action research model for change

• Memberships

Action Research model (Lewin)

Action Research model: this article explains the concept of Action Research (AR) , developed by Kurt Lewin in a practical way. It covers what AR is, what steps should be taken, based on the model and example and what conditions should be met. After reading you will understand the basics of this research method. Enjoy reading!

Background of Action Research theory

The German-American professor Kurt Lewin was mainly concerned with child psychology.

He became known for his contributions to “ Gestalt psychology ” and in 1951 he carried out ground breaking research into the way in which human behaviour could be changed towards democratic values and leadership. This is why he is considered to be the founder of Action Research .

What is the Action Research model? The theory

Kurt Lewin ’s approach of Action Research is a research method in which the researcher intervenes in and during the research. This serves two purposes: firstly, according to Kurt Lewin , it will bring about positive change and secondly, knowledge and theory will be generated.

It is important that the researcher acts as a social change expert who helps and encourages employees to change their behaviour towards democratic values and leadership. A cooperation between fundamental and applied research is essential in this.

According to Lewin scientific research is best achieved through cooperation between the researcher (academic) and the people in the work field (practitioners).

The definition of Action Research

The term was first suggested by Kurt Lewin . He described the practice as ‘a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action’ that uses ‘a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of the action’ .

Participatory action research in education

AR is also called Participatory Action Research (PAR). This concerns an individual method of this research method. Other working methods are community-based participatory research and school-wide action research.

Other names for the methodology are action cycle or research cycle . In education, action research refers to various evaluative, investigative, and analytical research methods, which are especially designed to study organizational, academic or educational problems or deficiencies.

In addition, these methods help teachers to develop practical solutions to address the aforementioned problems.

Action Research model and steps, an example of education

It is referred to as a cycle because the method usually consists of a predefined process that is repeated over time. Below is an action research example of what the cycle might look like. The model is aimed at education.

Figure 1 – the steps of action research example in education

1. Selecting focus

The AR-process starts with a reflective action aimed at discerning one or more topics worthy of the teacher’s or researcher’s time. Since different actions and teachers in the classroom are in high demand, all activities should be worthwhile for the researcher.

Therefore, focus selection is considered the first step in the action research process. Focus selection begins with the researcher or team asking questions about which elements of the research benefit practice or learning.

2. Clarifying and establishing theory

The next stage in the AR process is to identify and discern the values, beliefs and theoretical perspectives the researchers have about the focus they have chosen in the first step.

When researchers or teachers are concerned about a particular development in the classroom, it is helpful to first clarify which approach or method would work best. For example, should the teacher set up a reward system? Or should the students experience the consequences of their behavior in a natural way?

3. Identifying research questions

Now that the selection of focus areas has been completed and the perspectives of the researchers or lecturers have been clarified, the next step is to generate research questions that are intended to shape the research.

4. Collecting data

Accurate data and information is important because everyone bases decisions on it. This is also the case for researchers or teachers. Action researchers ensure that the data used to base decisions on is reliable and valid at the same time. Valid in this context means that the information accurately represents and conveys the researchers’ message.

Typically, researchers ensure that they get their information from multiple data sources. Many of them use triangulation. This is a process to increase the reliability and validity of data.

Triangulation is explained as studying or observing an object or information by looking at it from multiple perspectives. This helps a researcher to compare things and look at a topic from multiple angles.

Data collection is one of the trickiest parts of the action research process.

5. Analyzing data

Data analysis usually refers to complex statistical calculations and relationships. However, this is not always the case for teachers and researchers. There are easy-to-use procedures and best practices that help the user identify patterns and trends in the data.

6. Reporting

Although it may sound contradictory, many teachers consider their profession to be lonely. Many teachers spend every day teaching others, designing lessons and doing this on their own. Reporting action research is therefore very important. This usually takes place in an informal setting, unlike the formal setting where scientific research is shared.

7. Action planning

Action planning is also referred to as informed action. This is the final step in the research method process. When a teacher or researcher writes a plan or develops a program, he or she is usually also involved in the planning process. Action planning is more of an approach than a method.

It is a statement of what someone wants to achieve in a certain period of time. Drawing up and executing an action plan is an effective way to achieve goals.

Examples of AR

Different tools are used to support AR, depending on the working method and the problem to be studied. Examples of these methods are:

• Observation of groups or individuals;
• By means of audio and video recordings;
• Through interviews;
• Monitoring and taking notes;
• By means of photos or questionnaires.

Action Research and Intervention

Besides the research of social systems, Action Research is all about solving problems in order to bring about social change. During the research method, the researcher does not merely observe and interpret information but he is also an active participant in the process.

This allows him to intervene faster and better and bring about change. One major advantage is that he will have a better understanding of the problems. Close cooperation with the field will increase the perceptions of the researcher and the practitioners. During research method the focus can be centred on the activities or the research itself.

Conditions for Action Research

For this research method to be successful, Kurt Lewin established a number of conditions must meet:

• the research must be problem-oriented
• the employee (client) must be at the centre
• the current situation (status quo) must be included in the discussion
• the research must produce empirically demonstrable propositions (direct and indirect observations)
• propositions and findings must systematically fit into a useful theory.

Cyclical approach

Changes in accordance with the Action Research approach have the nature of an exception, in which stability (Freeze) is the standard, change the deviation from that standard and behaviour modification (Unfreezing) a response.

This research method is a cyclical process of change and is connected in his change model . During the Unfreezing stage a period of problem awareness takes places (Planning), during the change stage new forms of behaviour are tested (Action) and during the refreezing stage this new behaviour is reinforced and will become a habit over time (Results).

Action Research in practice

Action Research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry, undertaken by participants in social situations such as employees within an organization.

Because of the research they are able to analyze and improve their own social and/ or educational skills. Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice according to Kurt Lewin .

It’s Your Turn

What do you think? Do you conduct Action research? If so, what are your experiences? If not, which new insights did you get by reading this post? What are in your opinion success factors for conducting Action research?

Share your experience and knowledge in the comments box below.

More information

• Coghlan, D. &amo; Brannick, T. (2014). Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization . Sage Publications Ltd.
• Dickens, L., & Watkins, K. (1999). Action research: rethinking Lewin. Management Learning , 30(2), 127-140.
• Lewin, K. , & Gold, M. E. (1999). Group decision and social change .
• Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems , in: G.W. Lewin (Ed) (1948) Resolving Social conflict. Harper & Row.

How to cite this article: Van Vliet, V. (2021). Action Research model (Lewin) . Retrieved [insert date] from Toolshero: https://www.toolshero.com/change-management/action-research/

Original publication date: 03/14/2021 | Last update: 08/21/2023

Add a link to this page on your website: <a href=”https://www.toolshero.com/change-management/action-research/”>Toolshero: Action Research model (Lewin)</a>

Did you find this article interesting?

Your rating is more than welcome or share this article via Social media!

Average rating 4.6 / 5. Vote count: 13

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Vincent van Vliet

Vincent van Vliet is co-founder and responsible for the content and release management. Together with the team Vincent sets the strategy and manages the content planning, go-to-market, customer experience and corporate development aspects of the company.

Related ARTICLES

Mystery Shopping: the Basics and Variables

Conceptual framework: the Basics and an Example

Kurt Lewin Change Model explained

Leon de Caluwe biography and theory

Borton’s Model of Reflection (1970) explained

Respondents: the definition, meaning and the recruitment

Also interesting.

After Action Review (AAR): Basics and Template

KWC model to support Change Management

Managing Strategic Change by Noel M. Tichy

Leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

BOOST YOUR SKILLS

Toolshero supports people worldwide ( 10+ million visitors from 100+ countries ) to empower themselves through an easily accessible and high-quality learning platform for personal and professional development.

By making access to scientific knowledge simple and affordable, self-development becomes attainable for everyone, including you! Join our learning platform and boost your skills with Toolshero.

POPULAR TOPICS

• Change Management
• Marketing Theories
• Problem Solving Theories
• Psychology Theories

ABOUT TOOLSHERO

• Free Toolshero e-book
• Memberships & Pricing

Using action research for change in organizations: processes, reflections and outcomes

Journal of Work-Applied Management

ISSN : 2205-2062

Article publication date: 18 June 2018

Issue publication date: 17 July 2018

The purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary and recommendations on systemic approaches to designing and implementing change in organisations.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper is a viewpoint on successful change management techniques using action research based on experience in the use of systemic thinking and systems practices.

The use of a systems approach to change using relevant systems practices enables more successful change outcomes.

Practical implications

Change management practitioners should utilise systemic approaches to enable more successful change implementation.

Originality/value

The paper provides valuable advice for practitioners and researchers in change management through the author’s unique experience in systemic change processes.

• Systems thinking

Action research

• Soft systems methodology

Molineux, J. (2018), "Using action research for change in organizations: processes, reflections and outcomes", Journal of Work-Applied Management , Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-03-2017-0007

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2018, John Molineux

Published in the Journal of Work-Applied Management . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

The purpose of this viewpoint is to encourage readers to think more broadly about organisational interventions, and the thought processes involved in bringing about change, by providing a range of techniques that have helped me implement successful organisational change programs over the last twenty years. I give brief descriptions of a range of techniques and their application in change programs, but first I explore why success in change programs is often difficult to achieve.

Understanding change

What does successful transformational organisational change look like and how do you implement it so that it can be sustained over time? Many organisations have tried it, but according to Smith (2003) only 19 per cent of organisations were successful at it, in his review of four studies and a total of 284 cases. A McKinsey study reported by Isern and Pung (2007) reported that in a survey of 1,536 executives that only 38 per cent of transformational change initiatives were successful. In reflecting on this problem, the purpose of this paper is to explain how transformational change can be successful with a viewpoint from my experience and understanding of change, using examples from several projects.

In undertaking major change programs, organisations often utilise consultants who may recommend or use eight-step or ten-step programs which are largely “off-the-shelf” and may not be contextually relevant for the organisation. Many organisational managers may find it difficult to fit a step-by-step process and apply it in the real world, as we work in complex organisations consisting of people with lots of different views, values, behaviours and interactions. Consenz and Noto (2016) note that traditional strategic management approaches fail because they do not consider systemic properties related to delays, non-linearity, intangible factors and unintended consequences associated with human behaviour and mechanistic approaches. Complex systems in the real world possess nonlinear feedback which allows for emergent behaviour, adaptation, learning and self-organisation ( Richardson, 2008 ). Flood (1999) indicates that changes that emerge from these interactions and behaviours are often unpredictable, and even unknowable.

So how does an organisation enable transformational change in complex organisational contexts? A linear or step-by-step change process is often not appropriate and largely inadequate for complex organisational systems, so Benn and Baker (2009) suggest a whole of systems (or systemic) action research approach as an alternative. Such a systemic action research (SAR) approach ( Coghlan, 2002 ; Burns, 2007 ; Flood, 2010 ) may be used in complex pluralist contexts, due to its focus on the dynamics of whole systems and the adaptive cycles of reflection and rethinking that action research brings. A systems approach brings an understanding of the whole systems involved – internal and external influences, leadership, stakeholders, resources issues, people issues, leverage points and consequences.

My contention here is that a systemic approach to change using action research is more likely to be successful than other approaches.

As a human resources (HRs) practitioner, I noted from experience many years ago that there was a difficulty in achieving sustained organisational change by implementing single HR interventions in isolation from a whole-of-system understanding. For example, a previous organisation I worked for implemented an intervention aimed at improving attendance of staff members. This intervention had some immediate short-term impact, however in the following years, organisational indicators of unplanned leave had returned to previous levels. After discovering the work of Senge (1990) in the early 1990s, I came to realise that these type of interventions were “quick fixes” that dealt largely with surface behaviour and did not reach the underlying systemic structures driving behaviour.

From the mid-1990s I became determined to use systemic thinking in change processes and was involved in the design of several innovative change projects. However, I also found that an important factor in understanding change is the readiness of the organisation to undertake the change ( Armenakis et al. , 1993 ). This “readiness” may involve several considerations, and Rafferty et al. (2013) developed a framework of antecedents of readiness for change that incorporate both individual and collective factors, such as external pressures, internal enablers and personal characteristics, that lead to cognitive and affective change readiness. Another aspect of change was described by Tushman and Romanelli (1985) , who noted that inertia was a force that built resistance to change during periods of equilibrium, and that transformational change often required a contextual crisis and/or a change of top leadership, otherwise it may not work. As illustrated by Sastry (1997) , the ability to change is inversely related to inertia. So, I learned that readiness for transformational change must come from the top of the organisation, and that leadership was essential in driving the change. Although leaders in an organisation can be enthused by innovative ideas and designs, unless they are willing to drive and support the change, the organisation will not be ready for the change.

Is your organisation ready for change?

Are the leaders committed to the change?

Who are the other key stakeholders that need to be involved?

Who or what could derail the change?

What processes are you going to use to work with others in the design and implementation of change?

What are the important systems and processes involved?

What is the likelihood of resistance and inertia?

A detailed examination of the answers would reveal an initial readiness for change and some of the factors that would need to be considered in depth in designing a change implementation strategy. The next sections will give examples of the methods and use of systems tools that can be used in designing and implementing change programs. The methodology used in these projects was action research ( Greenwood and Levin, 1998 ; Reason and Bradbury, 2001 ; Zuber-Skerritt, 2001 ) which enables the researcher to work directly with a particular community in solving a real-world problem. The case studies described here are illustrative examples, and as McManners (2016 , p. 204) notes, combined problem solving with research that was appropriate to each of the cases to “provide both academic rigour and practical relevance”.

Action research is an “orientation to inquiry”, rather than a method, accordingly to Bradbury (2013 , p. 3). Characteristics of action research that are essential include a foundation of research, direct participation in some form by problem owners (often described as co-researchers), and cycles of action, reflection, learning and planning ( McNiff, 1988 ; Dick, 2002 ). Action research is often grounded in strong ethics, such as emancipatory values and an inclusive and dynamic worldview ( Wood and Govender, 2013 ). This ensures authentic collaboration ( Piggot-Irvine, 2012 ) and an up-front identification of intentions ( Whitehead, 2008 ). In doing so, action research contributes to the improvement of social situations while generating knowledge ( Zuber-Skerritt, 2012 ).

The methodology of action research includes a broad range of possible options, and the case illustrations shown in this paper, insider action research was used ( Coghlan, 2001 ). Insider action research can be defined here as action research carried out by member(s) of an organisation on a project within or for that organisation. According to Coghlan et al. (2016 , p. 84) insider action research “offers a unique perspective on the dynamics and issues within the organisation, precisely because it is from the inside of a living system”. It involves managing three interlocking challenges of: pre-understanding of the context situation; organisational politics; and the balance between internal career success and the quality of the action research ( Coghlan and Brannick, 2014 ). As a result of these challenges, insider action researchers need to deal with emergent processes on an ongoing basis.

A sub-set of action research incorporates a systems approach which is titled “SAR” ( Burns, 2007, 2014 ). This form of action research focusses on system wide learning and systemic inter-relationships, and was created in response to intractable problem situations that involve multi-directional causality, vicious cycles or non-linear change. The SAR approach involves larger forms of engagement, where actions are focussed on changing the dynamics of systems to bring about sustainable change ( Burns, 2014 ). The “people strategy” case that I use as an illustration later in the paper is a form of SAR, although pre-dates the conceptualisation of SAR.

Systems practice

A range of systems practices that I have used in organisational change projects are described in this section. Systems practices involve an understanding of systemic thinking, which Espejo (1994 , p. 210) defines as “an understanding of how the parts relate to each other and constitute large wholes, that is, of self-organising processes”. Within this systemic concept of the world, “phenomena are understood to be an emergent property of an interrelated whole” ( Flood, 2010 , p. 269). Systemic thinking helps people gain meaningful insights into events, behaviour, and structure ( Flood, 1999 ). In my opinion, the complexity of an organisation’s environmental context, business strategy, culture and operations and their impacts on one another, can only be properly understood through systemic thinking. This understanding is confirmed through the concept of SAR ( Burns, 2007 ).

Systemic thinking is where the underlying structural solution to the change problem can be developed. As Senge (1990 , p. 53) notes, the structural solution “is the least common and most powerful” as it focusses on the causality of the patterns of behaviour. This is important because only the structural solution addresses the underlying causes of behaviour at a level that patterns of behaviour can be changed ( Burns, 2014 ). As structure induces behaviour, so changing underlying structures can produce different patterns of behaviour ( Senge, 1990 ). Thus, the dynamic nature of the context for change requires systemic understanding of all of the factors to understand the relationship between organisational and contextual factors influencing proposed change ( Burns, 2014 ).

Mapping the system(s)

The first suggested systems practice is to map the system or systems that are the subject of change. To understand the change to be implemented, there is a need to understand the systems that are involved. Mapping the system(s) will help discover key leverage points and uncover potential blockages. The use of diagrams as representations of reality perceived by system owners and stakeholders are a significant aid to thinking about the system ( Lane, 2013 ). This mapping process can be done by using thinking and design tools and in working with and involving key stakeholders and groups as co-researchers and participants.

In developing a good understanding of the system and problems within it, many people only do this superficially. However, the best approach recommended by Senge (1990) is to discover the causality of the issue. One useful technique here is causal loop diagramming (CLD) ( Lane, 2008 ) in order to understand influences and key leverage points. For example, Figure 1 shows a simple CLD relating to population. An explanation of this diagram is that the total population in the centre of this diagram is a stock, which is increased by a flow of births and reduced by a flow of deaths. Births flow into the stock of population and increases the stock in a reinforcing loop – the more population, the more births. However, deaths reduce the stock of population, which occurs in a balancing loop (see Coyle, 1998, 2000 for further examples). These diagrams can become quite complex when there are a lot of variables that interact, so drawing a number of these diagrams as sub-systems is another option. CLDs were used in the People Strategy design (described in a later section) process to understand sub-system causality and to assess potential leverage points for change.

To understand the human influence in a hierarchy of causality, Figure 2 shows a pyramid model ( Senge, 1990 ). Based on an earlier example of absenteeism, this thinking model could be explained in terms of the thinking that is driving the system. For example, if the CEO of an organisation has a worldview that employees are not to be trusted, then the CEO will initiate systems that reflect that worldview. These systems would likely be based on strict rules, checking, assurance, providing proof, etc., so as to control behaviour as much as possible. So employees experiencing such a system have no flexibility and treat leave as an entitlement, often maximising potential absenteeism. Alternatively, if the CEO does trust employees to do good work, the organisation will likely have a policy that is more flexible, that allows some freedom for employees to take leave when it is needed. With this worldview, most employees who are trusted are likely to take less leave. So in this way, the systemic structure drives behaviour. All of the projects discussed in this paper used the hierarchy to modify systems and influence behaviour.

Thinking models

A couple of useful thinking models are derived from Tony Golsby-Smith (not dated) of Second Road. One of these models is called the ABCD model, which is outlined in Figure 3 . The questions from the model focus system designers on thinking about the current state, developing an image of the future changed state, and then working out what to do to bring about the change, and how to implement it.

The second model is called the Thinking Wave, which is shown in Figure 4 . This model shows a design process over a period of time where convergent thinking occurs in an iterative process between an executive team and a design team. The top line in the model represents the executive and the bottom line represents the designers. The middle line shows the variation in thinking between the two, which gradually converge to a common view. For example, the executive may come up with an intent, and the design team may respond with an initial conceptual design. However, there may be unforeseen issues with the design, which causes further feedback. Over time, the issues are resolved and the design converges. Both Figures 3 and 4 models were used in the design phase of the people strategy project, as further described in a later section.

User-based design

When designing new systems, it is important to involve end-users. A design method titled “User-based design” (see Molineux, 2014 ) is aligned to Romme’s (2003) seven values and ideas on design. It is most useful in bringing the views of end-users to the design table, so that the new system can be designed in a way that meets the needs of the end-users of the system. Table I shows a comparison of user-based design with the seven values and ideas of Romme (2003) . An important aspect of user-based design is the three “voices” of design: The voice of intent, the voice of experience and the voice of design. It is recommended that an information designer take on the role of the voice of design, with the project manager the voice of intent. All other stakeholder groups are represented through the voice of experience, which may consist of several stakeholder groups, both separately convened and integrated. It is critical in the method that all stakeholder groups (end-users) are represented and involved in the process. I used this process of design as project manager (and voice of intent) in a project to successfully re-design a health and safety system ( Molineux, 2014 ).

Some aspects of design are discovered through the action of designing and creating, when the interaction of elements may lead to new insights or unexpected outcomes ( Jelinek et al. , 2008 ). It is often the internal components, such as relationships between people with each other and with elements of systems, combined with interaction from the environment outside the organisation that may lead to unexpected consequences or insights. Systems theory helps illuminate this interaction and explains that it leads to emergent properties of these systems and that small changes in the system can lead to large changes in outcomes ( Senge, 1990 ). So design is about creating contexts and meanings that enable the effective interaction of these systems elements to produce intended outcomes ( Jelinek et al. , 2008 ), with the integration of design and practice ( Sarasvathy et al. , 2008 ).

In Table I , the elements of Romme’s (2003) ideal design process are listed, and this includes three values and four ideas that define the content dimension of design inquiry. The values are: each situation is unique; focus on purposes and ideal solutions; and apply systems thinking. The first value is important in relation to situational context, the second focusses on the future ideal design, and the third “helps designers to understand that every unique problem is embedded in a larger system of problems” ( Romme, 2003 , p. 563). The four other ideas that define the values and ideas regarding the process of design are: first, limited information; second, participation and involvement in decision making and implementation; third, discourse as medium for intervention; and fourth pragmatic experimentation ( Romme, 2003 ). The first of these, limited information, guards against excessive data gathering and helps in focussing on the future rather than the past. The second and third, participation and discourse are crucial involvement of stakeholders in assessing solutions. The fourth, pragmatic experimentation is essential for trialling new ideas.

Soft systems methodology (SSM)

A key approach I have used to design new systems was running two- or one-day workshops using SSM. SSM is about applying systems principles to structure thinking about things that happen in the world ( Rose and Haynes, 1999 ). Figure 5 displays the structure of SSM. An example of a project using SSM was in re-designing the performance system in a large Australian government agency. SSM is an approach that allows creativity, understanding, dialogue and participation.

a perceived real-world problem situation;

a process for tackling that situation in order to bring about some kind of improvement;

a group of people involved in this process; and

the combination of these three (intervention in the problem situation) as a whole with emergent properties.

Checkland and Holwell (1998 , p. 164) claim that SSM can be used as “a sense-making device” and additionally, that the methodology itself is inherently creative and flexible. They note that SSM’s principles allow for creativity, with a strong focus on the context of a particular situation. Other researchers have found that SSM allows for the suggestion of new ideas and changing perceptions ( Attwater, 1999 ); enables individuals to be more open to new ideas ( Clarke, 2000 ); and when a process is consciously structured by the use of SSM, it is “more capable of generating insights and producing commitments” ( Checkland, 2000b , p. 823).

In organisations, creativity is important for innovation as well as for the development of new products and processes, and in many organisations, the creative thinking process is enabled through some form of intervention. Amabile et al. (1996 , p. 1155) believe that “creativity by individuals and teams is a starting point for innovation” and that creativity is “a necessary but not sufficient condition” for innovation. However, there are other factors, such as management priorities, production practicalities, organisational culture and politics, which will impact on creative ideas becoming innovative products. To enable innovation, organisations may need to actively intervene in design and development activities. This is where SSM can be used as an enabler for the generation of creative ideas.

One of the most creative elements in SSM is the use of rich pictures, which Checkland (2000a , p. S22) states “are a better medium than linear prose for expressing relationships” and that “pictures can be taken in as a whole and help to encourage holistic rather than reductionist thinking about a situation”. Such rich pictures engage the mind creatively and bring about a form of expression and creativity that is often latent in people.

The generation of learning is central to the use of SSM and the methodology’s ability to facilitate learning is an important aspect of its usefulness in generating creative ideas. Checkland (1981 , p. 213) notes that the outcome of an intervention is “never an optimal solution to a problem, it is rather a learning which leads to a decision to take certain action”.

In the performance system re-design process with the agency, the process consisted of four two-day workshops held in different cities, and based around an SSM Mode 1 design (slightly modified), with the addition of an analysis from SSM Mode 2 of systemic viability, cultural feasibility, and political acceptability; and a self-evaluation adapted from Checkland and Tsouvalis (1997) .

The outcomes from the workshops were that 11 sub-systems were created or redesigned and a total of 73 system changes suggested. Participants also reported a very high level of engagement in the workshops and satisfaction with the outcomes. The context and process of the SSM workshops in this study closely matched the work conditions that enhance creativity, mentioned above. For example, the workshops encouraged freedom of exploration and play. Play is a fairly natural part of SSM, as noted by Clarke (2000 , p. 804), who states that in experiencing SSM, individuals enjoy “rediscovering the fun of work”.

Positive group mood is also correlated to creative performance ( Fredrickson, 2001 ). The mood created in the workshops was noted as being positive, and the methodology lends itself as a process that results in accommodations between conflicting viewpoints leading to real action to improve the situation ( Checkland, 2000b ). In Clarke’s (2000 , p. 804) view, “it allows people to be heard explicitly and encourages the reduction of fear and anger that can sometimes accompany the discussion of ideas”. The SSM process, if facilitated properly, creates an environment that reduces conflict and enhances focus on the issue, accommodating various viewpoints.

Cultural change model

The largest and most significant change project I undertook was the people strategy project, also in a large Australian public sector agency ( Molineux, 2013 ). The transformational change required by the agency involved cultural change, in shifting the organisation’s culture from an “entitlement culture” towards a “performance culture”. However, as Schein (1999) observed, shifting culture in an organisation is an extraordinarily difficult task. In a report of a detailed case study of change in seven hospitals, Huq and Martin (2000) demonstrated that implementing large-scale whole of system change was very difficult, with only one of seven hospitals categorised as highly successful. The poor success rate in organisational cultural change seems to be partly due to organisational change agents’ lack of systemic thinking and understanding of the causal structure and leverage possibilities for sustained change within the organisation’s context.

The model in Figure 6 was developed as a result of the action research process used in people strategy project. It involved major change to HRs and leadership systems and was implemented through 12 organisation-wide sub-projects linked to a common philosophy and set of principles. The design team of four included myself. We were all familiar with Senge’s (1990) and Senge et al. ’s (1994) work and believed that the cultural change would be able to be achieved by changing the systemic structures that caused or enabled certain behaviours to occur within the agency and that all parts of the system needed to be aligned to the new approach, otherwise these components could be working in opposition to each other. Therefore, the change strategy needed to be comprehensive enough to bring about a coordinated, systemic change in the structures that could help shape the culture.

The model at Figure 6 represents a process for integrating strategic HR management with cultural change utilising a systemic approach. The large ellipse at the top of the model is the context and systems thinking aspect of the model. It takes into account key variables such as the business direction, business/economic cycle, current environment including market, competition, etc., and the existing culture of the organisation. The central circle in the model is systems practice which involves the thinking and design models and methods used for the change, such as SSM, CLD and user-based design, described previously. These techniques could be used at any stage of the change process. The various systems techniques enable the user to design implementation processes, engage stakeholders, analyse contexts, evaluate complex dynamic information, and evaluate outcomes. Systemic thinking should avoid “quick fixes”, as the understanding of underlying structure, context and culture will enable the leaders of the organisation to develop a philosophy and design that aims to provide a fundamental solution, rather than creating a symptomatic solution ( Senge, 1990 ). The culture of the organisation could also be affected, even though this would not generally be an intention of management. Such unintended consequences of quick fix solutions will be avoided if systemic thinking is used.

The four rectangles in the model outline the change process embedded in HR systems. First by outlining a design approach, then developing the change strategy, making the changes and evaluating the changes. The outer four circles represent the leadership aspect of the model, and this is critical in providing momentum for change, enunciating new behaviours, and ensuring change is embedded in the organisation’s practices. The arrows in the model show that the elements of the model are purposefully inter-connected. The intentional design drives the leadership requirements for the change strategy. Continual feedback and evaluation in the form of an action research cycle is essential.

A summary of system changes in the cultural change project are included in “Major changes to the Agency’s HR systems”. Results from the people strategy project included sustained cultural change in the organisation, which arose from new and improved HR and leadership systems (as measured over five years following the initial implementation). Results included improved morale, engagement, job satisfaction, leadership, performance, communication, health and safety, and employee relations. Other results include higher levels of feedback and participation in decision making and a greater alignment in individual performance and organisational direction.

Major changes to the Agency’s HR systems were reported in ( Molineux, 2013 ).

stated people (HR) philosophy and principles;

strategic alignment of HR with organisational strategy;

intentional workforce design and planning for the future; strategic use of people data; and

introduction of work types with targeted and differentiated strategies in employment, development and performance.

partnership fostered and focus on commonality of interests and sharing of information; and

quarterly “dialogue days” – discussions with all organisational leaders, cascaded to all staff.

line of sight from corporate plan through to team plans and individual agreements;

widespread use of performance appraisal and feedback, including 360 degree feedback;

mandatory use of performance agreements;

behavioural statements and expectations linked to performance agreements and appraisals;

HR measures built in to overall pay outcomes; and

significant enhancement of reward and recognition programs.

differentiated conditions of employment by work type;

integrated focus on health and safety linked to well-being programme, risk management and early return to work; and

strong focus on diversity, including enhancement of family-friendly working practices.

recruitment practices streamlined and focussed on differentiation according to work type, employer of choice and branding focus; and

focus on talent management and retention.

capability framework developed with focussed learning outcomes, on-line learning system; and

integrated learning assessment.

Reflection on the use of action research and the models

The action research methodology is both participative and reflective. This is important, as in organisational design, reflective thinking is required in the generation of knowledge to be used in the design process ( Heusinkveld and Reijers, 2009 ). It is the combination of the cognitive release of knowledge and the understanding of the structural dynamics of the design situation that can enable improvement to occur ( Barbaroux, 2011 ). This reflection process could be undertaken via a number of methods, including the process of problem formulation, problem diagnosis, design and implementation, followed by evaluation in an iterative process, suggested by Hevner et al. (2004) and Heusinkveld and Reijers (2009) . However, I was more familiar with the action research reflective cycle or spiral, involving planning, acting and observing the process and consequences, reflecting on these processes and consequences, and then replanning, acting and observing, reflecting, and so on, as suggested by Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) .

On reflecting on the experiences from these change programs, there are a range of learning points arising. The first is the importance of involving people in the use of action research processes. For example, in the People Strategy project, each of the 12 sub-projects were involved in workshopping new ideas and designs with stakeholder groups ( Molineux, 2013 ). In the project that utilised user-based design, representative groups of users enabled the new system to be designed in a way that met the needs of user groups, resulting in a very high level of acceptance of the system changes ( Molineux, 2014 ). In the project that involved SSM, the participants of the workshops generated a huge range of creative ideas for implementation of a re-designed system ( Molineux and Haslett, 2007 ). Whilst this reflection is not new about action research (e.g. see Wood and Govender, 2013 ; Zuber-Skerritt, 2013 ), it is emphasised here because it is often missed in organisational change projects ( Burns, 2014 ; Zhang et al. , 2015 ).

The second point is ensuring that the organisation is ready for the change ( Armenakis et al. , 1993 ). Many years ago, I was involved in designing innovative change programs, however even though they got great feedback, they did not get implemented because the leaders in the organisation were not ready for change. The successful change projects given as examples here were all supported by senior leaders in the organisation. The concept of readiness is under-developed according to Rafferty et al. (2013) , who proffer a model that includes both cognitive and affective readiness at individual and work group/organisational levels. As mentioned before, inertia ( Sastry, 1997 ) is a major challenge to overcome and ensuring the climate in the organisation is ready for change should be a starting point. Effective participation should ensure easier and more effective implementation.

The third point is the importance of reflection. Bjørn and Boulus (2011) state that the reflective monitoring of action research processes is essential. In reflecting on the processes involved in the various change projects, it was apparent to me that utilising feedback to stimulate analysis of issues was a critical element in all of these projects. In the people strategy project there were six action research cycles over an 18 month period of implementation of the project. All project leaders and the design team were involved in these workshops, roughly every three months. These participatory evaluation workshops enabled a much more successful implementation of change ( Molineux, 2013 ). We drew on the experience of Checkland’s (1985) understanding of the organised use of rational thought called the FMA model, combined with a process that utilised Mezirow’s (1991) reflective techniques of content reflection, process reflection and premise reflection, as recommended by Sarah et al. (2002) , and included as Figure 7 . During implementation of major change, it is important to reflect on the outcomes of the implementation (A), the methods and techniques used in the change (M), and the strategic thinking and design of the project (F). Similarly, Bjørn and Boulus (2011) describe process of reflective monitoring, including dissenting thought. Such critical reflection is a key component of undertaking effective change.

The fourth point is the essential understanding of systems ( Senge, 1990 ; Burns, 2014 ). Systems practices were used in all of the projects mentioned, including systems mapping through CLD and systems design through SSM and user-based design. The systems practice tools enable the project team and stakeholder groups to obtain a systemic view of the problem context, the systems involved, the underlying systemic structure, and key leverage points in the system.

The fifth point, on reflection, is that an experienced facilitator in action research and systems design processes is essential in guiding and supporting these complex processes that can result in transformational change succeeding in organisations. This point is also made in Sarah et al. (2002) .

The five points above, combined together, result in a unique perspective of action research that is grounded in both theory and practice. As Zhang et al. (2015) state, the overall quality of results, depth of meaningful insights, and contribution to knowledge should be higher in action research projects than traditional research. From my own insights and that of systems theorists mentioned earlier, I would add that systems practice will enhance both the quality of insights and final project outcomes for an organisation using these techniques.

A range of system design processes have been showcased in this paper to provide readers with some ideas about the use of the models illustrated here for change management practice, particularly in using an action research methodology where participation is critical. I would encourage readers who are interested in any of these models to explore them in more detail by reading the source references and websites. In addition, more detailed explanation of the use of the models are included in my earlier articles ( Molineux, 2013 ; Molineux, 2014 ). I would encourage researchers to seek out their own combinations of the models represented here and other change models and thinking tools, for example the work applied learning models of Abraham (2015) , as there is no “one solution” that will work in every organisation or context. I believe there is a great need for more innovative research in change theory and implementation.

Although the practice of action research may take longer than other methodologies, a higher level of acceptance of change occurs when participation levels are also high. For sustainable change implementation, I would therefore recommend the use of action research processes, combined with appropriate systems thinking practices for systems design and change, constructed to be relevant to specific contexts in a range of organisations.

Simple population causal loop diagram

Causal pyramid

The ABCD thinking model

The convergent thinking wave model

Soft Systems Methodology Mode 1

Systemic organisational cultural change model

Reflection model using FMA

The application of Romme’s values/ideas in user-based design

Source: Molineux (2014)

Abraham , S. ( 2015 ), Work-Applied Learning for Change , GCWAL Publications , Adelaide .

Amabile , T.M. , Conti , R. , Coon , H. , Lazenby , J. and Herron , M. ( 1996 ), “ Assessing the work environment for creativity ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 39 No. 5 , pp. 1154 - 1184 .

Armenakis , A.A. , Harris , S.G. and Mossholder , K.W. ( 1993 ), “ Creating readiness for organizational change ”, Human Relations , Vol. 46 No. 6 , pp. 681 - 703 .

Attwater , R. ( 1999 ), “ Pragmatist philosophy and soft systems in an upland Thai catchment ”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science , Vol. 16 No. 4 , pp. 299 - 309 .

Barbaroux , P. ( 2011 ), “ A design-oriented approach to organizational change: insights from a military case study ”, Journal of Organizational Change Management , Vol. 24 No. 5 , pp. 626 - 639 .

Benn , S. and Baker , E. ( 2009 ), “ Advancing sustainability through change and innovation: a co-evolutionary perspective ”, Journal of Change Management , Vol. 9 No. 4 , pp. 383 - 397 .

Bjørn , P. and Boulus , N. ( 2011 ), “ Dissenting in reflective conversations: critical components of doing action research ”, Action Research , Vol. 9 No. 3 , pp. 282 - 302 .

Bradbury , H. ( 2013 ), “ Action research: the journal’s purpose, vision and mission ”, Action Research , Vol. 11 No. 1 , pp. 3 - 7 .

Burns , D. ( 2007 ), Systemic Action Research: A Strategy for Whole System Change , The Policy Press , Bristol .

Burns , D. ( 2014 ), “ Systemic action research: changing system dynamics to support sustainable change ”, Action Research , Vol. 12 No. 1 , pp. 3 - 18 .

Checkland , P. and Holwell , S. ( 1998 ), Information, Systems and Information Systems , John Wiley & Sons , Chichester .

Checkland , P.B. ( 1981 ), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice , John Wiley , Chichester .

Checkland , P.B. ( 1985 ), “ From optimizing to learning: a development of systems thinking for the 1990s ”, Journal of the Operational Research Society , Vol. 36 No. 9 , pp. 757 - 767 .

Checkland , P.B. ( 2000a ), “ Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective ”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science , Vol. 17 No. S1 , pp. S11 - S58 .

Checkland , P.B. ( 2000b ), “ The emergent properties of SSM in use: a symposium by reflective practitioners ”, Systemic Practice and Action Research , Vol. 13 No. 6 , pp. 799 - 823 .

Checkland , P.B. and Tsouvalis , C. ( 1997 ), “ Reflecting on SSM: the link between root definitions and conceptual models ”, Systems Research and Behavioural Science , Vol. 14 No. 3 , pp. 153 - 168 .

Clarke , S. ( 2000 ), “ Features of SSM’s process. In P.B. Checkland, the emergent properties of SSM in use: a symposium by reflective practitioners ”, Systemic Practice and Action Research , Vol. 13 No. 6 , pp. 799 - 823 .

Coghlan , D. ( 2001 ), “ Insider action research projects ”, Management Learning , Vol. 32 No. 1 , pp. 49 - 60 .

Coghlan , D. ( 2002 ), “ Interlevel dynamics in systemic action research ”, Systemic Practice and Action Research , Vol. 15 No. 4 , pp. 273 - 283 .

Coghlan , D. and Brannick , D. ( 2014 ), Doing Action Research in your Own Organization , 4th ed. , Sage , London .

Coghlan , D. , Shani , A.B. and Roth , J. ( 2016 ), “ Insitutionalizing insider action research initiatives in organisations: the role of learning mechanisms ”, Systemic Practice and Action Research , Vol. 29 No. 1 , pp. 83 - 95 .

Consenz , F. and Noto , G. ( 2016 ), “ Applying system dynamics modelling to strategic management: a literature review ”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science , Vol. 33 No. 6 , pp. 703 - 741 .

Coyle , G. ( 1998 ), “ The practice of system dynamics: milestones, lessons and ideas from 30 years’ experience ”, System Dynamics Review , Vol. 14 No. 4 , pp. 343 - 365 .

Coyle , G. ( 2000 ), “ Qualitative and quantitative modelling in system dynamics: some research questions ”, System Dynamics Review , Vol. 16 No. 3 , pp. 225 - 244 .

Dick , B. ( 2002 ), “ Postgraduate programs using action research ”, The Learning Organization , Vol. 9 No. 4 , pp. 159 - 170 .

Espejo , R. ( 1994 ), “ What is systemic thinking? ”, System Dynamics Review , Vol. 10 Nos 2-3 , pp. 199 - 212 .

Flood , R.L. ( 1999 ), Rethinking the Fifth Discipline , Routledge , London .

Flood , R.L. ( 2010 ), “ The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ to action research ”, Systemic Practice and Action Research , Vol. 23 No. 4 , pp. 269 - 284 .

Fredrickson , B.L. ( 2001 ), “ The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions ”, American Psychologist , Vol. 56 No. 3 , pp. 218 - 226 .

Golsby-Smith , T. ( not dated ), available at: www.secondroad.com.au (accessed 11 May 2016 ).

Greenwood , D.J. and Levin , M. ( 1998 ), Introduction to Action Research , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Heusinkveld , S. and Reijers , H.A. ( 2009 ), “ Reflections on a reflective cycle: building legitimacy in design knowledge development ”, Organization Studies , Vol. 30 No. 8 , pp. 865 - 886 .

Hevner , A.R. , March , S.T. , Park , J. and Ram , S. ( 2004 ), “ Design science in information systems research ”, MIS Quarterly , Vol. 28 No. 1 , pp. 75 - 105 .

Huq , Z. and Martin , T.N. ( 2000 ), “ Workforce cultural factors in TQM/CQI implementation in hospitals ”, Health Care Management Review , Vol. 25 No. 3 , pp. 80 - 93 .

Isern , J. and Pung , C. ( 2007 ), “ Harnessing energy to drive organizational change ”, McKinsey Quarterly , Vol. 2007 No. 1 , pp. 16 - 19 .

Jelinek , M. , Romme , A.G.L. and Boland , R.J. ( 2008 ), “ Introduction to the special issue: organization studies as a science for design: creating collaborative artifacts and research ”, Organization Studies , Vol. 29 No. 3 , pp. 317 - 329 .

Kemmis , S. and McTaggart , R. ( 2000 ), “ Participatory action research ”, in Denzin , N.K. and Lincoln , Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research , 2nd ed. , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA , pp. 567 - 605 .

Lane , A. ( 2013 ), “ A review of diagramming in systems practice and how technologies have supported the teaching and learning of diagramming for systems thinking practice ”, Systemic Practice and Action Research , Vol. 26 No. 4 , pp. 319 - 329 .

Lane , D.C. ( 2008 ), “ The emergence and use of diagramming in system dynamics: a critical account ”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science , Vol. 25 No. 1 , pp. 3 - 23 .

McManners , P. ( 2016 ), “ The action research case study approach: a methodology for complex challenges such as sustainability in aviation ”, Action Research , Vol. 14 No. 2 , pp. 201 - 216 .

McNiff , J. ( 1988 ), Action Research: Principles and Practice , Routledge , London .

Mezirow , J. ( 1991 ), Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Molineux , J. ( 2005 ), “ Systemic strategic human resource management enables organisational cultural change: an action research study ”, unpublished PhD thesis, Monash University, Melbourne .

Molineux , J. ( 2013 ), “ Enabling organizational cultural change using systemic strategic human resource management: a longitudinal case study ”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management , Vol. 24 No. 8 , pp. 1588 - 1612 .

Molineux , J. ( 2014 ), “ Health and safety system change through user-based design ”, Systemic Practice and Action Research , Vol. 27 No. 3 , pp. 247 - 263 .

Molineux , J. and Haslett , T. ( 2007 ), “ The use of soft systems methodology as a tool for creativity ”, Systemic Practice and Action Research , Vol. 20 No. 6 , pp. 477 - 496 .

Piggot-Irvine , E. ( 2012 ), “ Creating authentic collaboration: a central feature of effectiveness ”, in Zuber-Skerritt , O. (Ed.), Action Research for Sustainable Development in a Turbulent World , Emerald Books , Bingley , pp. 89 - 106 .

Rafferty , A.E. , Jimmieson , N.L. and Armenakis , A.A. ( 2013 ), “ Change readiness: a multilevel review ”, Journal of Management , Vol. 39 No. 1 , pp. 110 - 135 .

Reason , P. and Bradbury , H. ( 2001 ), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice , Sage , London .

Richardson , K. ( 2008 ), “ Managing complex organizations: complexity thinking and the science and art of management ”, Emergence: CO , Vol. 10 No. 2 , pp. 13 - 26 .

Romme , A.G.L. ( 2003 ), “ Organization as design ”, Organization Science , Vol. 14 No. 5 , pp. 558 - 573 .

Rose , J. and Haynes , M. ( 1999 ), “ A soft systems approach to the evaluation of complex interventions in the public sector ”, Journal of Applied Management Studies , Vol. 8 No. 2 , pp. 199 - 216 .

Sarah , R. , Haslett , T. , Molineux , J. , Olsen , J. , Stephens , J. , Tepe , S. and Walker , B. ( 2002 ), “ Business action research in practice – a strategic conversation about conducting action research in business organizations ”, Systemic Practice and Action Research , Vol. 15 No. 6 , pp. 535 - 546 .

Sarasvathy , S.D. , Dew , N. , Read , S. and Wiltbank , R. ( 2008 ), “ Designing organizations that design environments: lessons from entrepreneurial expertise ”, Organization Studies , Vol. 29 No. 3 , pp. 331 - 350 .

Sastry , M.A. ( 1997 ), “ Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change ”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 42 No. 2 , pp. 237 - 276 .

Schein , E.H. ( 1999 ), The Corporate Culture Survival Guide , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Senge , P. ( 1990 ), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of a Learning Organization , Century , London .

Senge , P. , Kleiner , A. , Roberts , C. , Ross , R. and Smith , B. ( 1994 ), Fifth Discipline Fieldbook , Nicholas Brealey , London .

Smith , M.E. ( 2003 ), “ Changing an organisation’s culture: correlates of success and failure ”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal , Vol. 24 No. 5 , pp. 249 - 261 .

Tushman , M.L. and Romanelli , E. ( 1985 ), “ Organizational evolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation ”, in Cummings , L.L. and Staw , B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior , Vol. 7 , JAI Press , Greenwich, CT , pp. 171 - 222 .

Whitehead , J. ( 2008 ), “ Using a living theory methodology in improving practice and generating educational knowledge in living theories ”, Educational Journal of Living Theories , Vol. 1 No. 1 , pp. 103 - 126 .

Wood , L. and Govender , B. ( 2013 ), “ ‘You learn from going through the process’: the perceptions of South African school leaders about action research ”, Action Research , Vol. 11 No. 2 , pp. 176 - 193 .

Zhang , W. , Levenson , A. and Crossley , 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 , Vol. 54 No. 1 , pp. 151 - 174 .

Zuber-Skerritt , O. ( 2001 ), “ Action learning and action research: paradigm, praxis and programs ”, in Sankaran , S. , Dick , B. , Passfield , R. and Swepson , P. (Eds), Effective Change Management Using Research and Action Learning: Concepts, Frameworks, Processes and Applications , Southern Cross University Press , Lismore , pp. 1 - 20 .

Zuber-Skerritt , O. ( 2012 ), “ Introduction ”, in Zuber-Skerrit , O. (Ed), Action Research for Sustainable Development in a Turbulent World , Emerald Books , Bingley , pp. 3 - 27 .

Zuber-Skerritt , O. ( 2013 ), “ Transformational community development through emergent learning ”, Action Learning Action Research , Vol. 19 No. 2 , pp. 5 - 24 .

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Action Research

• First Online: 29 September 2022

Cite this chapter

• Robert E. White   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8045-164X 3 &
• Karyn Cooper 4  

1255 Accesses

Of all the methodologies that have, thus far, been discussed between the pages of this volume, perhaps none is more practical than action research. In fact, it is often referred to as “practitioner research,” “teacher research’ or “participatory action research.” Herr and Anderson (2005) claim that action researchers may occupy multiple positions, even simultaneously, as insiders and/or outsiders, depending on social or ideological constructs such as race, religion, political affiliation, social class, gender or sexual orientation. These affiliations (or exclusions) may also significantly influence the reality as captured through action research. As such, action researchers may greatly benefit from interrogating and identifying their multiple positionalites in order to understand and articulate tensions stemming from underlying roles and stances, and to “avoid the blind spots that come with unexamined beliefs” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 44).

No action without research, no research without action –Kurt Lewin (1946)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Action Evaluation Collaborative. (2016). Participatory action learning: Part 1 – Insights into a catalyst for transformative change . Retrieved August 12, 2019, from: https://actionevaluationcollaborative.exposure.co/participatory-action-learning# !

Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning . Blackwell.

Google Scholar  

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing personal effectiveness . Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective . Addison Wesley.

Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2004). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60 (10), 854–857. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.028662

Article   Google Scholar  

Blanning, T. C. W. (1998). The French revolution: Class war or culture clash? (2nd ed.). St. Martin’s Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Boog, B., Coenen, H., Keune, A. W. M., & Lammerts, R. (1996). Theory and practice of action research—With special reference to the Netherlands . Tilbury University Press.

Burns, A. R. (2015). Action research. In J. D. Brown & C. Coombe (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to research in language teaching and learning (1st ed., pp. 99–104). Cambridge University Press.

Calhoun, C. J. (2002). Contemporary sociological theory . Wiley-Blackwell.

Cammarota, J. (2011). From hopelessness to hope: Social justice pedagogy in urban education and youth development. Urban Education, 46 (4), 828–844.

Charles, L., & Ward, N. (2007). Generating change through research: Action research and its implications (Discussion Paper Series No. 10). Centre for Rural Economy Newcastle University.

Chisholm, R., & Elden, M. (1993). Features of emerging action research. Human Relations, 46 (2), 275–298.

Clifford Simplican, S. (2009) . Disabling democracy: How disability reconfigures deliberative democratic norms . APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper. Retrieved August 8, 2019, from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1451092

Corlett, S. (2012). Participant learning in and through research as reflexive dialogue: Being “struck” and the effects of recall. Management Learning, 44 (5), 453–469.

Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., & Brown, K. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations, 69 (1), 33–60.

de Koning, K., & Martin, M. (1996). Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences . Zed Books.

Dewey, J. (1897/2019). Moral principles in education and my pedagogic creed by John Dewey . Myers Education Press.

Dick, B. (1997). Action learning and action research. Retrieved August 12, 2019, from: http://www.aral.com.au/resources/actlearn.html

Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change . Open University Press.

Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43 (2), 182–201.

Fals-Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research . Rowman & Littlefield.

Fetterman, D. M., Kaftarian, S., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.). (1996). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability . Sage.

Forsyth, D. R. (2019). Group dynamics . Cengage.

Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). Continuum.

French, W. L., & Bell, C. (1973). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement . Prentice-Hall.

Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change (2nd ed.). Sage.

Griffith, M. (2009). Action research for/as/mindful of social justice. In S. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of educational action research (pp. 85–98). SAGE.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Habermas, J. (1962/1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society . MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action: Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society . Beacon Press.

Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V. K., Yarbrough, G. L., Russell, T. M., Borecky, C. M., McGahhey, R., Powell, J. L., III, Beavers, J., & Monte, E. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6 (2), 139–152.

Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition . Sage.

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty . Sage Publications Inc.

Howard-Grabman, L. (1996). ‘Planning together’: Developing community plans to address priority maternal and neonatal health problems in rural Bolivia. In K. de Koning & M. Martin (Eds.), Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences (pp. 153–163). Zed Books.

Kavannagh, A., Daly, J., & Jolley, D. (2007). Research methods, evidence and public health. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 26 (4), 299–396.

Kemmis, S., & Carr, W. (1986/2002). Becoming critical: Education knowledge and action research . Routledge Falmer.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 567–595). SAGE.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). Peter Lang.

Koshy, V. (2010). Action research for improving educational practice: A step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). Sage.

Lasch-Quinn, E. (2017). Race experts: How racial etiquette, sensitivity training and new age therapy hijacked the civil rights movement . Rowman & Littlefield.

LeCompte, M. (1995). Some notes on power, agenda, and voice: A researcher’s personal evolution toward critical collaboration research. In P. McLaren & J. Giarelli (Eds.), Critical theory and educational research (pp. 91–112). State University of New York Press.

Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the “Field at a Given Time”. Psychological Review, 50 (3), 292–310.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2 (4), 34–46.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1 , 5–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics . Harper & Row.

Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change . Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Maksimovic, J. (2010). Historical development of action research in social sciences. Factas Universitatis: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology & History, 9 (1), 119–124.

McCoy, D., Sanders, D., Baum, F., Narayan, T., & Legge, D. (2004). Pushing the international health research agenda towards equity and effectiveness. Lancet, 364 (9445), 1630–1631.

McNamara, C. (2006). Field guide to consulting and organizational development: A collaborative and systems approach to performance, change and learning . Authenticity Consulting.

McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice . Macmillan Education.

McTaggart, R. (1991). Action research: A short modern history . Deakin University Press.

Meyer, J. (2000). Using qualitative methods in health related action research. British Medical Journal, 320 (178). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7228.178

Mihăiloaie, C. (2014). What is the difference between single-loop and double-loop learning? Retrieved August 13, 2019, from: https://www.performancemagazine.org/what-is-the-difference-between-single-loop-and-double-loop-learning/

Monk, R. (1992). Wittgenstein: The duty of genius . Penguin.

O’Brien, R. (2001). Um exame da abordagem metodológica da pesquisa ação [An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research]. In R. Richardson (Ed.), Teoria e Prática da Pesquisa Ação [Theory and practice of action research]. João Pessoa, BR: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. (English version) Retrieved, August 8, 2019, from: http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html

Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2015). Organizational behavior in education: Leadership and school reform . Pearson.

Payrow Shabani, O. A. (2003). Democracy, power and legitimacy: The critical theory of Jürgen Habermas . University of Toronto Press.

Rahman, M. A. (2008). Some trends in the praxis of participatory action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research (2nd ed., pp. 49–62). Sage.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice . SAGE.

Riel, M. (2019). Understanding collaborative action research . Center For Collaborative Action Research, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA. Retrieved, August 12, 2019, from: http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html

Rogers, E. (1994). A history of communication study: A biological approach . The Free Press.

Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research . ASCD.

Smith, M. K. (2001). Kurt Lewin, groups, experiential learning and action research. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education . Retrieved, August 8, 2019, from; http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-lewin.htm

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development . Heinemann.

Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Oetzel, J. G., & Minkler, M. (2017). On community-based participatory research. In N. Wallerstein, B. Duran, J. G. Oetzel, & M. Minkler (Eds.), Community-Based participatory research for health (3rd ed., pp. 3–16). Jossey-Bass.

Weng, F. (2014). Comparing the philosophy of Jürgen Habermas and Michel Foucault. Inquiries, 6 (9), 1–2.

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity . Cambridge University Press.

Whitehead, J. (2009). Generating living theory and understanding in action research studies. Action Research, 7 (1), 85–99.

Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298–330). American Educational Research Association.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS, Canada

Robert E. White

OISE, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Karyn Cooper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert E. White .

Action Research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban grade three classroom

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto

St. Francis Xavier University

Cooper, K. & White, R. E. (2006). Action research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban grade 3 classroom. Educational Action Research 14(1), 83-99.

This action research project on critical literacy in a high poverty area in Toronto, Canada becomes the practical backdrop for examining how critical literacy can be developed and applied in regular classroom situations. Educators identifying patterns within classrooms that prevent students from participating fully in all aspects of a democratic society may find models presented in this article useful for making curricula more inclusive.

Literacy failure leads to poor overall academic performance, immense loss of self-esteem and an accumulating lack of basic literacy skills needed for self-support and for making an economic contribution to society. While literacy can be defined in many ways in today’s society, it is reading failure that is currently the most significant issue along the literacy spectrum.

Reading failure and educational change are inextricably intertwined. In order to bolster literacy capacity, a prime place to begin is in the arena of educational reform. Education has undergone profound changes in the past few years as ministries of education, faculties of education, and school boards prepare teachers to respond to the needs of “all” children. In the province of Ontario, Canada, for example, all Grade Three students now participate in the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) Standardized tests. As well, a public school board in Ontario has compiled a Learning Opportunities Index (Toronto District School Board, 2001) which serves to indicate a “relative level of need” for over 450 elementary schools under its prevue. This Opportunities Index correlates with literacy scores from EQAO Tests and is used by the school district to profile low literacy levels for early learners from urban schools (Brown, 2001). Despite significant public expenditure on education, being part of the reading world is not a reality for many urban inner city children in lower socio-economic areas. While these learners are Ontario’s at-risk students, their situation has global parallels. Although local practices and global practices differ around the world, literacy requires a re-imaging in this era of reconstruction and development (Janks, 2000). This issue, then, is an international one: how can elementary teachers in urban schools best help at-risk learners in literacy education and thus their chances for future success in education and life?

One of those hundreds of urban elementary schools in this Canadian school board is the Sir Simon George Elementary School. This K-5 school has over 650 students, 48% female and 52 % male, with 12% born outside of Canada and 66% for whom English is not their primary language. Because Sir Simon George Elementary School scored poorly on the Board’s Learning Opportunities Index , the staff at Sir Simon George Elementary School recently has begun to come to come to grips with the issue. The staff has embraced a new vision for this school. In order to implement this vision, the school staff established several important changes in the hopes of reversing this school’s low educational ranking.

Professional development for classroom teachers on administering the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) constituted another significant change. By utilizing this assessment procedure, the school was able to obtain literacy baseline scores for all of its students. Furthermore, a school district primary literacy consultant, in concert with the school staff, designated a daily school-wide, two-hour time block for implementation of an early literacy program.

Literacy research is replete with accounts indicating that early intervention with at-risk students can effectively increase levels of literacy skills and comprehension. Such research suggests that a key to successful intervention is to provide students with programs that emphasize critical thinking strategies (Anyon, 1980; Gunning, 2000; Slavin, 1998).

Critical literacy can be separated from the notion of critical thinking in the following way. Luke (1997) notes that critical approaches to literacy involve “a shift away from psychological and individualistic models of reading and writing towards those approaches that use sociological, cultural and discourse theory to reconceptualise the literate subject, textual practices, and classroom pedagogy” (143). He goes on to state that:

Critical approaches are characterized by a commitment to reshape literacy education in the interests of marginalized groups of learners, who on the basis of gender, cultural and socioeconomic background have been excluded from access to the discourses and texts of dominant economics and cultures (Luke, 1997, p.143).

This definition of critical literacy is supported by Gee (1996) and Edelsky and Cherland (2006). Although critical literacy and critical thinking are not necessarily the same thing, Luke (1997) suggests that “shared across contemporary approaches to critical literacy is an emphasis on the need for literates to take an interventionist approach to texts and discourses of all media” (critical literacy) and also requires “a commitment to the capacity to critique, transform and reconstruct dominant modes of information” (critical thinking) (p. 150).

Teachers and researchers, therefore, need to understand the complex relationship between language and power. Research indicates that teacher-generated research provides teachers with a strong feeling of ownership of both the process and results, and increases their own professional development (Carson & Sumara; 1997; Hannay, 1989, 1995; McNiff, 1993). However, despite all the attention given to strategic skill development for at-risk learners and attention given to the ways in which teachers acquire their professional knowledge, teachers’ reflections upon the teaching and learning process has received little attention. In spite of much of the rhetoric on school reform , it is painfully apparent that we do not actively value the insights and interpretations of teachers, and it is precisely these insights and interpretations that can effectively improve not only literacy levels as well as comprehension but critical literacy strategies as well. For these reasons, the staff approached this research team for assistance in the development of a critical literacy action research project.

The critical literacy action research project

In the Fall of 2001, Sir Simon George Elementary School staff invited the research team to participate in a multi-year action research project, the focus of which was school wide literacy improvement. The research team consisted of the co-authors, a graduate research assistant, a school literacy co-ordinator and a school district primary literacy consultant. The role of this research team was to act as facilitators to work together with teachers to develop critical literacy capacity among the teachers and the entire research team. After the initial and obligatory staff meeting in which the research team was introduce and the project was addressed, the non-school based researchers worked together with teachers to design the process. From this, in conjunction with the school district primary literacy consultant, one teacher volunteered to design and incorporate lesson plans to address issues of critical literacy in her grade three classroom. This paper reports on the action research project on critical literacy that grew out of this initiative. The impact of this project on the teacher and researchers are reported on later in this paper.

The action research project reported here offers promise for on-going collaborative research into critical literacy for urban students who continue to be at a disadvantage as it pertains to literacy, comprehension and critical thinking. The purposes of this project were to:

Design a Steps to Action Plan (Mills, 2000) enabling them to effect positive educational change.

Assess the effects on student literacy levels of teaching the students critical literacy strategies,

Evaluate the effects of an action research strategy on teacher learning and professional development.

As a corollary to the purposes of the project the staff and administration, in conjunction with the research team, determined the objectives for this project as being:

To develop critical literacy strategies for both early at-risk learners and their teachers,

To improve literacy teachers’ professional judgment,

To implement, assess, and evaluate specific strategies of literacy teaching

To enhance elementary in-service teacher training to support school-wide literacy improvement, critical literacy strategies, and life-long learning.

The significance of this study lies not only in its school-initiated origins, but also in its potential to contribute to two interrelated areas:

Critical literacy strategies, by reflecting on how critical thinking and critical literacy is developed by a teacher, in concert with the research team, in an actual classroom for at-risk children;

Action research, particularly an in-depth look at one school’s effort to improve early literacy for at-risk students.

In the first year of this project much time was invested in outlining the parameters of the research project, including serious school-wide discussion, culminating in a joint initiative on the methods of literacy instruction for primary students (kindergarten through grade three) in the school. The program of research was based on the action research methodology loop, “act-reflect-revise” (Mills, 2000), with teachers and their students as they engaged in action research to select and implement suitable and appropriate practices for critical literacy, as defined by the teachers themselves.

At the school level, all research members participated in sessions to decide upon the foundations for the research project based on suitable and appropriate practices for building critical literacy capacities relating to primary urban students and their teachers (Comber, Thomson, Wells, 2001). All stages in the process were developed through consensus, with the research team acting as facilitators for the process. The teacher and the school district primary literacy consultant designed the lessons. Learning strategies such as KWL (Thompkins, 1998) and other reflective practices were included.

The “K-W-L” (what we KNOW—what we WANT to learn—what we have LEARNED) strategy for reflective thinking (Thompkins, 1998) is outlined below.

K What we KNOW (One’s preconceptions)

Based on my experience, I believe critical literacy can be described as.....

I am now thinking.....

W What we WANT to learn

I wonder.....

What would happen if.....

It’s funny how my students.....

How can I.....

L What we have LEARNED

Developing critical literacy capacities of students and teachers

Practice or strategy for developing critical literacy capacities within this component.....

When students are engaged in developing critical literacy capacities, it looks like.....

When students are engaged in developing critical literacy capacities, it sounds like.....

Perhaps (specific student) demonstrates the best response to this strategy because.....

Perhaps (specific student) demonstrates the weakest response to this strategy because...

For this student to assess his/her critical literacy capacity, what needs to happen?

The opportunity for revision (“Are revisions needed to be made to the action plan itself at this time?”) follows this reflection, which in turn produces a new action plan.

At the end of the first year of the study, the research participants reflected upon the action research project and planned for revision to the research process for the next year. The previously described K-W-L strategy provided the basis for the structure of the focus group reflections within the project. The Debbie Miller (2002) book, Reading with Meaning , was chosen by the participants in this project for its attention to establishing a framework for creating a culture and climate for critical literacy. This book is written by a teacher-researcher and reflects goals similar to the objectives of this critical action research project, providing goals both for teachers and students regarding how to think more deeply while at the same time working towards esteem-building and social agency (Luke, 1997). After the grade three teacher in the project highly endorsed the book, everyone in the project read sample chapters and agreed that it fit into an operative framework for beginning the project. The research team particularly liked the way in which Miller (2002) worked at enabling her students to become more experienced at making meaningful and thoughtful connections to the stories of their own lives so that they might become more adept at reading the broader context within which they live. Like Miller, it was the group’s belief, that the only way to develop responsibility in students is to allow them to practice it.

With the first year of the project behind them, the critical literacy action research project began in earnest. The staff felt comfortable with the planning process, and in September, the following questions were asked of the students of the grade three teacher who was part of the research team: “Why do people read?” “What do you see readers doing?” “Where do you see people reading?” These questions and other questions were used to establish connections with students’ lives and to develop a greater understanding of their own reading worlds in order to make the context of the project relevant to them.

Brainstorming with the large group and recording students’ thinking was an appropriate way to address the first question. In this way, the school district primary literacy consultant in collaboration with the grade three teacher and the research team began to outline the project with the grade three students. These questions, which framed the beginning work with students, revealed much about the children’s perspectives about reading and also assisted in the selection of relevant teaching materials.

By October, focus meetings followed the K-W-L format as previously described. For purposes of framing the discussion, one example from each KWL strategy for reflective thinking is presented below.

“K” Represents the Research Team’s Current Understanding of Critical Literacy

The collective research team realized early on that they needed to establish an understanding of the term “critical literacy”. The research team’s first discussion regarding preconceptions of what critical literacy means was timely, given Edelsky and Cherland’s (2006) concern about the popularization and appropriation of the term “critical” and the tendency to trivialize what critical literacy—and critical thinking—really means.

From the first meeting: On the meaning of critical literacy, it became clear that the research team in general was using a variety of definitions of critical literacy. The researchers referred the team to Luke (1997):

Whatever we are doing needs to be important to us and our belief structures. Otherwise, what are we doing it for? There needs to be some connection to ourselves for it to be meaningful practice.

Critical literacy is a way to view the world. It’s a key to a democratic education. It’s basic in terms of being critical oneself.

We all have different ideas of things in our own heads.... We might think that we are talking about the same thing, but we’re talking about different things altogether.

...sharing ownership and trusting...and trusting the students to be able to be responsible and to think

If teachers don’t ask themselves why, then how do they expect students to ask why? Many of the students in this particular situation are ESL students. We have had grade three students whom teachers were bringing forth as having difficulties. They were Canadian-born but were receiving ESL instruction and couldn’t be considered ESL students any more. We’re masking a problem that could be deeper than we realize.

This passage, taken from the first discussion concerning the need to define a critical literacy stance, points to the notion that “critical literacy” needs to be understood in terms of the dynamics of identity, context and teaching practices employed. Jamilla acknowledges how one’s own belief structures are connected to classroom practice. In speaking about her own identity as a young black teacher, she can begin to see traces of her identity rooted in and through her teaching practices in both explicit and implicit ways. Dianne connects this thought to the all-important roles that teachers play in helping to construct their students’ identities through the beliefs they carry about who the students are and what they believe the students are capable of. Suzanne reminds us of the need to understand the politics of the ‘local’ literacy context when she states that, “Many of our students in this particular situation are ESL students”. Suzanne speaks to the idea that the cultural and political run deep in literacy and that teachers need to be aware of these factors, particularly if they are concerned with all students, including “minority” students, gaining a chance to define themselves. Through this discussion, the team began to consider more deeply just how literacy practices used in educational settings serve to affirm or disaffirm a student’s sense of identity and ultimately a student’s chances for “success” in society.

This initial discussion reveals an important question relevant to a critical literacy stance: How do we, as teachers, learn to become more experienced so that we might learn to step outside of ourselves and our own identities to allow multiple identities in? Perhaps this entails the commitment to be continually vigilant concerning what conditions truly support literacy, particularly for children of poverty or for those who have been labeled “at-risk.” These are of course ideological considerations and cannot be dealt with in short order. However, through beginning with our own teaching practices, and acting locally, we believed that we might move from our local position to more global issues relevant in literacy education today.

At this point, it may be helpful to briefly look at how literacy has been constructed historically. The following definitions illustrate that literacy is storied according to changing economies, cultures, institutions and possible worlds.

A literate person is a person who can, with understanding, both read and write a short, simple statement on his everyday life (UNESCO, 1951).

Functional literacy is the ability to engage effectively in all those reading activities normally expected of a literate adult in his community (Hunter & Harman, 1979).

[Literacy is] using print and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential (Southam Literacy, 1987).

These definitions show that literacy is dynamic and that historical interpretations have driven and continue to drive what represents literacy. Thus what represents literacy is historically driven and both traces and influences our definitions of literacy and how we use it. As teachers/educators of literacy then, is it not incumbent upon educators to consider their role(s) in shaping the ‘construct’ of what it is that literacy embodies? Is it to ask, “Who is deemed to be a ‘literate’ individual, and by whom”, particularly in these times of a pluralistic milieu in the twenty-first century? If so, then it would seem that definitions must be chosen well. This re-evaluation of what constitutes literacy and, by extension, critical literacy, is driven by dramatic local and global change. Globalization has resulted in the domination of English (Janks, 2000) and Cummins (1995) has addressed questions raised by the cultural politics of English as an international language. The issue is at once global and local as so many of our students are English as a Second Language (ESL) learners, as borne out by the number of ESL students in this study. Chambers adds another dimension to the discussion:

To inhabit the multiplicity of cultural borders, historical temporalities and hybrid identities calls for a state of knowledge, an ethics of the intellect, an aperture in politics, able to acknowledge more than itself; a state of knowledge that is prepared to suffer modification and interrogation by what it neither possesses nor can claim as its own…and permits us to lend our ears to what is unsaid in the discourses we employ (Chambers, 1996, 50).

Chambers’ term, “ a state of knowledge” suggests a growing critical awareness of the need to acknowledge multiple identities within any enclosed system, including educational systems. The Chambers quotation is particularly important when considering a critical literacy stance because it embodies key elements of identity and context while considering a state of knowledge capable of “lending our ears to what is unsaid in the discourses [or teaching practices] we employ.”

In this particular school research context, the research team felt that policy-makers do not always define the rich cultural diversity of the children and parents in their school community favourably. While on the surface, multiculturalism is touted to be beneficial to student learning; there may be issues of prejudice and discrimination still hiding in the light. Sonia Nieto (1994) points to patterns that encourage students to move beyond mere tolerance in multicultural education. A quotation from one of the team members may best express this:

With talking about what you think and see with students, particularly impoverished students like those in our multicultural school, they’re often written off for various reasons.

Another team member expressed a similar idea in the following way:

Our children are incredibly capable but there is somehow a mismatch between the school’s version of intelligence and what is occurring at home.

The dispositional nature of critical thinking was described:

I’ve had students in Special Education who are very intelligent in terms of the way they use higher order thinking or critical literacy, but it is situational. Perhaps the key is to make critical thinking more dispositional than situational, thereby developing critical learning capacities that are derived from critical literacy.

Putting critical literacy into practice takes thought and hard work and the full time teacher is the one charged with the responsibility of being, accountable, effective and efficient. Shutz (2000) places this thought in context:

...what we are led to believe about ourselves, what we learn about how we are supposed to act, the ways we are taught to frame “problems” and even the tools of reason that we use to solve these problems, do not simply represent neutral skills but are in fact ways of forming us into particular kinds of subjects. ‘Power’ in this vision does not merely suppress or restrict but actually produces actions and desires (216).

If critical literacy is to promote democracy, social justice and equity in schools, then what circumstances need to arise in schools for an increase in democracy and shared power? Banks (1999) describes a pattern of four levels of multicultural curriculum that parallel the adoption of a critical literacy curriculum. It is often referred to as a critical literacy curriculum because its definition has expanded to include all students who tend to be marginalized socially or physically. The curriculum pattern tends to become increasingly more inclusive as the approach moves through the inclusion of ethnic heroes into the existing unchanged curriculum to an approach that includes all elements of the transformative approach but also requires students to make decisions and take action related to the concept, issue, or problem they have studied.

“W” Represents the Action Research Plan: What the Research Team is Seeking to Know

The grade three teacher on the project, Jamilla, wanted to examine the provincial language arts curriculum with an eye towards understanding patterns of how critical literacy is understood, mentioned and factored into the grade three Language Arts curriculum. She began by looking at specific and “global” expectations within sections of the Ontario Language Curriculum (1997). As the following example suggests, the language curriculum document consisted mainly of decontextualized skills. In fact, it was difficult to find language directly relevant to critical literacy practices. In particular, the section under reasoning and ‘critical’ thinking was problematic because, the skills were not only decontextualized, the term “critical” had been co-opted and misapplied (Edelsky and Cherland, 2006). The term “critical” no longer meant critical in many senses of the word. The following example from the grade three Language Arts curriculum, recently in use states:

Overall Expectations – Grade 3 Reading. By the end of Grade 3, students will:

read a variety of fiction and non-fiction materials (e.g., chapter books, children’s reference books) for different purposes;

read independently, using a variety of reading strategies;

express clear responses to written materials, relating the ideas in them to their own knowledge and experience and to ideas in other materials that they have read;

select material that they need from a variety of sources;

understand the vocabulary and language structures appropriate for this grade level;

Use conventions of written materials to help them understand and use the materials.

Patterns of critical approaches to curriculum range from the encouragement of students to engage in explicit criticism of cultural, economic, and political structures to more neutral approaches which affiliate literacy with individuals’ “thinking skills” and the weighting of information (Luke and Walton, 1994). It is these “thinking skills”, rather than the “explicit criticism of cultural, economic and political structures” that tend to be emphasized in curriculum guides. In the example below, critical thinking has been largely reduced to data organization.

Expectations in Specific Areas. By the end of Grade 3, students will:

Despite this approach to literacy education, as presented in the grade three Language Arts curriculum, in practical terms the research team struggled with how the literacy curriculum might be a useful guide for students, particularly when all shared the belief that the students were capable language learners and the team wanted to honor this in their teaching practices. Is the key to using curricular documents to first be cognizant of language patterns used to structure these documents? That is to say, must one become more literate in one’s own understanding of these documents? What research does the document rest on? What belief structures are inherent in the teaching practices espoused within this document? How is language learning understood? For example, is it anchored in development stage theory? Cultural studies theory? Ultimately, what are the purposes of literacy and who gets to define these purposes? And why? Moreover, team members in the study often commented on the tension between the need for teaching explicit skill instruction and critical literacy practices:

“What kinds of things do you do when you come to a word you don’t know?” and it took me about twenty minutes to get them to say something other than “sounding out”.... So I just have to look at the problem more deeply because they don’t look at it as the “big picture”. Decoding and comprehension go together.... But they think, “If I have a problem with reading, it’s because I don’t know what that word says. It’s about that word or these lists of words that I have to know.”... This is the piece that we need to help them understand - the whole and I’m having a problem with this part here by just letting them be aware of the things they need to do to get to the next level, instead of keeping it a secret that only the teacher knows (Jamilla).

It makes sense to wrap the strategies they need to know around it, such as decoding, and to understand their thinking processes. We’d have to have an open dialogue with them whether it be direct skill instruction or crit. lit. (Dianne).

In reading this text, some readers may imagine that this is all well and good but what about teaching reading and writing skills? Of course this is a valid concern, particularly given that so many students continue to fail in school despite the concerted efforts of educators. Rather than fuel the ‘either/or’ debate over whether the central purposes of literacy education should focus on strategic reading or reading to make sense of life, perhaps a literacy model that incorporates both sides of the debate is useful. Freebody and Luke (1990) add to this discussion through their conceptualization of literate practices as involving four roles—code-breaker, meaning-maker, text user and text analyst. Being a code breaker involves understanding the sound symbol relationship and the alphabetic principles. Being text participant or “meaning-maker” calls upon the reader to draw inferences, using background knowledge to fill out unexplicated aspects of the text. Being a text user means knowing how to use a variety of texts for a variety of purposes in real life situations—For example, reading instructions on a soup can versus writing a friendly letter versus reading instructions on how to put a piece of complex equipment together. Being a text analyst means applying critical discourse analysis and asking questions about absences in texts, how gendered cultural storylines work across texts, who texts are written for, who benefits from a particular storyline and how might it have been written differently.

To return to the previous teaching event involving Jamilla’s concern regarding the teaching of explicit skills and critical literacy practices, the role of meaning-maker and text analyst were the literacy practices that were deliberately invoked. Although the role of code breaker was used earlier in the day through such literacy practices as the morning message and making words, some students spontaneously modeled the role of text-user.

Bearing this in mind, reflections on the first of a series of fifteen-minute mini-lessons with the students were also based on the “K-W-L” strategy. This was accomplished by specifically tying critical literacy into the curriculum guidelines by accessing students’ prior knowledge of what their experiences of critical literacy were like. This lesson dealt with “Looking at the Big Picture” —referring back to Jamilla’s earlier comment that the students do not see the ‘big picture’, meaning that the students do not often discuss patterns of exclusion or marginalization or understand the social context of reading—through a large-group brainstorming session with the children. Examples of priming questions were, “Why do people need to learn to read”? and “Does everyone [around the world] have the same chance to learn to read”? Responses were recorded on a wall chart.

An additional critical literacy pedagogic activity was developed around “How to chose a book for reading.” Connections were made with students by discussing books about social issues. Again brainstorming was used to identify strategies for selecting an appropriate book for independent reading. These strategies were recorded on another chart. A third theme dealt with decoding strategies, discussed earlier, through the priming question of “What do you do when you come to a word you don’t know?” Strategies were recorded on an additional chart so that the students would begin to articulate more strategies than just “sounding out.” This follows up on similar work already happening in the classroom, allowing Jamilla to find the balance that she was seeking between engaging children in critical literacy and explicit literacy skills teaching.

A further fifteen-minute mini-lesson set the routines for “Sharing and Celebrating” by recording different thinking strategies. As we worked with students on an ongoing basis, their ideas were recorded on a chart called “Strategies for Sharing Our Thinking.” Miller (2002) calls this “Making Tracks of Our Thinking.” The priming critical question for this instance of meta-cognitive thinking was “What does thinking about reading look like, sound like and feel like?” It was revealing to see the students’ thinking as we learned together throughout the project.

Mohammed, for example, suggested that the “teacher reminds us that we can use anything in our life” in order to learn. He goes on to note that TV has helped him make connections to literature and he went on to talk about how Muslims are now patterned as “the bad guys” in the “big news” story because of 9/11. Mohammed takes this personally and makes connections to patterns in the world he knows (Delpit, 1995). As an immigrant, new to Canada and a Muslim, Mohammed’s comment reveals his own feeling of insecurity on a global level, but also shows how safe he feels in being able to reveal his feelings on the local level, within his classroom.

Mohammed’s grade three teacher acknowledges that many of her students watch a lot of television. However, she attempts to help them be more critical or discerning in their choices of programs to watch and how to critique systems of domination. In other words, Jamilla recognizes that television is the foremost source of information available to many children living in poverty, and otherwise, and is working towards the development of agency in her students.

One of the dilemmas encountered by both teachers and instructors, interested in the promotion of critical literacy in teacher education programs, revolves around how to keep the dialogue hopeful when one begins to question socially patterned constructions of “the truth”. This may necessitate a curriculum for learning that allows students to understand not only the message that is presented, but also to make connections and develop patterns with their own lives and lived experiences (Cooper and White, 2004).

The following spontaneous piece of writing is an example of a poem from Erina, a grade three student. Entitled “A Poem about Hope,” this poem is dedicated to her teachers.

Verse A Poem about Hope Don’t look in the stocking’s or under the tree. The thing that we’re looking for is something we can’t see. You can’t feel it or tuch it but it will tuch you it move’s with you grow’s with you. It will always follow you. It’s deeper then snow stronger then ice. The gift that we resev is the gift of hope. – Erina (8 years of age)

By the end of this “W” phase of the K-W-L strategy for reflective thinking, in conjunction with the research team, Jamilla, the grade three teacher, had identified what she wanted to learn. She wanted the research team to help clarify her understanding of the word “critical”, what critical literacy is like in practice and how to use the curriculum document to reflect her own teaching practice. Examining underlying assumptions of the literacy curriculum was not a bad place to begin. Constructing lessons that evoked questions about student understandings about the social context of literacy followed.

Inglis and Willinsky (2006) remind us of the importance of revisiting current thinking about democracy in order to consider what constitutes democracy in action. At the heart of our actions and in those teachable moments rests the need for continuous critical reflection. The “W” in our reflection strategy, then, is useful only in as much as it provides the pattern or the framework to continually ask those difficult questions so fundamental to critical literacy and a democratic education for all students. This takes humility and desire or, perhaps as Erina suggests, hope which is deeper than snow or ice.

“L” Represents Critical Literacy: What the Research Team Learned

The research recounted above suggests a need to continue to challenge patterns that promote taken-for-granted assumptions embedded in existing orthodoxies that comprise research and teaching practice. This may be accomplished through re-framing questions to examine not only what has been offered but also what has been missing. Delpit (1998) points out that the key may be to understand the variety of meanings available for any human interaction, and not to assume that the voice of majority speaks for all. In this study about critical literacy for urban school children, the research team began to notice where students’ voices were excluded from issues that affected them in particular. For example, Suzanne reminded us of the need to understand the politics of the ‘local’ literacy context, “Many of our students in this particular situation are ESL students”, and their voices may not be able to be heard. Cultural and political patterns run deep in literacy and teachers need to be aware of this if they are to be concerned with all students, including “minority” students, gaining a chance to define themselves.

Further, in this study, Jamilla, the grade three teacher on the project, was keen to examine how the provincial language arts curriculum could be used as a document to encourage the use of critical literacy strategies. Jamilla’s questioning helped the research team to understand that, while schools have been fairly successful at teaching essential literacies, such as code-breakers and text participants (Vasquez, 2000), schools and their policy makers may not adequately support the role of text analyst, a potential critical literacy strategy, which may help all students understand how the text positions them with respect to social patterns of power that include language usage. This occurs because the pattern of curricular language appropriates and neutralizes potentially critical literacy strategies. The research team learned that perhaps the key to using curricular documents is to recognize how language patterns are used to structure these documents. To become more literate in one’s own understanding of these documents may be to ask such questions as: How is language learning understood? What belief structures are inherent in the teaching practices espoused within this document? What research does the document rest on? Is the document anchored in a specific perspective of education theory? Ultimately, what are the purposes of literacy, of education, and who gets to define these purposes? And why?

Given that an important goal of critical literacy is to give voice to critical approaches to reshape literacy education in the interests of marginalized learners excluded from access to dominant economics and cultures (Luke 1997), it is understandably difficult to ensure that the role the text analyst and other critically literate roles are valued in the classroom. Perhaps, as Heffernan and Lewison (2000) suggest, teachers are frequently discouraged from using their positions of power to persuade students to adopt certain positions. As teachers struggle to keep their opinions to themselves, they may exclude important issues, in favour of the dominant curriculum. This reluctance was evident in the research team itself. If students do not gain from mandated curriculum or policies relating to the development of critical literacy, directly or over the long term, such curricular policies may not be useful educational policies. It is incumbent upon all educators to be able and willing to develop, identify and implement curricular policies that are inclusive, for the benefit of all students.

To this end, Banks (1999) describes four levels of a curriculum that is sensitive to issues of inclusion. The first level, “The Contributions Approach” is probably the most frequently utilized form of multicultural education, and is characterized by the addition of ethnic heroes. The curriculum remains essentially unchanged. Little attention is given to the ethnic groups either before or after the event, nor is the cultural significance or history of the event explored in any depth. Social issues are ignored and this approach represents a rather shallow look at culture and inclusive practices.

The second and third levels represent the first phase of curriculum restructuring, yet issues are presented from a dominant perspective. Individuals or groups of people from marginalized groups in society are included, yet racial and cultural inequities or oppression are not necessarily addressed. A teacher might introduce a unit by studying groups who are benefiting from or being disadvantaged by the implementation of certain policies and practices, in the absence of a complete transformation of the curriculum.

The fourth approach includes elements of the previous three approach but adds components that require students to make decisions and to take action related to the concept, issue, or problem they have studied. This approach requires that students not only explore and understand the dynamics of oppression, but also commit to making decisions and changing the system through social action. The major goal of this approach is to teach students thinking and decision making skills, to empower them, and help them acquire a sense of political awareness and efficacy.

Banks’ (1999) description of these four levels may be useful for teachers who wish to benefit their students by becoming more enlightened about established patterns in which their own self-understandings prevent them from being properly or appropriately aware of social and political mechanisms.

If a central aim of education can become the critical transmission, interpretation and development of the cultural traditions of our society, there is the need for a form of research that focuses its energies and resources on the policies, processes and practices by which this aim is pursued (Carr and Kemmis, 1989). While there is still a battle raging within the field of literacy over the central goals of literacy education (For a more complete discussion, see Short, 1999), struggling literacy students are at the heart of much of what we do as literacy educators and this struggle is manifested in the following questions: What conditions truly support literacy learning in the pluralistic milieu of the twenty-first century? How do literacy practices used in educational settings serve to affirm or disaffirm a student’s own sense of identity? Why consider identity and language teaching in the same breath?

Such questions serve to flag the notion that outside pressures, a globalized society notwithstanding, are being brought to bear on curricula and programs provided by Canadian schools, and potentially, in schools world-wide. At issue is the problem of “recognizing patterns” in order to develop a critical awareness to understand what is truly important in our schools and to develop standards around such critical ideas as what it is we are doing, why we are doing it and who the major benefactors of these transactions are. There is, therefore, a need for a critical literacy capable of recognizing such patterns, asking questions about innate standards such as curriculum documents, and asking about what is important to schooling. These voices, in order to be heard must respect the notion of a democratic education not just for some citizens but for all citizens. Hopeful trends are beginning to emerge. Changes, and dare we say improvements, are being made in individual classrooms and within schools as well.

Banks, J. (1999). An introduction to multicultural education . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice . Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1989). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research . London & Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

Chambers, I. (1996). The post-colonial question: Common skies, divided horizons. London : Routledge.

Comber, B., Thomson, P. & Wells, M. (2001). Critical literacy finds a place: Writing and social action in a low-income Australian grade two/three classroom . Elementary School Journal 101 (4), 451-464.

Cummins, J. (1995). Heritage language teaching in Canadian schools. In O. Garcia and C. Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice in bilingual education: Extending the foundation , (pp. 134-138). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press.

Delpit, L. (1998). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in education of other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58 (3), 280-298.

Edelsky C. & Cherland, M. (2006). A critical issue in Critical Literacy: The “Popularity Effect.” In K. Cooper & R. E. White (Eds.), The practical critical educator. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (1990). “Literacies” programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: the Journal of Adult Migrant Education Programs, 5 (30), 7-16.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.

Janks, H. (2000). Domination, access, diversity and design: A synthesis for critical literacy education. Educational Review, 52 (2), pp. 175-186.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Heffernan, A., & Lewison, M. (2000). Making real-world issues our business: Critical literacy in a third-grade classroom. Primary Voices, K-6, 9 (2), pp. 15-21.

Hunter, C. S. & Harmon, D. (1979). Adult illiteracy in the United States: A report to the Ford Foundation . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Luke, A. (1997). Critical approaches to literacy. In V. Edwards & D. Corson (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 2: Literacy (143-151). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Luke, A & Walton, C. (1994). Critical reading: Teaching and assessing. In T. Hansen & T. N. Postlewaite (Eds.) International encyclopaedia of education, 2nd Edition, (1194-1198) . Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning: Teaching comprehension in the primary grades . Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Mills, G. E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nieto, S. (1994). Affirmation, solidarity, and critique: Moving beyond tolerance in multicultural education. Multicultural Education, Spring 1994, pp 9-38.

Ontario Curriculum Grades 1-8, Language. (1997). Ontario: Ministry of Education and Training.

Short, K. (1999). The search for “balance” in a literature-rich curriculum. Theory into Practice 38 (3). 130-137.

Shutz, A. (2000). Teaching freedom? Postmodern perspectives. Review of Educational Research 70 (2), 215-251.

Southam Literacy, (1987). In P. Calamai. Broken words: Why five million Canadians are illiterate. Toronto, ON: Southam Press.

Thompkins, G. E. (1998). 50 Literacy strategies: Step by step. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

UNESCO (1951). A definition of fundamental education. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13136&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Vasquez, V. (2000). Our way: Using the everyday to create a critical literacy curriculum. Primary Voice, K-6, 9 (2), pp 8-13.

The authors of this paper would like to acknowledge Dianne Riehl, Jamilla Arindell, Cindy Bird, Suzanne Thomson and the grade three students at “Sir Simon George” Elementary School for their assistance with this project. Pseudonyms were deemed unnecessary by the research team.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

White, R.E., Cooper, K. (2022). Action Research. In: Qualitative Research in the Post-Modern Era. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_10

Published : 29 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85126-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85124-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Organizational Behaviour
• Change Management
• Action Research for Successful Organizational Change

Action Research is a useful method for facilitating organizational change by collaborating and involving the client in the entire process of diagnostic, problem identification, experiential learning, and problem-solving process.

The entire process of action research is action oriented with the objective of making the change happen successfully. The process equally involves experimentation with the various frameworks in practical situation and application of various theories in various contexts which require change.

In other words, the process of Action Research requires three distinctive stages which are consistent with the Lewin’s Model which describes the three stages of change.

The most commonly used model of action research which is used in the contemporary scenario is Warner Burke’s 7 Step Action Research Model. These 7 steps are Stage of Entry, Contracting, Data Collection, Providing Feedback, Strategic Planning, Planning & Designing Interventions and Evaluating the success of Interventions.

Advantages of Action Research Model

They involve the top management professionals as well as the stakeholders in the process, as without their consent and involvement the objectives of change implementation cannot be achieved.

  Related Articles

• Pre-Requisites for Successful Change Management
• Overcoming Barriers to Change

View All Articles

Authorship/Referencing - About the Author(s)

The article is Written and Reviewed by Management Study Guide Content Team . MSG Content Team comprises experienced Faculty Member, Professionals and Subject Matter Experts. We are a ISO 2001:2015 Certified Education Provider . To Know more, click on About Us . The use of this material is free for learning and education purpose. Please reference authorship of content used, including link(s) to ManagementStudyGuide.com and the content page url.

• Change Management - Introduction
• The Need for Change Management
• Kinds of Change & Barriers to Change
• Senior Managers as Barriers to Change
• Reasons for Resistance to Change
• Individual and Organizational Sources of Resistance to Change
• Techniques for Overcoming Resistance to Change and Selection of Appropriate Technique
• Financial Crisis & Organizational Change
• Complexities in Driving Change
• Organizational Change and Managing Resistance to Change
• Catalysts in Organizational Change
• Creating Sustainable Change
• Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Change
• Fundamental Issues with the Top Down Approach in Change Management
• Role of HR in Change Management
• Innovation and Change Management
• Change Management Programs
• Some Ways to Actualize Change
• Importance of Middle Level Management
• Bureaucracy and Change
• Family Businesses vs Companies
• Change is the only Constant
• Different Types of Change
• What is Strategic Change ?
• Why First 100 Days Targets are a Myth ?
• The Changing Role of Management
• Exponential Change and What it means for Businesses and Workers
• Transactional vs Transformational Leadership in Change Management
• Organizational Learning and Change Management
• Organizational Vision, Mission, Strategy and Change Management
• Models/Approaches to Implement Change Management Programme
• Kurt Lewin’s Change Management Model: The Planned Approach to Organizational Change
• Kotter’s 8 step Model of Change
• Contingency Model of Change Management
• Mintzberg and Quinn’s Model of Change
• Scott and Jaffe Change Model
• Anderson & Anderson’s Change Model
• McKinsey 7S Change Model
• Transformational Change & Change Management
• Models of Transformational Change
• Organizational Change and Transition Management
• Determining Forces of Organizational Change
• Forces of Organizational Change: Planned vs. Unplanned Change and Internal & External Change
• Systems Model of Change Management and Continuous Change Process Model
• Importance of Communication in Change Management
• Psychological Contract and Change Management
• Emotional Competence Framework and Change Management
• Characteristics and Capabilities of Successful Change Agents
• Key Factors in Effective Change Management
• Battle Between Change Agents and Status Quo Interests in Every Organization
• Managing the Transition from Hierarchical to Network Organizational Structures
• Why it is Becoming Difficult to Change the Status Quo in Economies and Organizations?
• Disruptive Initiatives Must be Well Thought and Carefully Executed to Avoid Chaos
• Future Shock, Present Shock, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution
• The Changing Nature of Power in the Age of Networks
• How Organizations Must Learn to Deal with Radical, Disruptive, and Disorienting Change
• Driving Organizational Change by Embracing Agile and Facing the VUCA World
• How Relevant is the Corporate Planning Function in the Digital Age of Agile Organizations
• Paradigm Shift is Needed for Organizations to Succeed in the Digital Age
• The Organizational Challenges as the American Economy Transitions to the Digital Age

education, community-building and change

What is action research and how do we do it?

In this article, we explore the development of some different traditions of action research and provide an introductory guide to the literature.

Contents : what is action research ·  origins · the decline and rediscovery of action research · undertaking action research · conclusion · further reading · how to cite this article . see, also: research for practice ., what is action research.

In the literature, discussion of action research tends to fall into two distinctive camps. The British tradition – especially that linked to education – tends to view action research as research-oriented toward the enhancement of direct practice. For example, Carr and Kemmis provide a classic definition:

Action research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out (Carr and Kemmis 1986: 162).

Many people are drawn to this understanding of action research because it is firmly located in the realm of the practitioner – it is tied to self-reflection. As a way of working it is very close to the notion of reflective practice coined by Donald Schön (1983).

The second tradition, perhaps more widely approached within the social welfare field – and most certainly the broader understanding in the USA is of action research as ‘the systematic collection of information that is designed to bring about social change’ (Bogdan and Biklen 1992: 223). Bogdan and Biklen continue by saying that its practitioners marshal evidence or data to expose unjust practices or environmental dangers and recommend actions for change. In many respects, for them, it is linked into traditions of citizen’s action and community organizing. The practitioner is actively involved in the cause for which the research is conducted. For others, it is such commitment is a necessary part of being a practitioner or member of a community of practice. Thus, various projects designed to enhance practice within youth work, for example, such as the detached work reported on by Goetschius and Tash (1967) could be talked of as action research.

Kurt Lewin is generally credited as the person who coined the term ‘action research’:

The research needed for social practice can best be characterized as research for social management or social engineering. It is a type of action-research, a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action, and research leading to social action. Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice (Lewin 1946, reproduced in Lewin 1948: 202-3)

His approach involves a spiral of steps, ‘each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of the action’ ( ibid. : 206). The basic cycle involves the following:

This is how Lewin describes the initial cycle:

The first step then is to examine the idea carefully in the light of the means available. Frequently more fact-finding about the situation is required. If this first period of planning is successful, two items emerge: namely, “an overall plan” of how to reach the objective and secondly, a decision in regard to the first step of action. Usually this planning has also somewhat modified the original idea. ( ibid. : 205)

The next step is ‘composed of a circle of planning, executing, and reconnaissance or fact-finding for the purpose of evaluating the results of the second step, and preparing the rational basis for planning the third step, and for perhaps modifying again the overall plan’ ( ibid. : 206). What we can see here is an approach to research that is oriented to problem-solving in social and organizational settings, and that has a form that parallels Dewey’s conception of learning from experience.

The approach, as presented, does take a fairly sequential form – and it is open to a literal interpretation. Following it can lead to practice that is ‘correct’ rather than ‘good’ – as we will see. It can also be argued that the model itself places insufficient emphasis on analysis at key points. Elliott (1991: 70), for example, believed that the basic model allows those who use it to assume that the ‘general idea’ can be fixed in advance, ‘that “reconnaissance” is merely fact-finding, and that “implementation” is a fairly straightforward process’. As might be expected there was some questioning as to whether this was ‘real’ research. There were questions around action research’s partisan nature – the fact that it served particular causes.

The decline and rediscovery of action research

Action research did suffer a decline in favour during the 1960s because of its association with radical political activism (Stringer 2007: 9). There were, and are, questions concerning its rigour, and the training of those undertaking it. However, as Bogdan and Biklen (1992: 223) point out, research is a frame of mind – ‘a perspective that people take toward objects and activities’. Once we have satisfied ourselves that the collection of information is systematic and that any interpretations made have a proper regard for satisfying truth claims, then much of the critique aimed at action research disappears. In some of Lewin’s earlier work on action research (e.g. Lewin and Grabbe 1945), there was a tension between providing a rational basis for change through research, and the recognition that individuals are constrained in their ability to change by their cultural and social perceptions, and the systems of which they are a part. Having ‘correct knowledge’ does not of itself lead to change, attention also needs to be paid to the ‘matrix of cultural and psychic forces’ through which the subject is constituted (Winter 1987: 48).

Subsequently, action research has gained a significant foothold both within the realm of community-based, and participatory action research; and as a form of practice-oriented to the improvement of educative encounters (e.g. Carr and Kemmis 1986).

Exhibit 1: Stringer on community-based action research

A fundamental premise of community-based action research is that it commences with an interest in the problems of a group, a community, or an organization. Its purpose is to assist people in extending their understanding of their situation and thus resolving problems that confront them….

Community-based action research is always enacted through an explicit set of social values. In modern, democratic social contexts, it is seen as a process of inquiry that has the following characteristics:

• It is democratic , enabling the participation of all people.

• It is equitable , acknowledging people’s equality of worth.

• It is liberating , providing freedom from oppressive, debilitating conditions.

• It is life enhancing , enabling the expression of people’s full human potential.

(Stringer 1999: 9-10)

Undertaking action research

As Thomas (2017: 154) put it, the central aim is change, ‘and the emphasis is on problem-solving in whatever way is appropriate’. It can be seen as a conversation rather more than a technique (McNiff et. al. ). It is about people ‘thinking for themselves and making their own choices, asking themselves what they should do and accepting the consequences of their own actions’ (Thomas 2009: 113).

The action research process works through three basic phases:

Look -building a picture and gathering information. When evaluating we define and describe the problem to be investigated and the context in which it is set. We also describe what all the participants (educators, group members, managers etc.) have been doing.

Think – interpreting and explaining. When evaluating we analyse and interpret the situation. We reflect on what participants have been doing. We look at areas of success and any deficiencies, issues or problems.

Act – resolving issues and problems. In evaluation we judge the worth, effectiveness, appropriateness, and outcomes of those activities. We act to formulate solutions to any problems. (Stringer 1999: 18; 43-44;160)

The use of action research to deepen and develop classroom practice has grown into a strong tradition of practice (one of the first examples being the work of Stephen Corey in 1949). For some, there is an insistence that action research must be collaborative and entail groupwork.

Action research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of those practices and the situations in which the practices are carried out… The approach is only action research when it is collaborative, though it is important to realise that action research of the group is achieved through the critically examined action of individual group members. (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988: 5-6)

Just why it must be collective is open to some question and debate (Webb 1996), but there is an important point here concerning the commitments and orientations of those involved in action research.

One of the legacies Kurt Lewin left us is the ‘action research spiral’ – and with it there is the danger that action research becomes little more than a procedure. It is a mistake, according to McTaggart (1996: 248) to think that following the action research spiral constitutes ‘doing action research’. He continues, ‘Action research is not a ‘method’ or a ‘procedure’ for research but a series of commitments to observe and problematize through practice a series of principles for conducting social enquiry’. It is his argument that Lewin has been misunderstood or, rather, misused. When set in historical context, while Lewin does talk about action research as a method, he is stressing a contrast between this form of interpretative practice and more traditional empirical-analytic research. The notion of a spiral may be a useful teaching device – but it is all too easy to slip into using it as the template for practice (McTaggart 1996: 249).

Further reading

This select, annotated bibliography has been designed to give a flavour of the possibilities of action research and includes some useful guides to practice. As ever, if you have suggestions about areas or specific texts for inclusion, I’d like to hear from you.

Explorations of action research

Atweh, B., Kemmis, S. and Weeks, P. (eds.) (1998) Action Research in Practice: Partnership for Social Justice in Education, London: Routledge. Presents a collection of stories from action research projects in schools and a university. The book begins with theme chapters discussing action research, social justice and partnerships in research. The case study chapters cover topics such as: school environment – how to make a school a healthier place to be; parents – how to involve them more in decision-making; students as action researchers; gender – how to promote gender equity in schools; writing up action research projects.

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical. Education, knowledge and action research , Lewes: Falmer. Influential book that provides a good account of ‘action research’ in education. Chapters on teachers, researchers and curriculum; the natural scientific view of educational theory and practice; the interpretative view of educational theory and practice; theory and practice – redefining the problem; a critical approach to theory and practice; towards a critical educational science; action research as critical education science; educational research, educational reform and the role of the profession.

Carson, T. R. and Sumara, D. J. (ed.) (1997) Action Research as a Living Practice , New York: Peter Lang. 140 pages. Book draws on a wide range of sources to develop an understanding of action research. Explores action research as a lived practice, ‘that asks the researcher to not only investigate the subject at hand but, as well, to provide some account of the way in which the investigation both shapes and is shaped by the investigator.

Dadds, M. (1995) Passionate Enquiry and School Development. A story about action research , London: Falmer. 192 + ix pages. Examines three action research studies undertaken by a teacher and how they related to work in school – how she did the research, the problems she experienced, her feelings, the impact on her feelings and ideas, and some of the outcomes. In his introduction, John Elliot comments that the book is ‘the most readable, thoughtful, and detailed study of the potential of action-research in professional education that I have read’.

Ghaye, T. and Wakefield, P. (eds.) CARN Critical Conversations. Book one: the role of the self in action , Bournemouth: Hyde Publications. 146 + xiii pages. Collection of five pieces from the Classroom Action Research Network. Chapters on: dialectical forms; graduate medical education – research’s outer limits; democratic education; managing action research; writing up.

McNiff, J. (1993) Teaching as Learning: An Action Research Approach , London: Routledge. Argues that educational knowledge is created by individual teachers as they attempt to express their own values in their professional lives. Sets out familiar action research model: identifying a problem, devising, implementing and evaluating a solution and modifying practice. Includes advice on how working in this way can aid the professional development of action researcher and practitioner.

Quigley, B. A. and Kuhne, G. W. (eds.) (1997) Creating Practical Knowledge Through Action Research, San Fransisco: Jossey Bass. Guide to action research that outlines the action research process, provides a project planner, and presents examples to show how action research can yield improvements in six different settings, including a hospital, a university and a literacy education program.

Plummer, G. and Edwards, G. (eds.) CARN Critical Conversations. Book two: dimensions of action research – people, practice and power , Bournemouth: Hyde Publications. 142 + xvii pages. Collection of five pieces from the Classroom Action Research Network. Chapters on: exchanging letters and collaborative research; diary writing; personal and professional learning – on teaching and self-knowledge; anti-racist approaches; psychodynamic group theory in action research.

Whyte, W. F. (ed.) (1991) Participatory Action Research , Newbury Park: Sage. 247 pages. Chapters explore the development of participatory action research and its relation with action science and examine its usages in various agricultural and industrial settings

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (ed.) (1996) New Directions in Action Research , London; Falmer Press. 266 + xii pages. A useful collection that explores principles and procedures for critical action research; problems and suggested solutions; and postmodernism and critical action research.

Action research guides

Coghlan, D. and Brannick, D. (2000) Doing Action Research in your own Organization, London: Sage. 128 pages. Popular introduction. Part one covers the basics of action research including the action research cycle, the role of the ‘insider’ action researcher and the complexities of undertaking action research within your own organisation. Part two looks at the implementation of the action research project (including managing internal politics and the ethics and politics of action research). New edition due late 2004.

Elliot, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change , Buckingham: Open University Press. 163 + x pages Collection of various articles written by Elliot in which he develops his own particular interpretation of action research as a form of teacher professional development. In some ways close to a form of ‘reflective practice’. Chapter 6, ‘A practical guide to action research’ – builds a staged model on Lewin’s work and on developments by writers such as Kemmis.

Johnson, A. P. (2007) A short guide to action research 3e. Allyn and Bacon. Popular step by step guide for master’s work.

Macintyre, C. (2002) The Art of the Action Research in the Classroom , London: David Fulton. 138 pages. Includes sections on action research, the role of literature, formulating a research question, gathering data, analysing data and writing a dissertation. Useful and readable guide for students.

McNiff, J., Whitehead, J., Lomax, P. (2003) You and Your Action Research Project , London: Routledge. Practical guidance on doing an action research project.Takes the practitioner-researcher through the various stages of a project. Each section of the book is supported by case studies

Stringer, E. T. (2007) Action Research: A handbook for practitioners 3e , Newbury Park, ca.: Sage. 304 pages. Sets community-based action research in context and develops a model. Chapters on information gathering, interpretation, resolving issues; legitimacy etc. See, also Stringer’s (2003) Action Research in Education , Prentice-Hall.

Winter, R. (1989) Learning From Experience. Principles and practice in action research , Lewes: Falmer Press. 200 + 10 pages. Introduces the idea of action research; the basic process; theoretical issues; and provides six principles for the conduct of action research. Includes examples of action research. Further chapters on from principles to practice; the learner’s experience; and research topics and personal interests.

Action research in informal education

Usher, R., Bryant, I. and Johnston, R. (1997) Adult Education and the Postmodern Challenge. Learning beyond the limits , London: Routledge. 248 + xvi pages. Has some interesting chapters that relate to action research: on reflective practice; changing paradigms and traditions of research; new approaches to research; writing and learning about research.

Other references

Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. K. (1992) Qualitative Research For Education , Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Goetschius, G. and Tash, J. (1967) Working with the Unattached , London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

McTaggart, R. (1996) ‘Issues for participatory action researchers’ in O. Zuber-Skerritt (ed.) New Directions in Action Research , London: Falmer Press.

McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. (2003) You and Your Action Research Project 2e. London: Routledge.

Thomas, G. (2017). How to do your Research Project. A guide for students in education and applied social sciences . 3e. London: Sage.

Acknowledgements : spiral by Michèle C. | flickr ccbyncnd2 licence

How to cite this article : Smith, M. K. (1996; 2001, 2007, 2017) What is action research and how do we do it?’, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education. [ https://infed.org/mobi/action-research/ . Retrieved: insert date] .

© Mark K. Smith 1996; 2001, 2007, 2017

Last Updated on December 7, 2020 by infed.org

BUS603: Managing People

Models of Change Management

Action research.

Action research is a change process based on systematic collection of data and then selection of a change action based on what the analyzed data indicate. The process of action research consists of five steps, very similar to the scientific method:

In the diagnosis stage, information is gathered about the problem or concerns. During analysis, the change agent determines what information is of primary concern and develops a plan of action, often involving those that will be impacted by the change. Feedback includes sharing with employees what has been discovered during diagnosis and analysis with the intent of getting their thoughts and developing action plans. Finally, there is action. Employees and the change agent (this is a person who champions and sees change management from start to successful finish) carry out the actions required to solve the problem. Then, the final step is evaluation, where the action plan's effectiveness is reviewed and, if necessary, tweaked for better performance. This approach is very problem focused, where many people approach a problem with a more solution-centered outlook. It also minimizes resistance to change because it involves affected employees all along the process.

Module 15: Organizational Change

Models of change management, learning outcomes.

• Analyze models and process for change management

Navigating change is a constant organizational issue, whether it’s on a small or large level. When it’s planned change, managers can stay ahead of change resistance and create a calculated plan to put change in place. There are several models and processes for managing organizational change. Let’s take a look at them now.

Lewin’s Three-Step Model

Kurt Lewin, a researcher and psychologist we studied earlier when we talked about leadership styles, proposed that successful change in an organization should be conducted in three steps: unfreezing, movement, and refreezing.

In the “unfreezing” process, the equilibrium state can be unfrozen in one of three ways. The driving forces, which direct behavior away from the status quo, can be increased. The restraining forces, which hinder movement from the existing equilibrium, can be decreased. Or, managers can put a combination of the two to use.

The second part of the process, “movement,” is the actual implementation of change. New practices and policies are implemented.

In the third step, “refreezing,” the newly adopted behaviors and processes are encouraged and supported to become a part of the employees’ routine activities. Coaching, training and an appropriate awards system help to reinforce.

Lewin’s model of change has four characteristics:

• It emphasizes the importance of recognizing the need for change and being motivated to implement it.
• It acknowledges that resistance to change is inevitable.
• It focuses on people as the source of change and learning.
• It highlights the need to support new behaviors.

Kotter’s Eight Step Plan for Implementing Change

John Kotter, whom we studied earlier when we talked about the difference between managers and leaders, embellished Lewin’s three step model into a more detailed eight step model.

Kotter studied all of the places where failures could occur in Lewin’s model. Kotter recognized that several things needed to be added in:

• a sense of urgency around change
• a coalition for managing the change
• a communicated vision for the change
• the removal of obstacles to accomplishing change
• the continued pursuit of change in spite of apparent victory
• an anchoring of the changes into the organization’s culture

His revised eight steps of change are as follows:

Kotter expanded Lewin’s “unfreezing” step with his first four recommendations. His steps five, six, and seven correspond with Lewin’s “movement” stage and step eight is parallel with the “refreezing” process.

Nadler’s System Model

David Nadler, an American organizational theorist, proposed a system model that suggests that any change within an organization has a ripple effect on all the other areas of the organization. He suggests that, to implement change successfully, a manager must consider four elements:

• Informal organizational elements: communication patterns, leadership, power
• Formal organizational elements: formal organizational structures and work processes
• Individuals: employees and managers, and their abilities, weaknesses, characteristics, etc.
• Tasks: assignments given to employees and managers

In accordance with a systems view, if a change impacts one area, it will have a domino effect on the other areas.

As an example, a company may put out a new travel and entertainment policy. That policy, a formal organizational element, has an impact on information organizational elements, individuals and tasks. A new CEO joins and creates changes throughout the organization, impacting items at every level.

Ultimately, though, outputs are positively impacted. The travel and entertainment policy minimizes work processes and saves the company money. The CEO increases shareholder value.

Action Research

Action research is a change process based on systematic collection of data and then selection of a change action based on what the analyzed data indicate. The process of action research consists of five steps, very similar to the scientific method:

In the diagnosis stage, information is gathered about the problem or concerns. During analysis, the change agent determines what information is of primary concern and develops a plan of action, often involving those that will be impacted by the change. Feedback includes sharing with employees what has been discovered during diagnosis and analysis with the intent of getting their thoughts and developing action plans.

Finally, there is action. Employees and the change agent (this is a person who champions and sees change management from start to successful finish) carry out the actions required to solve the problem. Then, the final step is evaluation, where the action plan’s effectiveness is reviewed and, if necessary, tweaked for better performance.

This approach is very problem focused, where many people approach a problem with a more solution-centered outlook. It also minimizes resistance to change because it involves affected employees all along the process.

Organizational Development

Remember earlier when we said that these models for change don’t usually solve for organizational inertia? To a certain extent, organizational development addresses that. Organizational development is a collection of planned-change interventions, built on humanistic-democratic values, that seeks to improve organizational effectiveness and employee well-being.

The guiding principles of organizational development are:

• Commitment to long-lasting change
• Humanistic approach
• Action research tools
• Focus on process

Organizational development requires the organization to invest a good deal of time and research and it isn’t as much a fix for organizational inertia as it is a prevention of it. Some of the techniques and interventions employed by organizational development departments include the following:

• Sensitivity training. This is training that seeks to change behavior through unstructured group interaction. The objective is to provide subjects with increased awareness of their own behavior and how others perceive them, to facilitate better integration between individuals and organization.
• Survey feedback. The use of questionnaires to identify discrepancies among member perceptions, with discussion and remedies following.
• Team building. High interaction among team members to increase trust and openness.
• Intergroup development. These are efforts to change the attitudes, stereotypes and perceptions that groups have of each other.
• Appreciative inquiry. This process seeks to identify the qualities and strengths of an organization, on which performance improvement can be built. The inquiry usually involves strategizing with employees on performance improvement and “future state” ideals.

Crisis Management

Crisis management is really just the management of unplanned change. When managers unsuccessfully anticipate their competitor’s next move or don’t accurately read the environment, a crisis can occur. It can also occur as the result of organizational inertia.

Crisis management can be avoided by keeping the organization healthy. That is, not allowing it to become inflexible, infusing a certain amount of conflict in order to stave off complacency, and keeping innovation fresh by encouraging experimentation and bringing in new people with new ideas.

Please note that this is not referring in any way to a public relations crisis. “Crises” like Volkswagen’s issue covering up their vehicles’ excessive emissions, or Les Moonves’ poor judgement with the opposite gender at CBS, are a different kind of animal altogether and not what we’re talking about here.

Practice Question

Organizations that can anticipate change, minimize resistance and come out on the other side are far more likely to be successful. Almost always, those companies that suffer from poor change management suffer the consequences financially, often leading to the organization closing its doors. In the next section, we’ll take a look at a few companies that faced change, the decisions they made, and how it worked out for them.

• Models of Change Management. Authored by : Freedom Learning Group. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image: Lewins Three-Step Model. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image: Lewins Three-Step Chart. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image: Kotter Eight Step Plan. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image: Action Research. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

What is Planned Change? Process, Theory

• Post last modified: 5 May 2023
• Reading time: 37 mins read
• Post category: Human Resource / Organization Development

• What is Planned Change?

Planned change or developmental change is undertaken to improve the current way of operating. It is a calculated change, initiated to achieve a certain desirable output/performance and to make the organization more responsive to internal and external demands.

• Enhancing employees’ communication skills
• technical expertise
• building teams
• restructuring the organization
• introducing new technologies
• introducing new products and services
• challenging the incentive system
• improving employee welfare measures and the like fall into this category.

Table of Content

• 1 What is Planned Change?
• 2 What is Change?
• 3 What is Change Management?
• 4.1.1 Unfreezing
• 4.1.2 Moving
• 4.1.3 Refreezing
• 4.2.1 Problem Identification
• 4.2.2 Consultation with a Behavioral Science Expert
• 4.2.3 Data Gathering and Preliminary Diagnosis
• 4.2.4 Feedback to a Key Client or Group
• 4.2.5 Joint Diagnosis of the Problem
• 4.2.6 Joint Action Planning
• 4.2.7 Action
• 4.2.8 Data Gathering After Action
• 4.3.1 Initiate the Inquiry
• 4.3.2 Inquire into Best Practices
• 4.3.3 Discover the Themes
• 4.3.4 Envision a Preferred Future
• 4.3.5 Design and Deliver Ways to Create the Future
• 5 Comparisons of Planned Change Models
• 6.1 Entering and Contracting
• 6.2 Diagnosing
• 6.3 Planning and Implementing Change
• 6.4 Evaluating and Institutionalizing Change
• 7 Human Resources Tutorial
• 8 Human Resource Management

This type of change, where the future state is being consciously chosen, is not as threatening. However, it does require a system/subsystem level (techno-social) support to survive.

Read: What is Organizational Development | OD Meaning, Concept

What is Change?

Change is a constant, a thread woven into the fabric of our personal and professional lives.

Change occurs within our world and beyond — in national and international events, in the physical environment, in the way organizations are structured and conduct their business, in political and socioeconomic problems and solutions, and in societal norms and values.

What is Change Management?

Change management is a systematic approach to dealing with the transition or transformation of an organization’s goals, processes or technologies.

Theory of Planned Change

Frameworks describe the activities that must take place to initiate and carry out the successful organizational change.

Three theory of planned change:

• Lewin’s change model
• Action research model
• Positive model

Lewin’s Change Model

One of the earliest models of planned change was provided by Kurt Lewin. Lewin’s model provides a general framework for understanding organizational change.

Kurt Lewin suggests that efforts to bring about planned change in an organisation should approach change as a multistage process. This model of planned change is made up of three steps:

• Change/Moving

This step usually involves reducing those forces maintaining the organization’s behaviour at its present level. Unfreezing is sometimes accomplished through the process of “ psychological disconfirmation ”

By introducing information that shows discrepancies between behaviors desired by organization members and those behaviours currently exhibited, members can be motivated to engage in change activities.

This step shifts the behaviour of the organization, department, or individual to a new level. It involves intervening in the system to develop new behaviors, values, and attitudes through changes in organizational structures and processes.

This step stabilizes the organization at a new state of equilibrium. It is frequently accomplished through the use of supporting mechanisms that reinforce the new organizational state, such as organizational culture, rewards, and structures.

Action Research Model

Action research model is traditionally aimed both at helping specific organizations implement planned change and at developing more general knowledge that can be applied to other settings.

It places heavy emphasis on data gathering and diagnosis prior to action planning and implementation, as well as careful evaluation of results after the action, is taken.

The Action Research Model involves eight steps for planned change management.

Problem Identification

This stage usually begins when an executive, senses that the organization has one or more problems that might be solved with the help of an OD practitioner.

Consultation with a Behavioral Science Expert

During the initial contact, the OD practitioner and the client carefully assess each other.

Data Gathering and Preliminary Diagnosis

This step is usually completed by the OD practitioner, often in conjunction with organization members. It involves gathering appropriate information and analyzing it to determine the underlying causes of organizational problems.

Feedback to a Key Client or Group

Because action research is a collaborative activity, the diagnostic data are fed back to the client, usually in a group or work team meeting.

The feedback step, in which members are given the information gathered by the OD practitioner, helps them determine the strengths and weaknesses of the organization or unit under study.

Joint Diagnosis of the Problem

At this point, members discuss the feedback and explore with the OD practitioner whether they want to work on identified problems.

A close interrelationship exists among data gathering, feedback, and diagnosis because the consultant summarizes the basic data from the client members and presents the data to them for validation and further diagnosis.

Joint Action Planning

Next, the OD practitioner and the client members jointly agree on further actions to be taken. At this stage, the specific action to be taken depends on the culture, technology, and environment of the organization; the diagnosis of the problem; and the time and expense of the intervention.

This stage involves the actual change from one organizational state to another. It may include installing new methods and procedures, reorganizing structures and work designs, and reinforcing new behaviours.

Such actions typically cannot be implemented immediately but require a transition period as the organization moves from the present to a desired future state.

Data Gathering After Action

Because action research is a cyclical process, data must also be gathered after the action has been taken to measure and determine the effects of the action and to feed the results back to the organization. This, in turn, may lead to re-diagnosis and new action.

Positive Model

The positive model focuses on what the organization is doing right. It helps members understand their organization when it is working at its best and builds off those capabilities to achieve even better results.

5 Stages of Positive Model are:

Initiate the Inquiry

Inquire into best practices, discover the themes, envision a preferred future, design and deliver ways to create the future.

This first phase determines the subject of change. It emphasizes member involvement to identify the organizational issue they have the most energy to address. For example , members can choose to look for successful male-female collaboration (as opposed to sexual discrimination), instances of customer satisfaction (as opposed to customer dissatisfaction)

This phase involves gathering information about the “best of what is” in the organization. For example , If the topic is organizational innovation, then members help to develop an interview protocol that collects stories of new ideas that were developed and implemented in the organization.

In this third phase, members examine the stories, both large and small, to identify a set of themes representing the common dimensions of people’s experiences. For example, the stories of innovation may contain themes about how managers gave people the freedom to explore a new idea, the support organization members received from their coworkers, or how the exposure to customers sparked creative thinking.

Members then examine the identified themes, challenge the status quo, and describe a compelling future.

Based on the organization’s successful past, members collectively visualize the organization’s future and develop “possibility propositions”—statements that bridge the organization’s current best practices with ideal possibilities for future organizing.

The final phase involves the design and delivery of ways to create the future. It describes the activities and creates the plans necessary to bring about the vision. It proceeds to action and assessment phases similar to those of action research described previously.

Comparisons of Planned Change Models

• All three approaches emphasize the application of behavioural science knowledge, involve organization members in the change process to varying degrees, and recognize that any interaction between a consultant and an organization constitutes an intervention that may affect the organization.
• Lewin’s change model differs from the other two in that it focuses on the general process of planned change, rather than on specific OD activities.
• Lewin’s model and the action research model differ from the positive approach in terms of the level of involvement of the participants and the focus of change.

General Model of Planned Change

The three models of planned change suggest a general framework for planned change as shown in Figure.

The framework describes the four basic activities that practitioners and organization members jointly carry out in organization development.

Entering and Contracting

Planning and implementing change, evaluating and institutionalizing change.

The first set of activities in planned change concerns entering and contracting. Those events help managers decide whether they want to engage further in a planned change program and to commit resources to such a process.

In this stage of planned change, the client system is carefully studied. Diagnosis can focus on understanding organizational problems, including their causes and consequences, or on collecting stories about the organization’s positive attributes.

The diagnostic process is one of the most important activities in OD. It includes choosing an appropriate model for understanding the organization and gathering, analyzing, and feeding back information to managers and organization members about the problems or opportunities that exist.

In this stage, organization members and practitioners jointly plan and implement OD interventions. They design interventions to achieve the organization’s vision or goals and make action plans to implement them.

The final stage in planned change involves evaluating the effects of the intervention and managing the institutionalization of successful change programs so they persist. Feedback to organization members about the intervention’s results provides information about whether the changes should be continued, modified, or suspended.

• Cummings, Thomas G., & Worley, Christopher G. (2000), Organisation Development and Change, 7th ed., South-Western Educational Publishing.
• French, Wendell L., and Cecil H. (1996), Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organisation Improvement (5th Edition), New Delhi, India: Prentice-Hall of India.
• Singh, Kavita, Organisation Change and Development, Excel Books Private Limited.
• https://www.customwritings.com/research-papers.html  – a professional research paper writing service

Human Resources Tutorial

( Click on Topic to Read )

• Human Resource Management
• Human Resource Planning
• What is Recruitment ?
• What is Selection ?
• Employee Induction
• Types of Training
• Importance of Training
• Training Process
• Human Resource Accounting
• Methods of Human Resource Accounting
• How to Create Training Program
• What is Motivation ?
• Performance Appraisal
• Performance Appraisal Process
• Performance Appraisal Problems
• Management by Objectives
• 360 Degree Performance Appraisal
• What is Compensation ?
• Employee Discipline
• What is Employee Grievance ?
• What is Collective Bargaining ?
• What is HRIS ?
• Competency Based Training
• What is Human Resource Planning ?
• Human Resource Planning Process
• Human Resource Demand Forecasting
• What is Human Resource Development ?
• Challenges of Human Resource Development
• Methods of Performance Appraisal
• What is Job Analysis ?
• What is Job Design ?
• Recruitment Meaning
• Effective Recruiting
• Selection Process
• What is Employee Induction ?
• International Human Resource Management
• Cross Cultural Theories
• Dimensions of Culture
• HRM Practices
• International Selection Process
• Expatriate Training
• International Compensation
• Human Resource Development
• Methods of Human Resource Development

Steps for Designing HRD Intervention

• Employee Orientation
• Employee Socialization
• Realistic Job Review
• Performance Management System
• 360 Degree Assessment
• Employee Assistance Program
• What is Coaching?
• What is Mentoring ?
• Leadership Development
• Management Development
• Organisational Development
• What is Planned Change
• Types of OD Interventions
• What is Performance Management ?
• Performance Planning
• Competency Mapping
• What is Performance Appraisal ?
• Employee Performance Monitoring
• Performance Counselling
• Performance Management and Reward
• Ethics in Performance Management
• Role of HR Professionals in Performance Management
• What is Group ?
• Group Dynamics
• Organisational Culture
• Group Decision Making
• Group Conflict
• Diversity in the Workplace

Go On, Share & Help your Friend

Did we miss something in Organization Development Tutorial or You want something More? Come on! Tell us what you think about our post on Planned Change | Theories & Models, Process | Organizational Development in the comments section and Share this post with your friends.

• What is Executive Development?
• Functions of HRM
• What is HRIS?
• What is HR Audit ?
• What is Performance Appraisal?
• What is Succession Planning?
• What is International Human Resource Planning?
• What is Recruitment?
• What is Selection?
• What is Career Planning?
• What is Knowledge Management?
• Strategic Human Resource Management
• Difference between Global HRM and Domestic HRM
• Expatriate Training & Development in IHRM
• Process of Selecting Expatriates
• International Compensation Management
• What is Disciplinary Action?
• What is Competency Based Training?
• What is OD Interventions?
• What is Organizational Behavior?
• What is Personality?
• Theories of Personality
• What is Perception?
• What is Learning?
• Theories of Learning
• What is Attitude?
• What is Motivation?
• Motivation Theories
• Mcclelland’s Needs Theory of Motivation
• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
• Herzberg Two Factor Theory
• Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation
• What is Assessment Centre?
• Consumer Attitude Formation
• What is Culture?
• Consumer Decision Making Process
• What is Organisational culture?
• What is Leadership?
• What is Leader?
• Organisational Stress
• What is Organisational Culture?
• Trompenaars Model of Organisational Culture
• Organisational Culture Models
• Types of Organisational Culture
• Corporate Culture and Organisational Success
• Creation of Organisational Culture
• Sustaining Organisational Culture
• Managerial Decisions Affected by Culture
• Where Does Organizational Culture Comes From?
• Functions of Organisational Culture
• Ethical Organizational Culture
• What is Culture Assessment?
• Workplace Culture and Practice
• Changing Organisational Culture
• Innovative Culture in Organization
• Leadership in Organization Culture
• Organisational Culture and Business Strategy
• Organizational Culture and Strategic Planning
• ERP Implementation
• Business Process Management
• What is Competency Modeling?
• Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation
• What is Industrial Relations?
• Organisational Change
• What is Sales Budget?
• What is Sales Control?
• What is Sales Analysis?
• What is Sales Quotas?
• What is Sales Territories?
• Types of Powers
• Factors Affecting Communication in Organisation

You Might Also Like

Kirkpatrick training evaluation | model, four-levels, what is employee orientation purpose, problems, what is organizational culture definition, characteristics, importance, what is 360 degree assessment importance, uses, what is job analysis components, process, methods, uses, functions of hrm (human resource management), what is competency modeling framework, attributes, what is sales quotas purpose, types, methods, limitations, what is culture definition, characteristics, components, types, what is collective bargaining definition, features, objectives, types, what is coaching skills, process, role of hrd professional, leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

World's Best Online Courses at One Place

We’ve spent the time in finding, so you can spend your time in learning

Digital Marketing

Personal growth.

Development

• Go back to Main Menu
• Client Log In
• MSCI Client Support Site
• Barra PortfolioManager
• MSCI ESG Manager
• MSCI ESG Direct
• Global Index Lens
• MSCI Real Assets Analytics Portal
• RiskManager 3
• CreditManager
• RiskManager 4
• Index Monitor
• MSCI Datscha
• MSCI Real Capital Analytics
• Total Plan/Caissa
• MSCI Fabric
• MSCI Carbon Markets

Navigation Menu

• Our Clients

Insights on MSCI One

Institutional client designed indexes (icdis), total portfolio footprinting, esg trends to watch, factor models, visualizing investment data.

• Our Solutions
• Go back to Our Solutions
• Analytics Overview
• Crowding Solutions
• Fixed Income Analytics
• Managed Solutions
• Multi-asset Class Factor Models
• Portfolio Management
• Quantitative Investment Solutions
• Regulatory Solutions
• Risk Insights
• Climate Investing
• Climate Investing Overview

Implied Temperature Rise

Trends 2024.

• Biodiversity
• Carbon Markets
• Climate Lab Enterprise
• Real Estate Climate Solutions
• Sustainable Investing
• Sustainable Investing Overview

ESG and Climate Funds in Focus

What is esg, role of capital in the net-zero revolution.

• Sustainability Reporting Services
• Factor Investing
• Factor Investing Overview

MSCI Japan Equity Factor Model

• Equity Factor Models
• Factor Indexes
• Indexes Overview

Index Education

Msci climate action corporate bond indexes.

• Client-Designed
• Direct Indexing
• Fixed Income
• Private Real Assets

Thematic Exposure Standard

• Go back to Indexes
• Resources Overview

MSCI Indexes Underlying Exchange Traded Products

• Communications
• Equity Factsheets
• Derivatives
• Methodology
• Performance
• Private Capital
• Private Capital Overview

Global Private Capital Performance Review

• Total Plan (formerly Caissa)
• Carbon Footprinting
• Private Capital Indexes
• Private Company Data Connect
• Real Assets
• Real Assets Overview

2024 Trends to Watch in Real Assets

• Index Intel
• Portfolio Services
• Property Intel
• Private Real Assets Indexes
• Real Capital Analytics
• Research & Insights
• Go back to Research & Insights
• Research & Insights Overview
• Multi-Asset Class
• Real Estate
• Sustainability
• Events Overview

Capital for Climate Action Conference

• Data Explorer
• Developer Community
• Technology and Data

2022 Annual Report

• Go back to Who We Are
• Corporate Responsibility
• Corporate Responsibility Overview
• Enabling Sustainable Investing
• Environmental Sustainability
• Governance Practices
• Social Practices
• Sustainability Reports and Policies
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Henry A. Fernandez

• Recognition

Main Search

Social sharing, extended viewer, attribution for implied temperature rise.

Jun 3, 2024

MSCI Implied Temperature Rise (ITR) is a climate metric designed to show the temperature alignment of companies and portfolios with global climate goals. Beyond climate disclosures, investors may use ITR to set decarbonization targets and support engagement on climate risk.

In this paper, we develop an attribution framework to understand what causes a portfolio’s ITR to change over time. The six driving factors are:

• changes in the portfolio composition,
• changes in the global emissions budget,
• changes in companies’ emissions budgets,
• changes in companies’ projected future emissions,
• changes in the portfolio’s ownership share in the portfolio holdings, and
• the interaction effect among these drivers.

We can show this attribution in the form of a tree. To illustrate this, we considered a hypothetical portfolio based on the MSCI ACWI Index from Jan. 31, 2020, to Jan. 31, 2022. The MSCI Implied Temperature Rise attribution can be analyzed both as a percentage (as shown) as well as by degree Celsius (see report).

ITR attribution tree (%)

ITR data was pulled in November 2023 using modeled history from Jan. 31, 2020, to Jan. 31, 2022. Source: MSCI ESG Research.

Research authors

• Xinxin Wang , Executive Director, MSCI Research
• Guido Giese , Managing Director, MSCI Research
• Drashti Shah , Associate, MSCI Research

Related content

A framework for attributing changes in portfolio carbon footprint.

We present a framework that allows investors to understand to what extent changes in a portfolio’s carbon footprint are due to companies’ real-world decarbonization efforts, a portfolio manager’s investment decisions or changes in companies’ financing.

Designed to show the temperature alignment of your investments with global temperature goals

Climate Target and Commitments Dataset

For untangling corporate decarbonization commitments

UtmAnalytics