The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1176-6093.htm

A critical review
of interventionist research

A critical review
of interventionist
research

Vicki Baard
Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Business and Economics,
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

13

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to further develop the epistemological base of interventionist
research (IR) as a valid accounting and management research methodology, through the identification
of intervention theory and an IR framework derived from social sciences. Moreover, this paper seeks to
contribute to empirical knowledge of IR through a critical review of limited empirical evidence relating
to intervention theory and the extant IR frameworks derived from action research.
Design/methodology/approach Texts and academic journal papers that judiciously review
intervention theory, intervention research frameworks were identified systematically; along with
empirical research addressing theoretical and methodological deficiencies of IR and, providing
evidence to inform practical considerations when undertaking IR.
Findings The key findings include rare empirical evidence addressing theoretical shortcomings
and application of intervention theory, an IR framework derived from social sciences with extremely
limited use in accounting and management research, deficiencies in action research oriented
frameworks labelled as alternative forms of IR, an alternate perspective to positivistic validity and
reliability issues and other practical considerations to facilitate the conducting of IR.
Originality/value The novelty of this paper lies in the diminution of the fragmented nature of IR
that undermines its scientific value through the identification of an intervention theory and IR
framework experiencing extremely limited use in accounting and management research, with the
exception of a cross-disciplinary (management accounting and information systems) doctoral study,
optimising IR utilisation with greater degrees of validity and reliability and, finally, a proposed
alternative research design for utilisation in IR.
Keywords Action research, Research methods
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
Recently, interventionist research (IR) has entertained renewed interest as a research
methodology in accounting and management. Given the practical knowledge outcomes,
in contrast to purely theoretical knowledge development (KD) focused research;
organisations and practitioners grapple with finding the relevance of the theoretical
literature to solving problems. Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA)
called for IR proposals in 2006 to promote the usefulness of management accounting for
organisations using this approach. Lukka (2006) explained why CIMA embarked on this
research initiative, through rhetoric embracing how to make management accounting
findings of value to practice and that interventionist research aims to narrow the gap
between practice and academic theory. It seems that CIMA calling for IR was a timely
one; there is a dearth of IR in management accounting. Jonsson and Lukka (2007)
concurs, save a few Finnish studies (Kasanen et al., 1993; Lukka, 2007; Labro and
Tuomela, 2003; Malmi et al., 2004; Labro et al., 2005) which packaged IR as a
constructive research approach (CRA). Other management accounting studies using an
action research (AR) approach included Seal et al. (1999), Arnaboldi and Azzone (2004)

Qualitative Research in Accounting &

Management
Vol. 7 No. 1, 2010
pp. 13-45
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1176-6093
DOI 10.1108/11766091011034262

QRAM
7,1

14

and Andriessen (2007)[1]. Jonsson and Lukka (2007) and van Aken (2004) also refer to
design-based research (DBR) as design science; Jonsson and Lukka indicate that design
science is an alternative form of IR. Baard (2004) used IR[2] in a cross-disciplinary
(management accounting and information systems) doctoral thesis in the small business
environment, see also Baard and van den Berg (2004a, b). This dearth of IR is not
significantly different with regards to other disciplines, for example information
systems. Baskerville and Wood-Harper (1996) identified rare instances of IR in North
America, with slightly more activity in the UK, Scandinavia and Australia.
Given this renewed interest in IR, a fragmented notion the nature of IR is prevalent
because facets of IR are entrenched in AR and branded with AR derivatives such as
action science, clinical research, design science and constructive research, thus
producing reservations concerning its scientific value. Moreover, the absence of an IR
theory or framework, and the related paucity of the extant empirical research further
exemplified this haziness. This has therefore contributed to the existence of several gaps
in the epistemology and practice of IR. First, conceptually, the theoretical foundations of
IR are not explicit, producing reservations concerning its scientific validity, discipline
and therefore legitimacy as a methodology. Given the aim and apparent substantive
nature of IR on the one hand, positivist scepticism concerning its scientific validity on
the other, extant empirical accounting and management research seems silent on a
theory peculiar to IR. The extant literature identifies tensions between the positivist and
interpretive research perspectives concerning the scientific validity of IR as a qualitative
methodology (Susman and Evered, 1978; Aguinis, 1993; Kasanen et al., 1993; Atkinson
and Shaffir, 1998; Breu and Peppard, 2003; Labro and Tuomela, 2003; Ahrens and
Chapman, 2006; Davila and Oyon, 2008). Researchers intervening in organisational
systems have dual objectives: to advance knowledge in their field and help improve the
system under study. Lindenburg et al. (2001, p. 132) concur and indicate that in many
instances the goals and methods of science are incongruent with the priorities and
realities of the clients, institutions and/or communities where research is conducted. In
contrast, descriptive or normal science researchers undertaking field work aim to
produce new scientific knowledge through objective study of an empirical object; the
object of study is assumed to be unchanged by the process of studying it (Edmondson
and Moingeon, 1999, p. 170). Positivist research represents rigorous research, it relies on
the importance of results describing knowledge, and the reproduction of these results
captured in a different study, it provides external validity, advances knowledge and
contributes to the evolution of theory. AR is confronted by problems including a lack of
impartiality, discipline or rigor, a lack of differentiation from consulting and is context
bound (Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996). Breu and Peppard (2003) assert that
progress concerning IR output in information systems is retarded with interventionist
approaches being dismissed as unscientific because of the purported absence of
philosophical foundations compelling it to draw on a hazy theoretical base (p. 181).
This said, Susman and Evered (1978) propose that AR can be legitimated as a science by
locating its foundation in philosophical viewpoints which differ from those used to
legitimate positivist science; the contribution of this AR legitimisation to a theory of IR
however remains to be seen.
Second, from a research methodology perspective, are there any distinctive
IR frameworks or methodologies that can be used to stimulate a structured approach
to this sort of research, which provides a greater degree of rigour and legitimacy to IR?

Third, knowledge gathered from disciplines where IR utilisation is largely prevalent

(e.g. Nursing, Education, Public Health, Dementia, Social Work, Organisational
Development and Clinical Psychology), raises the question as to whether consolidating
this knowledge can contribute to and influence IR practice in accounting and
management. In order to address and improve our understanding of the
above-mentioned issues, a critical review of IR in the context of the extant literature
was required to develop our knowledge and appreciation of these issues. Reviews of IR,
for example Jonsson and Lukka (2007) provides a useful introduction to the discourse
of IR, through its exploration of the nature of IR, its variations, a suggested
philosophical basis and the forms of IR output, in a management accounting context;
disappointingly it seems to be the only one.
Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to further develop the epistemological base of
IR as a valid accounting and management research methodology, through the
identification of intervention theory and an IR framework derived from social sciences.
Moreover, this paper seeks to contribute to empirical knowledge of IR through a critical
review of limited empirical evidence relating to intervention theory and the extant IR
frameworks derived from AR. This paper is organised into five sections. The first
section specifies how the literature review was conducted, followed by a discussion of
the nature of IR. The third section presents an overview of intervention theory,
followed by the introduction of an intervention framework. The fourth section
describes other key IR issues such as research design and validity and reliability.

Review methodology
To construct a critical review of IR providing useful outcomes for readers and future IR
researchers, a systematic review of the extant literature was conducted. This review
commenced with the analysis of several texts concerning IR, in my personal collection.
Additionally, two electronic databases were used to source other relevant published
studies (journal articles), namely ABI/Inform Global Proquest and EBSCO. These
databases were searched using the keywords interventionist research intervention
research and intervention theory with searches limited to citations and abstracts.
In the former database 40 references were found; in the latter 1,178; the relevant studies
were then selected from these databases. The studies deemed relevant for review in
this paper fulfilled the following selection criteria:
.
research published in scholarly peer reviewed journals (excluded were editorials,
letters to the editor, practice notes, exchanges between authors, book reviews and
so forth);
.
research focusing on intervention research; and
.
studies were not restricted to accounting and management.
Any references cited in each of the works that met the selection criteria, was also made.
It must be noted that an exhaustive review of publications relating intervention
research was not the sole object of this paper; the research selected represented
reasonably the primary thrusts to support a critical review of IR. A limitation therefore
might be that some works have been overlooked. This does not however invalidate the
contribution of this paper toward the existing body of knowledge of IR.

A critical review
of interventionist
research
15

QRAM
7,1

16

The nature of IR
AR is considered the origin of all IR in the area of social sciences (Jonsson and Lukka,
2007, p. 376), initiated by Kurt Lewin (1946, 1951) who posited the idea of doing change
experiments, in the field rather than the laboratory. There literature on AR is
considerable (Burns, 2007; Stringer, 2007; Reason, 2006; Reason and Bradbury, 2006;
Breu and Peppard, 2003; Chandler and Torbert, 2003; Paisey and Paisey, 2003; Bradbury
and Reason, 2003; Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996; Eden and Huxham, 1996;
Edmondson, 1996; Argyris and Schon, 1989; Argyris et al., 1985; Rickards and Bessant,
1980; Susman and Evered, 1978; Foster, 1972, Rapoport, 1970; Blum, 1955). These
authors offer definitions, perspectives and empirical knowledge that have been useful in
enlightening our understanding of IR. However, current IR literature is not forthcoming
in attempting to distinguish between it and other forms of applied social research. This
said, how do we define intervention and what is IR? To intervene is to enter into an
ongoing system of relationships, to come between or among persons, groups or objects
for the purpose of helping them (Argyris (1970, p. 15). Intervention is action taken
within a system of which the researcher is not a part of or constitutes behaviours that
interject into the ongoing social processes of a system or are novel approaches to
addressing problems involving intrusion into complex health, social, political, cultural
and/or technical environments (Cope, 2000; Beckhard, 1979; Lindenburg et al., 2001).
Finally, Carkhuff (1983, p. 163) offers an extension on the prior definitions and states:
An intervention is both a response and an initiative. It is a response to a situation that defines
a need. It is a response to a deficit or to what is not present. At the same time, it is an initiative
to influence that situation to fill in what is not present, to transform the deficits into assets.
In short, an intervention is an attempt to make a difference.

Mullen (1994, p. 167) determines that the objective of intervention research is the
development of a social technology to ameliorate a social problem; a statement of desired
change in a social problem or in some condition related to a social problem. IR draws
from such areas as evaluation research, behavioural assessment, technology
assessment, technological transfer, simulation and modelling, meta-analysis,
knowledge utilisation (KU), practice technology and system engineering; it is the
configuring of these methodological elements into a phased system of action that
harnesses their potential as general practical intervening innovations (Thomas and
Rothman, 1994). Thomas and Rothman (1994) and Fawcett et al. (1994) also suggest that
IR has two outputs, namely a knowledge product for both researcher and practitioner
and a practice product or intervention developed for problem solution. The aim of this
form of research is therefore to improve community life and well-being (including the
organisational context) through the development of interventions, which are effective in
various real-life contexts, involving a co-ordinated effort of all participants who are
actually experiencing the problem, resulting in the generation of knowledge for
researchers and practitioners. This introduction to the nature of IR serves as the
foundation for distinguishing IR its variants and is followed by a discussion on
intervention theory and IR frameworks may provide further points of differentiation.
Intervention theory
Previously, Breu and Peppard (2003) asserted that interventionist approaches draw on
a hazy theoretical base. Jonsson and Lukka (2007) informed us that the role of theory

in IR currently is and ought to be debated. This role of theory in IR serves two

purposes. First, theory is used to diagnose problems, to construct an appropriate
intervention and to position the findings to contribute towards the production of
publishable scientific knowledge. Second, there is the use of a theoretical framework to
provide strategies to accomplish IR activities. Numerous studies have been published,
containing empirical evidence of interventions that have stimulated significant change
in their elected social system (Christopher et al., 2008; McCarty Kilian et al., 2005;
Robitaille et al., 2005; Stronks and Mackenbach, 2005; Fishbein et al., 2001; Snyder et al.,
2001; Camp, 2001). However, no explicit reference to intervention theory or framework
occurs. An intervention theory is therefore necessary and relevant because it serves as
guide for intervention researchers, it may provide discipline, exactitude and ultimately
legitimacy to IR as a research method. Argyris (1970) constructed a theoretical
framework of consulting, referred to as intervention theory; this theory stems from
organisational theory and the integration of borrowed concepts and empirical research
from relevant behavioural sciences (p. 14). Argyris cautions that this theoretical
framework regarding intervention activities is a primitive attempt. However, rare
instances of studies using intervention theory and the paucity of empirical research
using IR research approaches, is insufficient to epitomise its primitiveness. Rather it is
a useful starting point for its contestation to be a worthy opponent for the positivist
approaches.
Intervention theory presents a broad spectrum of intervention activity principles
including but not limited to: the primary tasks of intervention, intervention activities,
qualities and behaviour of an effective interventionist, difficulties associated with
client and interventionist interaction, effective and ineffective intervention activity,
organisational entropy including resistance to change and modifications to established
concepts of rigorous methodology. However, given that the primary tasks constitute
essential processes supporting intervention activity, they enjoy the primary focus in
this section. The primary tasks of intervention (see Figure 1) are:
.
the generation of valid and useful information;
.
free, informed choice that maintains effective interventionist behaviour and
client system integrity; and
.
internal commitment to choices made for decision implementation.
These primary tasks influence the client system and the interventionist. Before
discussing intervention theory, clarification of some terminology is required; these
include client system competence effective and intervention system. Argyris
(1970, p. 16) refers to the client system as consisting of individuals, groups and
organisations. Susman and Evered (1978, p. 588) refer to a client system as the social
system in which the members face problems to be solved by AR; it may be one of the
face-to-face groups, an organisation, network of organisations, or a community.
Therefore, to clarify the term client system and avoid association with consultation,
client system is hereinafter referred to as the participant system; the participant
system may therefore comprise of individuals or groups or organisations, or a network
of organisations, or a community.
Reference to participant systems as competent and effective and effective
interventions is also made. Argyris (1970, p. 36) indicates that the core activities of any
system are:

A critical review
of interventionist
research
17

QRAM
7,1

18

Figure 1.
Diagrammatic
representation of
intervention theory

Participant
system

Interventionist

Problem-solving
ability

Generate valid and useful

information

Diagnosis

Decision-making

Create conditions for free

and informed choice

Alternative
courses of action

Decision
implementing

Internal commitment

Problem
solution

Effective and
competent

Effective

Source: Adapted from Argyris (1970)

.
.
.

to achieve its objectives;

to maintain its internal environment; and
to adapt to, and maintain control over, the relevant external environment.

Thus, a participant system is competent when it achieves these activities over time and
under different conditions, and is effective when it achieves these activities in any
given situation. An intervention is effective when it assists the participant system
achieve the core activities, thus augmenting (not reducing) its competence and
effectiveness through autonomous problem-solving, decision-making and decision
implementation. Hasenfeld and Furman (1994, p. 299) defines effectiveness as:
.
the intervention design was correct and the associated procedures and
techniques ameliorated the problem;
.
the intervention has been tested (even refined perhaps) and works; and
.
the organisation has adopted the innovation aiding service delivery
operationally.
This definition is important when considering validity and reliability concerns of IR.
Finally, the intervention system refers to the collaborative relationship between the
participant system and interventionist (Figure 1).
The generation of valid (relevant and understandable) and useful information for
the participant and the interventionist provides an accurate and collaborative problem

diagnosis, describes factoral interrelationships contributing to the problem, and to

initiate the participant learning process required for problem solution. To certify
validity of this information, it must be:
.
publicly verifiable;
.
negligibly attributive to participant system behaviour, negligibly evaluative of
participant behaviour to reduce their reticence for defensiveness thus
encouraging openness for learning; and
.
non-contradictory information that reduces the effectiveness of relationships
between the participant system, the intervention and the interventionist.
The second task concerns the creation of conditions for the participant system to make
free (voluntary and proactive) and informed choices. The interventionist devises
alternative courses of action to remedy the problem (congruency between course of
action and intended outcome) and ensures that the alternatives are congruent with the
capacity (time, people and material resources) of the participant system. This task
promotes participant system autonomy, taking responsibility for their future and
providing the ability to explore several significant alternatives, crucial to their needs;
this system therefore engages in decision-making to select the option pivotal to
problem solution. Argyris (1970) emphasises that free choice is important for: first, the
participant system to achieve significant willingness and motivation to work
on the problem to facilitate successful change and second, the interventionist to resist
the pressures of being controlled by participant system angst and proposing
alternative courses of actions that driven by needs of participant system control and
coercion. Internal commitment means that the participant system should experience a
high degree of ownership and a feeling of responsibility about the course of action
selected and implemented, and its implications (Argyris, 1970, p. 20). Internal
commitment is related to the execution of decisions in such as way that the problem
does not recur and that the existing level of competence is not deteriorated (Argyris,
1970, p. 37). Given this, the intervention can be deemed effective and effective
intervention activity assists the participant system to operate more competently.
The participant system will be effective through learning how to solve a problem to the
degree that it generates valid and useful information employs free and informed choice
and demonstrates internal commitment.
Argyris (1970) proposes that these primary tasks have implications for intervention
activity. These implications provide useful information for conducting IR and
stimulate philosophical discussions thereon. First, there should be congruence between
effective intervention activities and participant system activities forming part of
normal operations. This would reduce the probability of intervention rejection and
promote participant system competency for recurring problem solution, exclusive of
the interventionist. Second, that change is not a principle interventionist task, nor is
change production a criterion for effective interventions, even though primary task
accomplishment inevitably leads to change. It should rather be seen as a by-product of
intervention, which preserves the long-range effectiveness of change. Third,
primary tasks serve as criteria for selecting participant systems (Argyris, 1970,
p. 24); the participant system must want to be helped to increase the probability of
intervention strategy, based the primary tasks, being successful. This implication
also suggests the involvement of top management is important for effective

A critical review
of interventionist
research
19

QRAM
7,1

20

intervention activity stimulation. Fourthly, both participant system and intervention

must retain autonomy through minimisation of manipulation. In this instance,
manipulation refers to the interventionist allowing or encouraging participant system
dependence on the researcher, rather than learning to make choices themselves. Fifthly,
the primary tasks can be used to determine the conditions, under which the
interventionist will enter, inhabit and depart the participant system as well as
determine the principles of engagement. Finally, primary task accomplishment should
result in the advancement of knowledge in two areas, that of science (academic) and
professional knowledge (practice). The requirement to obtain valid information
encourages the interventionist to add to the basic knowledge in his field.
Finally, Argyris argues that the primary tasks should be aligned with the
interventionist researchers activities. Therefore, rigorous research, traditional or
scientific research (mechanistic research), should not be used throughout the IR
process. Using rigorous research results in unintended consequences (e.g. participant
system dependence on the interventionist, physical and psychological withdrawal
from intervention process, ineffectiveness of the problem-solving process and hostility
toward the research being undertaken) that do not encourage achievement of the
primary tasks. Instead an organic approach should be used where there is
collaboration between participant system and interventionist researcher concerning all
aspects of research design and accomplishment, see Table I.
Empirical evidence demonstrating the use of intervention theory is rare. Foster
(1972, p. 536) asserted that the practice of AR, without its guiding theory frequently
makes little sense. Therefore, in search of a theoretical foundation for AR, Foster
explored elements of theory and practice in the literature, including intervention
theory. Similarly to Argyris (1970), Foster also uses organisational theory, the theory of
change, organisational development, field experimentation and consulting in his
consideration of AR theory. Foster makes no specific reference to intervention theory
as a construct or even acknowledges its existence; specific reference to Argyriss work
is very limited. Rather, it is confined to a discussion on approaches to planned change
and behavioural issues that arise from the application of interventions and the
interaction of the client system with the interventionist. Yet, Fosters discourse on AR
theory yields many similarities to intervention theory, including but not limited to:
reference to the client system, the criteria for selecting a client system, the collaborative
relationship between research and client termed a third organisation[3] (Foster, 1972,
p. 538), the importance of interventionist and client autonomy and the behavioural
improvements sought in the client system. These similarities in AR theory to
intervention theory, suggests that Argyris work contains merit and may validate
the explanatory concepts contained in intervention theory. Finally, Foster, refers to the
researcher as a change agent not interventionist, and focuses largely on the intention
of AR to render change; the matter of change as a primary intention contrasts with
Argyris view.
Van De Vliert (1977) offers, to my knowledge, the only critical evaluation of
intervention theory, which is useful since it presents an opportunity for theory
refinement or concept clarification. Theory refinement may support our quest to
conduct IR that may be considered valid, scientific and not sloppy (Eden and
Huxham, 1996). Argyris (1970) argues that intervention theory represents an internally
consistent framework; it is the issue of consistency that Van De Vliert uses as the

Mechanistic research

Organic research

The interventionist drives goal definition of the

program

Participant participation in goal definition by,

confirming and disconfirming, modifying or
adding to those goals defined by the
interventionist
The interventionist acknowledges that they are
strangers (tourists) in the institution. Participants
should be encouraged to confront and test their
relationship with him. Interventionist power over
participants, due to academic competence is
equalised through encouragement to question the
interventionist and the entire program
Participants are provided with opportunities for
psychological success, feelings of essentiality,
confidence development and trust in others,
effective group relations and minimised
dependent and submissive relationships
The amount of participation is influenced by the
subject and the interventionist
The interventionist depends upon the participants
need to be helped for encouraging them to control
and define the program so that they become
internally involved and feel that they are as
responsible as the interventionist
Participation is encouraged in terms of instrument
design, research methods and change strategy
The costs and rewards of the change program are
defined by the participants and the interventionist
The feedback to participants is designed to
unfreeze them, as well as to help them develop
more effective interpersonal relations and group
processes

The interventionist assumes that this relationship

of being strictly professional cannot be influenced
by the participants. He maintains his power of
expertise and therefore keeps a professional
distance from the participants
Participants have dependent and submissive roles
with low feelings of essentiality in the program

The amount of participant participation in the

entire project is controlled by the interventionist
The interventionist depends upon the
participants need to be helped or need to
cooperate as being the basis for their involvement.
He expects participants to be used as information
givers
If participation is encouraged, it tends to be skindeep, designed to keep subjects happy
The costs and rewards of the change program are
defined primarily by the interventionist
The feedback to subjects is designed to inform
them how much the diagnostician

Source: Adapted from Argyris (1970, p. 104)

crux of his evaluation. Van De Vliert (1977, p. 557) contends that every theory should
aim to comply with logical[4] and empirical[5] consistency; intervention theory
contains five logical and empirical inconsistencies regarding the primary tasks of
intervention. Given the scope of this paper, only two inconsistencies are addressed. The
first inconsistency relates to Argyriss postulation that change is not a primary task of
the interventionist; Van De Vliert and Beckhard (1979) stipulate otherwise and agree
that the interventionist has a need to influence change in the participant system.
Previously, Foster (1972) argued that the primary intention of AR is change, therefore
referring to the researcher as a change agent. However, this is intervention theory
and perhaps one of the distinguishing characteristics from other forms of IR is the view
that change is not the only product of the process. Change and adaptability could be
construed as a side effect of a successful intervention, given the knowledge
and practical product outputs of the IR process. The second inconsistency, relates
to mechanistic versus organic research, especially regarding the generation of
valid information; seemingly this is a contentious issue subject to further debate.

A critical review
of interventionist
research
21

Table I.
Mechanistic and organic
research

QRAM
7,1

22

Van De Vliet argues that organic research is not used throughout an intervention
project, specifically during the generation of valid information (diagnostics) stage,
thereby infringing free choice and internal commitment achievement. Argyris (1970,
p. 104) argues that rigorous research methods are the interventionists best chance for
obtaining valid data. However, modifications to mechanistic research are required to
reduce the unintended consequences of traditional research in IR, previously described;
Van De Vliert omits this from his argument. The notion of using organic research is
based on fortifying the relationship between interventionist and participant system to
enhance the effectiveness of the problem-solving process so that the clients could
continue to maintain or increase its effectiveness after the interventionist has left
(Argyris, 1970, p. 105). This collaborative relationship will increase the participants
probability of primary task completion. Baard (2004), in this context employed a
quasi-experimental field approach in an interventionist study to generate valid data
from which intervention design could commence, but also used observations and
interviews to infuse an organically-centred approach, to check inconsistencies in the
interview material and to promote intervention system harmony through participant
system engagement.
Dirks et al. (1978) applied intervention theory, specifically the primary tasks, in a
small informal organisation, concerning organisational change. They found the
primary tasks useful for planning their research, the immersion of the researcher in the
research process an important stimulant for collaboration, and through internal
commitment encouraging participants to achieve effective long-term change. Argyris
and Kaplan (1994) used intervention theory principles in the organisational
implementation of a new technical theory, activity-based costing (ABC); an action
science approach was used. This implementation had intended consequences, that of
organisational change. In response to this change the actors within the organisation
apply defensive strategies to obstruct implementation, which are reflective of Model I
behaviour (Argyris and Schon, 1974). These strategies include unilateral control of the
relevant environment and tasks and the suppression of negative feelings, which are
implemented through making evaluations and attribution, discouraging inquiry and
treating ones own view as correct. The consequences of Model I strategies include
defensive interpersonal and group relationships, low freedom of choice and reduced
production of valid information (Argyris et al., 1985). It is at this point that the action
scientist or interventionist seeks to help participant systems and their members learn,
especially with a view to change. Model II, therefore hypothesised to enhance learning
through three governing variables also known as the primary tasks associated with
intervention theory, namely:
(1) valid information;
(2) free and informed choice; and
(3) internal commitment; these primary tasks are invoked to change the behaviour
of the actors to reduce resistance to change or the implementation of ABC.
Argyris et al. (1985) used intervention theory as a theory of action (theory-in-use) in
their discourse of theories of action in an action science context, as did Argyris and
Kaplan (1994). This demonstrates the interchangeability between action theory and
intervention theory; I would however discourage this practice as it can be confusing to
the novice researcher who may want to engage in IR.

Intervention research frameworks

Thomas and Rothman (1994) constructed an IR framework, stemming from information
science and social science (social work and allied disciplines of Psychology, Psychiatry
and Sociology). Atkinson and Shaffir (1998, p. 59) assert that sociology has a long history
and experience with field research from which accounting researchers should learn and
profit. IR is a genre of applied research (Thomas and Rothman, 1994, p. 3), scaffolded on
basic research that explores problems in real-world contexts, with the aim of providing
practical solutions (applicable to organisational practice) and creating knowledge. This
IR framework consists of varied approaches used to address applied research. Thomas
and Rothman (1994, p. 3) describe these approaches as:
.
empirical research to extend the knowledge of human behaviour relating to
human service intervention (intervention KD);
.
the means by which the findings from intervention KD may be linked to, and
utilised in practical application (intervention KU); and
.
research directed toward developing innovative interventions (intervention
design and development (D&D)).

A critical review
of interventionist
research
23

Figure 2 illustrates an integrative perspective on intervention research through the

interrelationships of KD, KU and D&D: the arrows with solid lines indicate explicit
linkage between aspects; arrows with broken lines represent indirect or developing
linkage.
Table II emphasises the differences between the KD, KU and D&D concerning their
objectives, methods and outcomes and expands on the nature of their interrelationships
(linkages). The linkages between the facets provide flexibility when conducting IR. For
example, KD can be conducted on its own, without D&D, or it can be followed by KU
activities, or it can be incorporated into D&D. KD, KU and D&D can also be conducted
sequentially.
Intervention research

Social and behaviourial

science research

Applied research

General knowledge
utilisation

Intervention
knowledge
development (KD)

Knowledge
utilisation for
intervention (KU)

Source: Thomas and Rothman (1994, p. 5)

Intervention
design and
development (D&D)

Other uses and

users

Figure 2.
An IR framework

QRAM
7,1

24

Table II.
KD, KU and D&D
facets of IR

Facets of intervention research

Areas of
difference KD

KU

D&D

To apply knowledge of
human behaviour
To make knowledge from
research practical; put
knowledge in a usable form

Systematic methodology to
evolve new human service
technology (e.g. treatment
methods, programs, service
systems or policies)

Transformation and
conversion of available
knowledge (theory and
empirical research) into
application concepts and
theories relevant to given
target populations, problems
and intervention methods
(methods include metaanalysis)
Such applications as
Outcomes Information about human
changes in the
behaviour in the form, for
understanding or practices
example, of concepts,
hypotheses, theories and
relating to populations,
problems, or interventions in
empirical generalisations
human service
Linkages Distinctive activity
KU may lead directly into or
explicitly linked to KU and be an integral part of the
D&D
Information gathering and
Incorporated into D&D
design phases of D&D
(problem analysis & project Conversion of knowledge for
planning phase)
other users

Emerging methods include

the means of problem
analysis, intervention
design, development,
evaluation and
dissemination and related
techniques
Consists of six main phases

Objectives To contribute to knowledge

of human behaviour
Distinct effort to create
findings applicable to the
understanding and/or
solutions of practical
problems
Methods Conventional, social and
behavioural science research
methods
e.g. single-case
experimentation
Questions posed are more
instrumental and practical
than is the case with basic
research

Such technical means of

achieving human service
objectives as assessment
and intervention methods;
and service programs,
systems and policies
Distinctive activity OR KU
generally occurs in the
formative stages of D&D

Source: Adapted from Thomas and Rothman (1994, p. 7)

The extant literature did not reveal an IR framework containing similar facets to that
of Thomas and Rothman (1994). However, Argyris (1970) refers to three intervention
activities prevalent in intervention theory. The first activity (analogous to KU)
concerns the utilisation of an existing body of knowledge, experience and techniques
for solving problems common to different participant systems. The second activity
(analogous to KD) is described as the manipulation of an existing body of knowledge,
experience and techniques in an innovative manner. Thomas and Rothman include the
theoretical thrust of IR in both KU and KD, which also supports the D&D facet,
however Argyris does not appear to include theoretical notions in the first two
activities. The third activity (analogous to D&D) is described as the development and
construction of new conceptual models through the combination of the participant
system and the interventionists resources. Thomas and Rothman operationalise KD,
KU and D&D in terms of prescribed objectives, methods, outcomes and linkages, but
are not specific about participant and interventionist resources. Argyris refers to a
sliding scale of resources including skills, time, incumbent degrees of effectiveness and

competences required for each activity, with activity three characterised as extremely
demanding on the resources of intervention system. Finally, Argyris does not
exemplify the linkages between the activities or provide operational prescriptions.
D&D has emerged as an explicit paradigm, largely out of frustrations with the
inability of conventional research methods to guide the generation of human service
interventions; it is the methodology and practice of D&D that provides the uniqueness
of intervention research (Thomas and Rothman, 1994) (see Table III).
Therefore, in contrast to the accentuation of interrelationships between variables
characteristic of traditional research, D&D enjoys a primary focus on the evolution of
intervention technology. Examples of such technologies could include ABC in
manufacturing organisations, a service system, a new or modified policy, a new
strategy, training materials or a motivational system. It can be conceptualised as a
problem-solving process for seeking effective intervention tools to deal with given
human and social difficulties; this process is systematic, deliberate and immersed in
research procedures, techniques and other instrumentalities. The D&D facet, see
Table III, constitutes a model for conducting IR, specifically intervention D&D.
It involves sequential and interconnected activities intended to guide researchers
and practitioners for effecting change in problem situations, concluding with the
creation of innovative intervention tools. D&D incorporates several different
overlapping paradigms that seek to construct a systematic methodology for
intervention development (Fawcett et al., 1994), similarly to the borrowed concepts
constituting intervention theory. First, developmental research (Thomas, 1984) used
for intervention design through the incorporation of applied research methods,
empirical practice and other AR strategies. Second, social research and development
(Rothman, 1980) which applies a physical sciences engineering model to embody the
intervention development process, similar to design science. Third, behavioural
research (Fawcett, 1990, 1991) applied to intervention design and implementation,
using concepts and methods of behaviour analysis and psychology. Fourth,
experimental social innovation (Fairweather, 1967) used for intervention (innovation)
evaluation using quasi-experimental designs. Finally, model development research
(Paine et al., 1984), focusing on intervention dissemination from innovation to standard
practice.
There are two studies that have used the IR framework. Abell and Wolf (2003)
undertook a partial application and adaptation[6] of this framework, to harness a
creative approach to social work doctoral education. This particular study applied the
D&D and curricular components of one doctoral student over a three-year period; this
facet was adapted to include a research agenda for a doctoral project encompassing
intervention development. Baard (2004) used IR in a doctoral study, specially the D&D
facet, for intervention design, development and implementation in the small business
environment. This study only utilised the first five phases of the D&D process, adapted
to accommodate time and resource constraints and limitations of the environment in
which innovation implementation occurred. The obvious challenge for adapting the
model to doctoral training begins with recognising that D&D cannot be accommodated
entirely in any single product (Fawcett et al., 1994). Baard found accomplishing D&D
activities in each phase could occur linearly, but re-cycling back to earlier phases
occurred during the course of the project. Phases 1 and 2 were performed almost
verbatim to the D&D model, whilst Phase 3 included design criteria and intervention

A critical review
of interventionist
research
25

QRAM
7,1

Operations (Thomas and

Rothman)
Phase 1: problem analysis and
project planning

26

Key problems are identified and

analysed
Broad state of the art review is
initiated to provide general
orientation to the problem
Feasibility of the D&D project is
determined

Phase 2: information gathering

and synthesis

Various types of data serve as

the basis for intervention
development:
Basic and applied research
Main contributions of KD
research
Original research conducted
including a needs assessment,
survey of practitioners
regarding current practice
Professional/personal
experience
Phase 3: design
Interlaced with researchers and
users in close interaction
Design must include usability
Design domain, requirements
and problems must be outlined
Phase 4: early development and Pilot testing to explore
pilot testing
feasibility of intervention
Interventional refinement
Trial implementation techniques

Table III.
The lifecycle of
intervention D&D

Phase 5: evaluation and

advanced development
(experimental social research)

Determine effectiveness of
intervention
Additional development of
intervention

Phase 6: dissemination (model

development research)

Process of diffusion and

adoption
Packaging/Fabrication of
intervention for user
readiness
Reinventions if required
Employ modes of motivation
and persuasion to use
intervention

Activities (Fawcett et al.)

Identifying and involving
participants
Gaining entry and cooperation
from settings
Forming collaborative
relationships
Identifying concerns of the
population
Analysing identified problems
Setting goals and objectives
Using existing information
sources (e.g. a literature review)
Studying natural examples
Identifying functional elements
of successful models
(interventions)

Designing an observational
system
Specifying procedural elements
of the Interventions
Developing a prototype or
preliminary intervention
Conducting a pilot test
Applying design criteria to
the preliminary intervention
concept
Selecting an experimental
design
Collecting and analysing data
Replicating the Intervention
under field conditions
Refining the intervention
Preparing the product for
dissemination (e.g. price,
standards for use
Creating a demand for the
intervention
Encouraging appropriate
adaptation
Providing technical support for
adopters

Sources: Adapted from Thomas and Rothman (1994); Fawcett et al. (1994)

prototype development, an intervention pilot test and intervention refinement. Phase 4

was used for intervention implementation and Phase 5 concluded with intervention
evaluation. Whilst Phase 6 was essentially excluded from the study, dissemination of
two products did occur. Research participants retained ownership of the intervention
and were provided with a professional report detailing the results of the study in
laymans terms. This use of dissemination is consistent with Goldenhar et al. (2001,
p. 620) who stipulate that results should be reported to intervention participants in
a form that is readily understood. Finally, academic journal publications constituting
the knowledge product occurred, see Baard and van den Berg (2004a, b). The above
two studies indicate the applicability of this framework in IR research. I would
however caution researchers when approaching Phase 6 of the D&D model. It suggests
intervention commercialisation, which may overshadow the true purpose of IR, hinder
scientific knowledge production and brand IR as glorified consulting (Kasanen et al.,
1993; Vaivio, 2008).

A critical review
of interventionist
research
27

Alternative IR frameworks
Given the very limited application of the D&D facet of IR in accounting and
management, a review of similar frameworks to put this facet into some perspective,
occurred. The alternative models emanating from different schools of IR include that of
Jonsson and Lukka (2007); Goldenhar et al. (2001), Avenier and Nourry (1999), the CRA
(Kasanen et al., 1993; Labro and Tuomela, 2003) and design science (van Aken, 2004;
Andriesson, 2007).
Jonsson and Lukka (2007) introduced a philosophy of doing IR (see Figure 3) within
a management accounting context.

Field of practice (realm of practical reason)

Academic
researcher
(pure logic of
academia)
(classical
rationality - pure
reason)

1. Understand the practical situation

2. What should a
person like me do
in a situation like
this?

2. What should
I do now?

Practioner
(practical logic of the
field)

3. Deliberation
(Generate desire-independent action)

4. Initiate justifiable action together with

practioners
(cause the consequences)

5. Maintain intention-in-action skilfully

Source: Adapted from Jonsson and Lukka (2007)

Figure 3.
Philosophy of
conducting IR

QRAM
7,1

28

We cannot suppose that a philosophy is necessarily a theory or an implied framework.

However, having diagrammatically arranged the concepts comprising this philosophy,
I would propose its further development either into a competing intervention theory, or
an IR framework, or it can make a significant contribution to intervention research
theory and framework refinement. Moreover, this philosophy is not necessarily
confined to a management accounting context. The philosophy is practical reason
centric, whilst evolving from multiple authors, is based primarily on classical
rationality (Searle, 2001), ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967; Coulon, 1965, Lynch,
2001), decision-making (March, 1994), practice theory (Schatzski, 2001) and
anthropological theory (Hastrup, 1997). Thus, the philosophy too, utilises borrowed
theories and concepts. It stresses the shift between emic[7] and etic[8] perspectives in
IR[9] insists on researcher and practitioner collaboration and prescribes theoretical
knowledge and practical result (the intervention) outcomes, similarly to Argyris (1970),
Thomas and Rothman (1994), Avenier and Nourry (1999), Kasanen et al. (1993) and
Labro and Tuomela (2003).
Goldenhar et al. (2001) present an IR framework, sans any AR branding consisting
of sequentially conducted developmental, implementation and effectiveness research
phases in the context of occupational safety and health interventions (see Figure 4).
The aim of this model is to develop a research agenda designed to carry an
intervention through all three phases, thereby establishing a cycle of continuous
improvement. The developmental phase addresses:
.
the best way to incorporate theoretical principles/constructs into the intervention
itself; and
.
the kinds of measurement tools should be developed to assess any change in
those constructs (p. 618).

Effectiveness
research
Implementation
research

Developmental
research

Gather background
information (conduct
needs assessment)

2
5

Report and
disseminate

3
4

Figure 4.

Source: Goldenhar et al. (2001, p. 617)

Complete
development,
implementation,
or evaluation

Develop
partnerships

Choose
methods or
designs

The implementation phase should provide feedback for intervention refinement, to

interpret effectiveness study findings and to replicate an intervention effective in one
context to another, whilst avoiding the pitfalls. The effectiveness phase attempts to
determine whether an intervention did or did not work in a real life setting. The
authors contend that research design option such as quasi-experimental and data
collection methods (qualitative case studies) can be used for intervention evaluation
(p. 619). The IR tasks appear to be consistent with that of D&D, with specific emphasis
on collaboration and theory. Finally, the goals of applying research designs should
include that the intervention made a difference (internally validity), addressing
resources (time, funding and expertise), feasibility and limitations (p. 620).
Avenier and Nourry (1999) present an IR process (Figure 5), consisting of three
phases. This IR process is termed intervention research given that the intervention is
the focal point of the research project.
Phase 1, Negotiation consisting of two initially different projects, the organisational
project (rooted in the logic of action) and the research project (rooted in the logic
of knowledge). Through initial negotiations identification of congruency between
these projects, results in the organisation and the researcher engaging in an
intervention project, where researchers position themselves as participants in the field,
in contrast to positions of neutrality and indifference. Phase 2 therefore represents the
intervention project embracing various interactions between researchers and
practitioners; this phase is consistent with the intervention system referred to by
Argyris (1970). It is here that the authors tell us that the intervention is based on
an ongoing construction principle, which is consistent with a CRA. In fact when
comparing Figure 3 and Figure 4, the similarities seem to suggest that this framework is
a CRA variant. However, discussion concerning the role of the theoretical framework in
the intervention project is muted, which is something that Goldenhar et al. (2001)
were reasonably emphatic about. It is unclear whether this theoretical framework:
first, is the theory underpinning the research project component that will secure

A critical review
of interventionist
research
29

Intervention
Culture and values of
the organization

Context of organization

Knowledge
produced
Response to the
organization's projects

Project of the
organization

Practitioners
Knowledge-projects

Meta-knowledge about
the organization

Researches
Research
project

Theoretical framework
Culture and values
of the research team

Source: Avenier and Nourry (1999, p. 57)

Publishable
knowledge

Figure 5.
Schematic representation
of an intervention research
process

QRAM
7,1

30

scientific knowledge production, publishable in an academic journal, or second, pertains

exclusively to intervention design, (McCoy et al. (2002) refers to using traditional
learning and communications theories as theoretical strategies for intervention D&D), or
finally, is derived in part from the research project and in part to the intervention project.
Moreover, there is no reference to intervention design or the processes that support it;
this is a critical component of IR. Phase 3 relates to three streams of knowledge
production which is generated over the course of an IR project.
CRA, also a form of applied research, is an approach for producing models,
diagrams and plans that solve managerial problems in running business
organisations, through explicit linkage between the problem, the solution and
theoretical knowledge (Kasanen et al., 1993), see Figure 6.
Labro and Tuomela (2003) expand on the original model of CRA by Kasanen et al.
(1993), see Figure 7, therefore perspectives from both studies will be discussed in
tandem. These authors describe CRA as a sequential process that addresses
methodological aspects (validity and theoretical connections), whilst providing a
practical focal point. Kasanen et al., 1993 deliberately emphasises the practical
contribution of the CRA, to exemplify and identify the scientific merits of researchers
producing practical managerial problem-solving constructions.
Practical
relevance

Practical
functioning
Construction,
problem-solving
(Innovate)
Theoretical
contribution

Theory
connection

Figure 6.

Source: Adapted from Kasanen et al. (1993)

Preparatory phase
1. Finding a practically relevant and
theoretically interesting problem

Fieldwork phase
2. Examining the potential for
long-term co-operation
3. Obtaining a profound understanding of the topic

4. Creating a novel construct

Theorizing phase

5. Implementing and testing

the construct
6. Examining the scope of
applicability of the construct

7. Showing the theoretical

contributions

Figure 7.

Source: Labro and Tuomela (2003)

These authors use arrows to demonstrate typical time lapses in each phase. The
arrows (with dotted lines) used for steps 3 and 4 indicate that a theoretical KD of the
topic starts in the preparatory phase of CRA, with theoretical linkages and
contributions receiving consideration for the duration of the project. Incorporated in
the three phases are steps guide researchers through the CRA approach, illustrated in
Table IV; Labro and Tuomela made some adaptations to the original model. The CRA
refers to an intervention as a construction or innovation.
This approach is similar to the Thomas and Rothman approach although the
theoretical components are KD and KU, which are then embedded into D&D, whilst
theory is explicit within the Labro and Tuomela (2003) adaptation. The Labro and
Tuomela framework is superior to that of Avenier and Nourry (1999) because of the
explicit theoretical references. Theory is an important source of legitimisation for IR.
Both Kasanen et al. and Labro and Tuomela provide transparency concerning
validity issues; discussion concerning validity and reliability occurs later on. However,
an interesting point relates to the external validity of the innovation, specifically its
transferability to other contexts. This issue should be considered at the early stages of
the intervention design phase, however Kasanen et al. (1993) provides some useful
validity tests or market based validations that can be considered in intervention
research irrespective of the IR model that is selected. A weak market test is passed if the
participant is agreeable to implementing the intervention. A semi-strong market test is
passed if there is intervention adoption by a wide range of organisations. A strong
market test is passed if organisations employing the intervention systematically
produce better results than those who are not using it. This market based validation
may align with Jonsson and Lukkas (2007) reference to modest and strong intervention
forms. Finally, there are also two products stemming from CRA, namely a novel
construct and theory refinement, development, testing and abandonment.

Kasanen et al.

A critical review
of interventionist
research
31

Labro and Tuomelo

Find a practically relevant problem which also

has research potential

Find a practically relevant problem which also

has research potential. Theoretical significance
must be identified
To examine the potential for long-term research
co-operation with the target audience, including
available resources
Obtain a general and comprehensive
Obtain a general and comprehensive
understanding of the topic
understanding of the topic. Knowledge from
previous literature required
Innovate (construct a solution idea such as
To innovate and construct a theoretically
models, diagrams, plans)
grounded solution idea
Demonstrate that the solution works
To implement the solution and test whether it
works in practice
Show the theoretical connections and research
To examine the scope of the solutions
contribution of the solution concept
applicability (including issues of validity)
Examine the scope of applicability of the solution Show the theoretical connections and the research
contribution of the solution
Sources: Adapted from Kasanen et al. (1993, p. 246); Labro and Tuomela (2003, p. 415)

Table IV.

QRAM
7,1

32

Andriessen (2007) developed an organisational development intervention using AR

and a DBR methodology, also known as design science, design research, design
studies, see Figure 8. Design science is a form of IR introduced by van Aken (2004)
derived from engineering sciences, medical science and psychotherapy; this is similar
to the social research and development (Rothman, 1980) paradigm embedded in D&D.
The mission of a design science is to develop knowledge for the design and realisation
of artefacts, i.e. to solve construction problems, or to be used in the improvement of the
performance of existing entities, i.e. to solve improvement problems (van Aken, 2004,
p. 224).This model consists of three phases, namely design, intervention testing and
design KD, with some underlying tasks. This framework also provides theoretical and
practical contributions, manufactured by the interconnectivity of the knowledge (DBR)
and practice (AR) streams.
The conceptual framework embedded theoretical considerations, which was used to
define a research problem that resulted in an initial solution concept design; theory
seems confined to this task only. Seemingly the solution concept was tested in practice
without researcher and participant organisation collaboration. Moreover, it is
anomalous that the solution concept is designed and refined before the practice
problem is diagnosed. Post practice problem diagnosis is a match between the solution
concept and practice problem sought. Is this suggesting that one size fits all? I would
consider these as major pitfalls in this approach in the context of IR. Another point of
differentiation is the employment of consultants with respect to design and
implementation tasks, suggestive of expert driven approach rather than organic as
exemplified by Argyris (1970), with negligible researcher visibility in the process.
Finally, some of the participant organisations had to pay a fee for the implementation
project, which is also consistent with consultation practice. Kaplan (1998) states that to
ensure commitment of the case company a charge for the researchers services would
not be untoward. The greater emphasis on AR and consultant led activity found in
Andriessens DBR approach, results in greater divergence from the Thomas and
Rothmans framework and the other frameworks examined. It is therefore not an IR

Knowledge stream (design-based research using the reflective cycle)

1. Theorizing

Research problem

3. (RE) Designing

9. Reflecting

Solution concept
and plausible rival
explanations

Successes and
improvements

10. Developing
knowledge

Design knowledge

Match?

Conceptual
framework

2. Agenda setting

Case n
Case 2
Case 1

Figure 8.
Research methodology of
a design-based research
study using action
research

Practice problem

Specific solution

Record of the
evolving process

Consequences of
actions

4. Diagnosing

5. Action planning

6. Action taking

7. Evaluating

Findings

Client agenda

Practice stream (action research using the problem solving cycle)

Source: Andriesson (2007)

8. Specifying
learning

friendly approach and may prove to be a confusing methodology for the novice
researcher or the researcher who is seeking a recipe for engaging in IR.
Additional key issues for doing IR
This section reviews the utilisation of consulting theory to supplement IR practice,
addresses IR validity and reliability issues, followed by a discussion on research
design.

A critical review
of interventionist
research
33

IR not consulting
The activity of intervening is usually considered by researchers as consulting
(Arygyris, 1970, p. 12). Evidently, academics conducting IR, whatever its form, are
aware of the similarities between IR and consulting and have sought to differentiate
the two, in order to preserve the integrity of IR and minimise discouraging academics
from IR engagement (Argyris, 1970; Pasmore and Friedlander, 1982; Kasanen et al.,
1993, Kurpius, 1993; Eden and Huxhum, 1996; Kaplan, 1998, Labro and Tuomelo,
2003). The purpose of this section is not to debate the merits of research versus
consulting, rather to identify some practical considerations, emanating from consulting
theory, for interventionist researchers wanting to conduct IR, including types of
interventions, levels of interventions and practical guidelines for intervention selection.
A researcher may ask: What type of intervention do I want to make? Am I going to
focus this intervention on an organisation or community as whole, perhaps only on
certain groups or individuals within an organisation or community? IR literature does
not offer much support for these questions. Reddy (1994), see Table V and Beer
(1980)[10], see Table VI, identifies different types of interventions.
The focus of the intervention may be an entire organisation or community,
specific groups, two or more individuals interfacing at an interpersonal level, or a
specific individual. Reddy (1994) also indicates that the intensity of a selected type of
intervention should be considered. As the intensity of a type of intervention increases
so does the risk associated with a higher probability of intervention resistance or
rejection. Intensity of an intervention increases as the focus moves from organisation to
an individual. Harrison (1970) and Reddy (1994) suggest that interventionists should
consider how deep they want to intervene with any given project (see Table VII); this is
important from an interventionist resource and skill requirement perspective.
Cognitive interventions
Skill and activity
interventions
Behaviour description
interventions
Emotional or reflective
interventions
Interpretive interventions

Interventions that are abstract, intellectual or idea oriented

Interventions suggesting training or skill learning (e.g. problemsolving) activities that are structured and defined
Intervention that describes what behaviour the consultant observes in
the group (group processes)
Intervention is the emotional or feeling component observed in the
group surrounding an event. These interventions require a great deal
of skill, particularly when the focus is interpersonal or personal
This intervention is most appropriate following a behaviour
description of emotional/reflective intervention
Intervention is a hypothesis (conjecture or speculation) or insight of
what is occurring at a dynamic level

Source: Adapted from Reddy (1994)

Table V.
Types of interventions

QRAM
7,1

34

Table VI.
Types of interventions

Diagnostic
intervention

Interventions used for learning about individuals, groups or systems; gathering

data about the total system or its parts and creating a set for feedback and
diagnosis; assessment of organisations problems, determination of factors and
opportunities for change (e.g. survey feedback)
Individual
Interventions focus on helping humans develop to a higher level of functioning,
intervention
using techniques for selecting, training and developing individuals to improve
matching between people and social systems. Takes the form of workshops,
seminars and other educational approaches (e.g. counselling and coaching)
Process intervention Interventions that assist people experiencing the problem that have an intrinsic
ability to solve the problem but need help to examine and understand the
problem more clearly (e.g. group and intergroup development)
Structural
Interventions to change human behaviour, beliefs and feelings or to change the
intervention
organisational structure and so improve organisational effectiveness (e.g. job
design/enrichment, organisational culture building, strategic planning
approaches)
Source: Adapted from Beer (1980)

Levels Name
1
2

3
4

Table VII.
Depth of Interventions

Description

Content
Overt group issues

Work, task, project or service accomplishment

Basic and obvious observable member interactions
Task behaviours, problem-solving, decision-making, conflict
resolution
All behaviours are observable
Covert and core group issues Inferred from level 1 and 2
Inclusion, belonging, control and power, independence,
competence, autonomy
Individual values, beliefs & Least manageable characteristics of the individual, e.g. defence
assumptions
mechanisms, history and personality
Not targeted in organisational settings
Not recommended for IR studies
Unconsciousness
Reservoir of individuals basic instincts, motivations, impulses
and so forth
Not targeted in organisational settings
Not recommended for IR studies

Source: Adapted from Reddy (1994)

The diagnosed problem, the intervention type, the focus of the intervention, the nature
of the intervention tasks, the alternative courses of actions and many other facets
identified in intervention theory and the IR frameworks will influence the depth of
interventions. Baard (2004) incorporated the type and depth of intervention from
two perspectives, namely as an interventionist and the intervention itself. As the
interventionist, a diagnostic intervention (see Table VI, questionnaire, interviews and
other informal communication) was employed for information gathering to assist in the
analysis of identified problems within the small business environment, identifying
concerns within specific small businesses and specific elements required for
intervention design (Phases 1, 2 and partly Phase 3 of IR framework). Second, an
individual intervention (see Table VI) was employed since the intervention was using

an educational approach to assist small firm owner-managers in aspects of strategic

planning to promote business sustainability, to appropriately harness information
technology and systems as a strategic asset to provide critical information for control
and improved performance. Given the intervention type, the organisation and
individual focus of the intervention, the depths of intervention was level 1, 2 and to a
very small degree level 3 (competence and autonomy), see Table VII. Finally, the
intervention integrated a cognitive and a skills and activity intervention type
(Table VII) in its design.
Validity and reliability of IR
Positivist and interpretive research differ in many aspects, such as the quantitative
phenomena (objective facts) versus structured and unstructured facts, measurement of
variables, generalisations, intermingling of validity and reliability issues in qualitative
research, the subjectivity inherent in interpretative research, and the qualitative insight
required in societal realms in which these studies occurs (Becker, 1970; Kasanen et al.,
1993; Needleman and Needleman, 1996; Avenier and Nourry, 1999; Labro and Tuomela,
2003; Ahrens and Chapman, 2006). These differences also apply to IR, where
subjectivity is a larger point of differentiation given the collaboration between
researcher and participant system. Therefore, it seems that a different perspective of
validity and reliability within the IR context is warranted. Second, IR is referred to as a
form of case study or a kind of field experimentation (Jonsson and Lukka, 2007),
where these underlying methods are subject to criticism regarding their ability to
achieve scientific research criteria of validity and reliability. There has been significant
response in the literature to this problem (McKinnon, 1988; Lukka and Kasanen, 1995;
Atkinson and Shaffir, 1998; Davila and Oyon, 2008). McKinnon (1988) identifies threats
to validity and reliability in field research and presents strategies to overcome these
threats. Ahrens and Chapman (2006) argue that notions of validity were developed to
evaluate the objective reality of positivistic research which is incongruous with field
studies assuming a social reality subjectively created through human interaction. Given
this, the literature is not forthcoming with a notion of validity from an IR context. Third,
apart from the generation of theoretical knowledge, the D&D of an intervention is the
focal point of IR. The intervention has to correspond with the needs of the participant
system; it has to solve an inherent problem thus the validity and reliability of the
intervention also requires consideration. Therefore, I propose that we incorporate case
and field study validity and reliability issues in IR, as previous authors have done, but
we also examine these issues in the IR framework and the intervention context. Our goal
is helping society through concepts or frameworks to make action effective in improving
society Davila and Oyon (2008, p. 891).
IR conducted in the social realm generally cannot avail itself of the controlled
designs possible in evaluation settings; thus the challenge of IR is to conduct credible
studies where truly rigorous experimental research methods are not possible (Schulte
et al., 1996, p. 286). A means to achieve this credibility or plausibility (Covaleski
et al., 1998) is through a scientific view of the IR framework. Niiniluoto (1984 cited in
Kasanen et al., 1993) suggests criteria under which research is scientific, namely,
objectivity, criticalness, autonomy, progressiveness; these criteria were applied in a
constructive research context. Table IV and Figure 7 presented a framework for
conducting constructive research, which constitutes a series of phases and steps.

A critical review
of interventionist
research
35

QRAM
7,1

36

This facilitates a critical assessment and verification of each phase and step
relating to the construct development and indeed the construct itself. The development
of the construct is an independent self-supporting activity and is objective
because the constructions either work or they do not. Furthermore, constructions are
progressive because of their capacity to solve problems and highlight emerging
problems scaffolding new research questions. Therefore, the application of scientific
criteria to an IR framework provides validity and reliability to IR. Labro and Tuomela
(2003) indicate that steps 3, 4 and 5 (Table III) are related to ensuring internal validity;
during these steps the authors engaged McKinnons (1998) assistance in identifying the
validity threats and implement the combatant strategies. This demonstrates that we do
not need to discount the merits of validity strategies, but that the IR framework can use
these strategies and the framework itself to promote validity. Given these examples,
the IR framework of Thomas and Rothman (1994), specifically the D&D facet, can also
become a tool for achieving validity within an IR project, through the application of the
scientific research criteria. Therefore, in the case of D&D, Phases 2, 3 and 4 could be
used to address internal validity.
There are also external validity issues in IR. External validity refers to the extent to
which we can generalise the results of a research study to people, settings, times,
measures and characteristics other than those used in that study (Gravetter and
Forzano, 2009, p. 159). Broadly speaking (Needleman and Needleman, 1996, p. 330)
argue that IR is not to uncover distributions and typical characteristics for the purpose
of generalisations, but rather to gain depth insight into the complexities of human
interaction and socials meanings evident in the particular case under study. More
specifically within the IR context, generalisability relates to whether interventions
would also work in settings similar to those which they were originally constructed for
(Kasanen et al., 1993; Lindenburg et al., 2001). Replicating interventions under various
field conditions assists in the assessment of the generality of the effects of the
intervention (Fawcett et al., 1994). Davila and Oyon (2008, p. 890) indicate that
interpretive research rely to a larger extent on case studies where external validity
happens through an audit of the research process and theoretical generalisations
(a common approach in case studies also under a positivist perspective) rather than
from reproducing the study. Therefore, the IR framework can also be used to address
external validity issues. Labro and Tuomela (2003) indicate that step 6 addresses
external validity issues, which relates to the solutions applicability. This is congruent
with the market-based validation of managerial constructs (Kasanen et al., 1993). In the
D&D context this would be Phase 5 (see Table IV) examining intervention evaluation
and advanced development. However, when using an IR framework for validity issues,
common sense should prevail and these issues should be considered in the first phase.
Finally, generalisations also include arriving at statistical generalisations, which given
the subjective data, behavioural factors and the small samples found in IR raises
another challenge. Argyris (1970) and Thomas (1984) suggest that we should consider
statistical significance and behavioural significance when doing IR. Statistical results
may not always be useful or meaningful to the participant system because they
provide insufficient information concerning the effects for the participants involved;
these results may judge an implemented intervention as ineffective when in fact the
opposite stands true. Behavioural significance occurs when an event (implementation
of an intervention) results in a difference in the behaviour and values of the participant

system and constitutes a significant departure from the steady state prevalent prior to
intervention implementation. Baard (2004) tested this hypothesis, when evaluating the
intervention after implementation. The results indicated statistically insignificant
results concerning the effectiveness of the intervention and the changes produced in
the participant system. However, there was strong evidence of behavioural changes,
reflected in the documented observations, interviews and other informal
participant-researcher interaction results, within the small businesses; learning was
occurring and owner-managers were engaging with managerial activities differently
as compared to pre-intervention implementation.
A primary condition for intervention validity is that they work or are truly effective,
incorporate objective capability, contain ethical suitability, are feasible given the
targeted environment, the degree to which inference is made that the intervention
rather than uncontrolled extraneous factors are responsible for the observed effects,
they solve the problems in question, they are relevant, simple and easy to use (Ramp,
1984; Paine et al., 1984; Thomas, 1984; Kasanen et al., 1993; Lindenburg et al., 2001;
Baard, 2004). Therefore, the validity of the intervention is dependent upon its design;
research undertaken by Baard (2004) and Baard and van den Berg (2004a) illustrates
this point. The intervention requirement specifications were determined through a
rigorous literature review and analysis of the results of a semi-structured survey and
informal interviews conducted in small service[11] businesses. Intervention design was
user-centric and incorporated design features including simplicity, relevance and
compatibility with small firm owner-manager characteristics to support intervention
user-friendliness. Small firm environmental considerations including the nature of
the small business environment in general terms, managerial practices, resource
availability, existing operational routines were also incorporated given that
implementation would occur in small businesses. Implementation strategies
considered the capability (skills, cognitive knowledge, behavioural components) of
the people conducting the implementation; to influence the success in intervention
implementation and retention. Design occurred within the IR framework (Thomas and
Rothman, 1994) and procedural elements (including detailed records) were carefully
documented. Given the breadth of the service industry, the intervention was
standardised to enable its implementation into other service environments. Many
interventions have been unsuccessful or discarded because they were overly ambitious
in their development and design and with implementation in mind, the complexity of
the intervention was carefully monitored throughout design.
Whereas the reliability in field research can be replicated with the same results
(Atkinson and Shaffir, 1998, p. 62), the reliability of an intervention is dependent upon
its implementation (Cook and Campbell, 1979, p. 43). Implementation serves two
purposes:
(1) it means that the research process has been successful; and
(2) that the construct (intervention) is technically feasible (Labro and Tuomela,
2003, p. 428).
There is dearth of intervention implementation literature. Rosen et al. (1999, p. 12)
indicates that only three percent of all published articles (social work literature)
could inform a practitioner of how to implement reliably the intervention that
was studied. Baard (2004) also found the literature wanting in this regard and

A critical review
of interventionist
research
37

QRAM
7,1

therefore project management, which offers a structured approach, was used for
intervention implementation. It is important to note that rigorous pilot-testing of
the intervention and the selected implementation methodology to reduce risk of
intervention rejection during implementation are also factors that should be considered
to preserve validity and reliability of the intervention; see Phase 4 of D&D, Table III.

38

Research design
The discourse thus far has suggested that the research design used in the various forms
of IR is a case or field study. Thomas and Rothman (1994) indicated that there is no one
particular research technique that is employed in D&D; both quantitative and
qualitative research modalities are used in relation to the particular type of intervention
that is being produced. These authors, as with Argyris (1970), do not discourage
researchers from harnessing traditional research methods for information gathering to
promote the validity of the information on which intervention design is dependent.
Kasanen et al. (1993) typify case study method utilisation in constructive research, but
they also indicated that CRA may either be quantitative or qualitative or both. The key
issues in research design selection are the type of intervention produced, the context for
which production occurred and the necessary reliance in IR on non-experimental
methods. Social and health science literature advocates the use of quasi-experimental
research within the IR context, specifically in field settings; social program and
innovation evaluation (Fairweather, 1967; Fairweather and Tornatzky, 1977), fall
prevention (Robitaille et al., 2005), performance appraisal systems (Mayer and Davis,
1999) nursing and health care interventions (Pruitt and Privette, 2001), feedback systems
(Smither et al., 1995) and management research (Punnett, 1988). Zwerling et al. (1997) and
Schulte et al. (1996) acknowledge that rigorous experimental research methods are not
possible in field research, yet refer extensively to the work of Cook and Campbell (1979)
who use quasi-experimental designs in field settings. Quasi-experiments can be used in
natural settings (e.g. organisations) when random assignment is not practical, and
provides an opportunity to determine what would happen in a participant system
without the intervention. Cook and Campbell also explicate sources of invalidity that
may occur in field settings and provide strategies for their management, not that
dissimilar from McKinnon (1988). Baard (2004) used a quasi-experiment design in a field
setting (small service businesses) with intervention and control groups to provide an
appropriate test of the effectiveness of the intervention when implemented in a
real-world setting. The selection of the research design occurred taking into account the
primary tasks of intervention theory and the D&D intervention framework and
addressed the validity issues based on Cook and Campbells work.
Quasi-experimentation in field settings may not be appropriate in all IR research due
to the key issues mentioned previously. Jonsson and Lukka (2007) referred to IR as a
kind of field experimentation where the researcher, not having completed control over
the design of the experiment, seeks to determine the experimental situation through
observation. Therefore, I propose that a quasi-experimental design in field settings may
be an alternative design for utilisation in IR.
Concluding comments
This paper, through a systematic and critical review of the literature and IR,
provided insights into the conceptualisation and research methodological bases of IR.

This review defined IR and identified an intervention theory that provided explanatory
concepts to assist researchers in conducting IR. An intervention research framework,
derived from social sciences was explicated, and compared to variant forms of IR
namely, AR, constructive research and DBR. A philosophical approach to IR was
identified which provides future research opportunities which may include its
development into a competing intervention theory or framework or may make valuable
contributions to theory and framework refinements. A discussion on some additional
IR practical considerations, emanating from consulting theory ensued. Finally,
I examined validity and reliability issues from an IR perspective, ending with a
proposed IR design alternative to the case and field study.
Avenier and Nourry (1999, p. 55) state:
[. . .] whether called clinical research, AR methods, intervention research, or engineering
research, these transformative fieldwork methods all seem to have the same intention which
consists in succeeding in an intentionally change-inducing project and, in doing so advance
fundamental knowledge in human sciences.

However, these alternate forms of IR lead to misconceptions concerning the processes

and outcome from this methodology. My argument in this paper is for IR to be a
stand-alone methodology embraced by its own theory and frameworks. Indeed it is
this lack of cohesion as a methodology that undermines it scientific value and therefore
its perpetuation in future research. Argyris (1970) constructs an intervention theory to
underpin IR, and provide guidance for conducting this form of research. He admits that
his theory may have loopholes, which empirical research may not identify since the
research is guided by the theory; this danger is inherent in any new theory. It does
however provide opportunities for further theory testing and refinement, Van De Vliert
offered us a solitary critical review in almost three decades. Empirical research
utilising intervention theory is rare; this also provides opportunities for future IR to
utilise this theory.
Thomas and Rothman (1994) present a comprehensive IR framework that
is grounded in overlapping research paradigms providing the interventionist
researcher with a comprehensive guide to conducting this type of research, especially
given the literature paucity in this regard. The CRA of Kasanen et al. (1993) and
Labro and Tuomela (2003) is a worthy contender. This may therefore provide an
opportunity to refine, if required, the Thomas and Rothman approach to provide an
authentic IR framework. Both approaches however emphasise the use of theory
scaffolding IR processes and the intervention itself. Theory is an important source of
legitimacy for IR, the very essence of an applied science lies in preparing theoretically
grounded solutions for practical purposes (Mattessich, 1995). For IR to enjoy
legitimacy as research methodology and more respect from the positivists, theory as
indicated is important, but so is attending to the validity and reliability aspects of IR.
I proposed an alterative view of validity issues in the IR context, with some
fortification from the scientific criteria proposed by Niiniluoto and camaraderie of CRA
advocates, that uses the IR framework as tool to attempt validity management; this
notion too may need some further exploration. Clearly there is much work to be done to
exemplify the untapped potential of IR, there are opportunities for doctoral students to
engage with IR in their research and there are significant contributions to be made to
the body of academic knowledge and practitioners and organisations.

A critical review
of interventionist
research
39

QRAM
7,1

Notes
1. This study used an AR and DBR approach.
2. Baard (2004) used an IR framework originally developed for social work research.
3. Argyris (1970) uses the term intervention system.

40

4. Logical consistency refers to concepts, relations and assertions in theory without

contradiction.
5. Empirical consistency refers to concepts and assertion in theory not in conflict with
empirical facts.
6. Ideally the entire D&D process if undertaken can range from three to ten years.
7. Emic perspective is the studying of human behaviour within a system.
8. Etic perspective is the studying of human behaviour outside of a system.
9. Atkinson and Shaffir (1998, p. 43) assert that qualitative methodology recognises that
human behaviour cannot be adequately understood by observing it from the outside, rather
understanding a social world from the perspective of the actors, experiencing reality as
others experience it.
10. Beer (1980) in an organisational change and development, rather than consulting context
offers a complementary approach to Reddy (1994). Scapens (2008, p. 917) also refers to
various types interventions.
11. There is a complex service typology, see Dicken 1998, only business providing Business
Services were included in this study.
References
Abell, N. and Wolf, D. (2003), Implementing intervention research in doctoral education:
maximising opportunities in training for outcome evaluation, Journal of Teaching in
Social Work, Vol. 23 Nos 1/2, pp. 3-19.
Aguinis, H. (1993), Action research and scientific method: presumed discrepancies and actual
similarities, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 29, pp. 416-31.
Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C. (2006), Doing qualitative field research in management accounting:
day-to-day contests of accountability in a UK restaurant chain, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 819-41.
Andriessen, D. (2007), Designing and testing an OD intervention: reporting intellectual capital to
develop organisations, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 89-107.
Argyris, C. (1970), Intervention Theory and Method: A Behavioural Science View,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Argyris, C. and Kaplan, R.S. (1994), Implementing new knowledge: the case of activity-based
costing, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 83-105.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1974), Theory in Practice, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1989), Participatory action research and action science compared,
American Behavioural Scientist, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 612-23.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and McLain Smith, D. (1985), Action Science, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Arnaboldi, M. and Azzone, G. (2004), Benchmarking university activities: an Italian case study,
Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 205-21.
Atkinson, A.A. and Shaffir, W. (1998), Standards for field research in management accounting,
Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10, pp. 41-68.

Avenier, M.J. and Nourry, L. (1999), Sciences of the artificial and knowledge production:
the crucial role of intervention research in management sciences, Design Issues, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 205-21.
Baard, V.C. (2004), The design and implementation of an interactive IT consulting systems to
improve performance in South African small businesses, Doctoral thesis, Central
University of Technology, Bloemfontein.
Baard, V.C. and van den Berg, A. (2004a), Interactive information consulting system for
South African small businesses, part 1, South African Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 6 No. 2.
Baard, V.C. and van den Berg, A. (2004b), Interactive information consulting system for
South African small businesses, part 2, South African Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 6 No. 4.
Baskerville, R.L. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (1996), A critical perspective on action research as a
method for information systems research, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 11,
pp. 235-46.
Becker, H.S. (1970), Sociological Work: Method and Substance, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Beckhard, R. (1979), Organization changing through consultation and training, in Sinha, D.P. (Ed.),
Consultants and Consulting Styles, Vision Books, New Delhi, pp. 17-47.
Beer, M. (1980), Organization Change and Development: A System View, Scott Foresman,
Glenview, IL.
Blum, F.H. (1955), Action research: a scientific approach?, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 22, pp. 1-7.
Bradbury, H. and Reason, P. (2003), Action research: an opportunity for revitalising research
purpose and practices, Qualitative Social Work, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 155-75.
Breu, K. and Peppard, J. (2003), Useful knowledge for information systems practice:
the contribution of the participatory paradigm, Journal of Information Technology,
Vol. 18, pp. 177-93.
Burns, D. (2007), Systematic Action Research: A Strategy for Whole System Change, Policy Press,
Bristol.
Camp, C.J. (2001), From efficacy to effectiveness to diffusion: making the transitions in dementia
intervention research, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, Vol. 11 Nos 3/4, pp. 495-517.
Carkhuff, R.R. (1983), Sources of Human Productivity, Human Resource Development Press,
Amherst, MA.
Chandler, D. and Torbert, B. (2003), Transforming inquiry and action: interweaving 27 flavours
of action research, Action Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 133-52.
Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A. and Young, S. (2008), Building and maintaining trust
in a community-based participatory research partnership, American Journal of Public
Health, Vol. 98 No. 8, pp. 1398-406.
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979), Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for
Field Settings, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Cope, M. (2000), Seven Cs of Consulting, Pearson Education, Harlow.
Coulon, A. (1965), Ethnomethodology, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W., Heian, J. and Samuel, S. (1998), The calculated and the avowed:
techniques of discipline and struggles over identify in big six public accounting firms,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 293-327.

A critical review
of interventionist
research
41

QRAM
7,1

42

Davila, T. and Oyon, D. (2008), Cross-paradigm collaboration and the advancement of

management accounting knowledge, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 19,
pp. 887-93.
Dirks, M.J., Rottinghaus, M.K. and Lansky, L.M. (1978), Argyris intervention theory: a small
group application, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 317-30.
Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (1996), Action research for management research, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 7, pp. 75-86.
Edmondson, A. and Moingeon, B. (1999), Learning, trust and organisational change,
in Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L. (Eds), Organisational Learning and the
Learning Organisation: Developments in Theory and Practice, Sage, London, pp. 157-75.
Edmondson, A.C. (1996), Three faces of Eden: the persistence of competing theories and
multiple diagnoses in organisational intervention research, Human Relations, Vol. 49
No. 5, pp. 571-95.
Fairweather, G.W. (1967), Methods for Experimental Social Innovation, Wiley, New York, NY.
Fairweather, G.W. and Tornatzky, L.G. (1977), Experimental Methods for Social Policy Research,
Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
Fawcett, S.B. (1990), Some emerging standards for community research and action, in Tolan, P.,
Keys, D., Chertok, F. and Jason, L.E. (Eds), Researching Community Psychology:
Integrating Theories and Methodologies, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 64-75.
Fawcett, S.B. (1991), Some values guiding community research and action, Journal of Applied
Behaviour Analysis, Vol. 24, pp. 621-36.
Fawcett, S.B., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Balcazar, F.E., White, G.W., Paine, A.L., Blanchard, K.A. and
Embree, M.G. (1994), Conducting intervention research the design and development
process, in Rothman, J. and Thomas, E.J. (Eds), Intervention Research: Design and
Development for Human Service, Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY, pp. 3-23.
Fishbein, M., Hennessy, M., Kamb, M., Bolan, G.A., Hoxworth, T., Iatesta, M., Rhodes, F.
and Zenilman, J.M. (2001), Using intervention theory to model factors influencing
behaviour change: project respect, Evaluation and the Health Professions, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 363-85.
Foster, M. (1972), An introduction to the theory and practice of action research in work
organisations, Human Relations, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 529-56.
Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Goldenhar, L.M., LaMontagne, A.D., Katz, T., Heaney, C. and Landsbergis, P. (2001),
The intervention research process in occupational safety and health: an overview from
the national occupational research agenda intervention effectiveness research team,
Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 243-64.
Gravetter, F.J. and Forzano, L.B. (2009), Research Methods for the Behavioural Sciences, 3rd ed.,
Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA.
Harrison, R. (1970), Choosing the depth of organisational intervention, Journal of Applied
Behavioural Science, Vol. 5, pp. 243-64.
Hasenfeld, Y. and Furman, W. (1994), Intervention research as an interorganizational
exchange, in Rothman, J. and Thomas, E. (Eds), Intervention research: Design and
development for human service, Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY, pp. 297-311.
Hastrup, K. (1997), The dynamics of anthropological theory, Cultural Dynamics, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 351-71.

Jonsson, S. and Lukka, K. (2007), There and back again: doing interventionist research in
management accounting, in Chapman, C.S., Hopwood, A.G. and Shields, M.S. (Eds),
Handbook of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 1, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 373-97.
Kaplan, R.S. (1998), Innovation action research: creating new management theory and practice,
Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10, pp. 89-118.
Kasanen, E., Lukka, K. and Siitonen, A. (1993), The constructive approach in management
accounting research, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 5, pp. 243-64.
Kurpius, D.J. (1993), Consultation interventions: successes, failures and proposals,
The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 368-89.
Labro, E. and Tuomela, T. (2003), On bringing more action into management accounting
research: process considerations based on two constructive case studies, European
Accounting Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 409-22.
Labro, E., Degraeve, Z. and Roodhooft, F. (2005), Constructing a total cost of ownership supplier
selection methodology based on activity based costing and mathematical programming,
Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 409-22.
Lewin, K. (1946), Action research and minority problems, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 2,
pp. 34-46.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Lindenburg, C.S., Solorzano, R.M., Vilaro, F.M. and Westbrook, L.O. (2001), Challenges and
strategies for conducting intervention research with culturally diverse populations,
Journal of Transcultural Nursing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 132-9.
Lukka, K. (2006), Interventionist research, Journal of Social Issues, November, p. 36.
Lukka, K. (2007), Management accounting change and stability: loosely coupled rules and
routines in action, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 18, pp. 76-101.
Lukka, K. and Kasanen, E. (1995), The problem of generalizability: anecdotes and evidence in
accounting research, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 5,
pp. 71-90.
Lynch, M. (2001), Ethnomethodology and the logic of practice, in Schatzki, K., Knorr Cetina, K.
and von Savigny, E. (Eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, Routledge,
London.
McCarty Kilian, C., Hukai, D. and McCarty, C.E. (2005), Building diversity in the pipeline to
corporate leadership, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 155-68.
McCoy, H.V., Messian, S.E. and Zhao, W. (2002), Improving access to primary health care for
chronic drug users: an innovative systemic intervention for providers, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 34-54.
McKinnon, J. (1988), Reliability and validity in field research: some strategies and tactics,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 34-54.
Malmi, T., Jarvinen, P. and Lillrank, P. (2004), A collaborative approach for managing project
cost of poor quality, European Accounting Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 293-317.
March, J.G. (1994), A Primer on Decision Making, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Mattessich, R. (1995), Conditional-normative accounting methodology: incorporating value
judgements and means-ends relations of an applied science, Accounting, Organizations
and Society, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 259-84.
Mayer, R.C. and David, J.H. (1999), The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for
management: a field quasi-experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1,
pp. 123-37.

A critical review
of interventionist
research
43

QRAM
7,1

44

Mullen, E.J. (1994), Design of social intervention, in Rothman, J. and Thomas, E.J. (Eds),
Intervention Research: Design and Development for Human Service, Haworth Press,
Binghamton, NY, pp. 3-23.
Needleman, C. and Needleman, M.L. (1996), Qualitative methods for intervention research,
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 29, pp. 329-37.
Paine, S.C., Bellamy, G.T. and Wilcox, B. (1984), Human Services that Work: From Innovation to
Standard Practice, Paul H. Brooks, Baltimore, MD.
Paisey, C. and Paisey, N.J. (2003), Developing research awareness in students: an action research
project explored, Accounting Education, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 283-302.
Pasmore, W. and Friedlander, F. (1982), An action-research program for increasing employee
involvement in problem solving, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 343-62.
Pruitt, R.H. and Privette, A.B. (2001), Planning strategies for the avoidance of pitfalls in
intervention research, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 514-20.
Punnett, B.J. (1988), Designing field experiments for management research outside
North America, International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 44-55.
Ramp, K.K. (1984), Effective quality control for social service programs: one piece of the puzzle,
in Paine, S.C., Bellamy, G.T. and Wilcox, B. (Eds), Human Services that Work: From
Innovation to Standard Practice, Paul H. Brooks, Baltimore, MD, pp. 261-8.
Rapoport, R.N. (1970), Three dilemmas of action research, Human Relations, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 499-513.
Reason, P. (2006), Choice and quality in action research practice, Journal of Management
Inquiry, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 187-203.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2006), Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London.
Reddy, W.B. (1994), Intervention Skills: Process Consultation for Small Groups and Teams,
Pfeiffer and Company, San Diego, CA.
Rickards, T. and Bessant, J. (1980), The creativity audit: introduction of a new research measure
during programmes for facilitating organisational change, R & D Management, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 67-75.
Robitaille, Y., Laforest, S., Fourniet, M. and Gauvin, L. (2005), Moving forward in fall prevention:
an intervention to improve balance among older adults in real-world settings, American
Journal of Public Health, Vol. 95 No. 11, pp. 2049-56.
Rosen, A., Proctor, E.K. and Staudt, M.M. (1999), Social work research and the quest for effective
practice, Social Work Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 4-14.
Rothman, J. (1980), Social R&D: Research and Development in the Human Services, Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Scapens, R.W. (2008), Seeking the relevance of interpretive research: a contribution to the
polyphonic debate, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 19, pp. 915-9.
Schatzki, T.R. (2001), Introduction-practice theory, in Schatzki, K., Knorr Cetina, K. and
von Savigny, E. (Eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, Routledge, London.
Schulte, P.A., Goldenhar, L.M. and Connally, L.B. (1996), Intervention research: science, skills
and strategies, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 29, pp. 285-8.
Seal, W., Cullen, J., Dunlop, A., Berry, T. and Ahmed, M. (1999), Enacting a European supply
chain: case study on the role of management accounting, Management Accounting
Research, Vol. 10, pp. 303-22.
Searle, J.R. (2001), Rationality in Action, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Smither, J.W., Wohlers, A.J. and London, M. (1995), A field study of reactions to normative
versus individualised upward feedback, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 61-80.
Snyder, M., Tseng, Y., Brandt, C., Croghan, C., Hanson, S., Constantine, R. and Kirby, L. (2001),
Challenges of implementing intervention research in persons with dementia: example of a
glider swing intervention, American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 51-6.
Stringer, E.T. (2007), Action Research, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Stronks, K. and Mackenbach, J.P. (2005), Evaluating the effect of policies and interventions to
address inequalities in health: lessons from a Dutch programme, European Journal of
Public Health, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 346-53.
Susman, G.I. and Evered, R.D. (1978), An assessment of the scientific merits of action research,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 582-603.
Thomas, E.J. (1984), Designing Interventions for the Helping Professions, Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.
Thomas, E.J. and Rothman, J. (1994), An integrative perspective on intervention research,
in Rothman, J. and Thomas, E.J. (Eds), Intervention Research: Design and Development for
Human Service, Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY, pp. 3-23.
Vaivio, J. (2008), Qualitative management accounting research: rationale, pitfalls and potential,
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 64-86.
van Aken, J. (2004), Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences:
the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 221-46.
Van De Vliert, E. (1977), Inconsistencies in the argyris intervention theory, The Journal of
Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 557-64.
Zwerling, C., Daltroy, L.H., Fine, L.J., Johnston, J.J., Melius, J. and Silverstein, B.A. (1997), Design
and conduct of occupational injury intervention studies: a review of evaluation strategies,
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 32, pp. 164-79.
Corresponding author
Vicki Baard can be contacted at: Vicki.Baard@efs.mq.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

A critical review
of interventionist
research
45

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.