or its relative importance for inclusion in this article.WotherspoonSmith 12:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Participatory action research vs. action research
Is there really a difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maberry (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is it needs to be better defined. I am confused.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   22:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proper sourcing
To the IPs and newly registered editors edit warring over this article: I don't care who is right; I care that the text is properly sourced. Since the material is contentious, that means proper inline cites to neutral third-party sources for every sentence (i.e., not just a vague reference citing book title the subject has written). Please read Citing sources on how to do this. Thank you. -- Neil N  talk to me  07:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and advice!
I will work on finding more citations for Torbert, Barry, and McNiff. You made salient and reasonable requests for proper rigor and I an happy to meet that level of expectation. I am watching the Living theory approach page and am going to attempt to create a new page called living educational theory which is more specific. I hypothesize the unregistered editor who is seeking editing wars to promote this Jack Whitehead fellow will begin editing wars again. Any aid you can provide once I have proposed the page will be deeply appreciated. My personal bias is to demonstrate that Wikipedia is a valid source of knowledge in many regards where many of my colleagues as graduate professors of political science see this view as sophomoric. The students I am honored to teach are doing research projects on the validity and reliability of Wikipedia as a resource. We are currently following the edits of the following editors/users for comparison purposes: 80.47.44.91, User:EricEnfermero, and User:William_M._Connolley. Thank you for your help and being a positive part of our class learning. Have a great week! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustine 2014 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note the Barry and McNiff paragraphs should be trimmed or modified so that the content is related to the topic of the article (Action research) and not read like mini-CV's. -- Neil N  talk to me  21:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism
A lot of the article appears to have been cut and paste from other sources. The language doesn't seem to match the style of most of Wikipedia. The best example is in the article there appears to be included, as part of the text, and APA citation. (Basically, within a parenthesis is an author's name and the year the article was published.) It wouldn't surprise me if the article is based on an undergraduate paper. Is this really what we want in Wikipedia?

Assuming that we do want to start an article by copying a paper, I'd expect (a) that fact to be mentioned in the talk page by the original author and (b) the citations changed to Wikipedia standards.

Sorry, I'm probably being excessively grumpy. --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Action research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614175154/http://www.tandf.co.uk:80/journals/titles/09650792.asp to http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/09650792.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What about Mills as a source
As reading the Wiki I was wondering why I couldn't find Mills in the Sources / Theories section. (see source attached below)

Mills, G. E. (2011). Action Research - A Guide for the Teacher Researcher (4.). Boston: Pearson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D4:DF11:6BF9:CCFB:89C5:15EE:F9F1 (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)