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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

Quality of
The quality of an action research action research
thesis in the social sciences theses
Ortrun Zuber-Skerrit and Margaret Fletcher
Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia 413
Abstract
Purpose – The paper seeks to identify the quality characteristics of critical action research and
action research theses compared to traditional research thesis writing.
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on the literature and the authors’ experience with
supervising and examining action research theses, the paper identifies key problem areas in the
literature and suggests effective strategies for meeting these challenges and avoiding pitfalls through
reflective practice and questioning insight. The paper includes sets of crucial questions for higher
degree students to address.
Findings – The paper presents definitions of and checklists for quality action research, a quality
thesis, and a quality action research thesis. It also presents two conceptual models that illustrate the
differences between the “research” and thesis “writing” activities and processes in general, and the
collaborative core action research in the fieldwork and the critical action research thesis that needs to
be the candidate’s independent contribution to knowledge in theory and practice.
Originality/value – The definitions, checklists and conceptual models will be useful to
postgraduates, supervisors and examiners of action research theses, because they clarify for them
the similarities and differences between a traditional thesis in the social sciences and a thesis by action
research.
Keywords Action research, Theses, Education, Postgraduates, Quality
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
Increasing numbers of higher degree students, especially part-time candidates who
want to combine work and study by researching their professional practice, are using
action research (AR). AR is a relatively new methodology that emerged after the First
World War from the intellectual climate and ethos of an era – a Zeitgeist (mind of the
age)[1] – that focussed on empowerment and change, gathering momentum across
contexts and cultures. We refer here, for example, to the social work of Kurt Lewin and
his associates, first in Germany and then in America, and in particular to Lewin’s
(1951) field theory, and the socio-technical experiments and systems developed at the
Tavistock Institute (Pasmore, 2001). We also refer to participatory action research and
its origins in third world countries, especially the work of Paolo Freire (1972) and
Orlando Fals Borda (1991, 1998, 2006) in Latin America. After a pause in the late 1950s
and 1960s, the literature on AR re-emerged in the late 1960s and has expanded greatly
since then, especially in the last two decades when the number of higher degree theses
by AR has increased, and so have problems associated with these theses.
Working within the higher education system, we have observed major problems
involving action researchers in postgraduate education. These include longer Quality Assurance in Education
Vol. 15 No. 4, 2007
completion times, higher attrition and increased failure rates, and we identify pp. 413-436
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
All URLs referenced in the text were accessed on 6 June 2007. DOI 10.1108/09684880710829983
QAE mainly three reasons. First, action researchers are usually “doers” interested in
15,4 improving their practice through innovation, change and development (the action part
of AR). They may find rigour in academic research, writing and publishing (the
research part of AR) difficult, especially because rigour in AR has a different meaning
from rigour in traditional scientific research, as will be explained later. They may
assume, erroneously, that AR is easier than traditional research, when indeed it is more
414 complex and problematic. Action researchers need to meet traditional research
requirements of high standards, quality and an original contribution to knowledge in
the field. But as well. they need to demonstrate the requirements of AR, such as
explaining and justifying the action research paradigm (plural ways of knowing),
appropriate methodologies, their choice and use of qualitative research methods,
different standards of ethics and values, and evidence of learning, reflection and a
contribution to knowledge in both theory and practice.
Second, some university academics may be unaware of, unfamiliar with, or hostile
towards this participatory ontology and epistemology of AR. Even if candidates have a
supervisor who understands AR, the supervisor is often unable to teach and guide
them in the literature review, problem definition, the “thematic concern” of a system –
be it an organisation in education, industry or government, or a group in the wider
community – they are researching, and the emerging and often unique processes and
procedures of AR. There are not enough role models for postgraduate supervision and
not enough thesis models, although this situation is improving gradually.
The third set of problems – beyond the candidates’ and to some extent the
supervisors’ control – is the examination process in most Western countries. In the
German-speaking higher education system it is less severe, because the first examiner
is the supervisor and the second examiner is a professor – often from the same
university – selected by and known to the supervisor and in most cases also to the
respective candidate. Circumstances are different in English-speaking universities,
where the supervisor is the student’s teacher, mentor and advisor, but not an examiner
of the thesis. The supervisor may suggest a list of suitable examiners, but it is the
Board of Postgraduate Research or Higher Degrees that makes the final decision about
the selection of two or three examiners, at least one of whom should be international.
The rationale for the latter system is that examiners should not know the candidate
personally, and examine the work in its own right, similar to the double-blind review
system of international, refereed journals. However, while authors of journal articles
can choose and submit work to an appropriate journal that publishes action research or
qualitative research in the non-positivist, phenomenological research paradigm, the
higher degree examination system can be compared to Russian roulette. It is not
uncommon that one examiner highly commends an AR thesis and passes it without
requesting any changes, while another might fail it, for example arguing that the case
study does not meet the positivist criteria of quantitative measurement, validity,
reliability, generalisability, and third-person writing style.
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate on what constitutes a quality
AR thesis. We attempt to address the differences that exist in the social sciences
between qualitative research on the one hand that focuses on human beings, groups of
people, communities, organisations and institutions, and quantitative research on the
other hand that focuses on facts and figures. While there is a growing literature
published on AR, little concerns the writing, supervising and examining of action
research theses. In this respect, Coghlan and Brannick (2005), Fisher and Phelps (2006), Quality of
McNiff and Whitehead (2006), Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) and the seminal work of action research
Dick (2005) require mention here as exceptions. For example, the wide collection of
resources Bob Dick presents on the website at Southern Cross University, Australia theses
(see www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arhome.html) has been highly valued by
postgraduates and supervisors/examiners of AR, particularly his course on AREOL
(Action Research and Evaluation On Line; see www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/areol/ 415
areolind.html), his paper entitled “You want to do an action research thesis?” (see www.
scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/artesis.html), and a brief version of that paper entitled
“Approaching an action research thesis: an overview” (seewww.scu.edu.au/schools/
gcm/ar/arp/phd.html). There is also a site with abstracts and some full texts of
completed action research theses and dissertations (see www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/
ar/art/artsub.html). In this paper we hope to contribute further to these resources and
debates by identifying the key factors affecting the quality of an AR thesis and
suggesting strategies and methods for achieving quality and rigour in AR and writing
an AR thesis.
First, we refer to working definitions of quality action research in the literature.
Second, we discuss the requirements of a quality thesis in general. Third, we identify
additional requirements for, and specific characteristics of, a quality AR thesis. We
draw some conclusions based on our experience as action researchers, thesis
supervisors and examiners and offer advice on how to avoid pitfalls. Finally, we
present our definition of a quality AR thesis. In doing this we hope to stimulate
discussion about what differentiates an action research thesis from a traditional
research thesis, to expand the notion of quality in AR writing and to assist candidates
in managing the AR experience.

2. What is quality action research?

This is the question participants in the First Symposium on Action Research in
Brisbane in 1989 attempted to answer. Following intellectual debate and discussion, we
concluded that it was impossible to arrive at a single, true definition of action research,
because it depends on many environmental, situational, personal and organisational
factors and multiple perspectives. However, we arrived at a mutually agreed working
definition that is reprinted below (Zuber-Skerritt, 1991/1996, p. 8).
If yours is a situation in which:
.
people reflect and improve (or develop) their own work and their own situations;
.
by tightly interlinking their reflection and action; and
.
also making their experience public not only to other participants but also to
other persons interested in and concerned about the work and the situation, i.e.
their public theories and practices of the work and the situation;

and if yours is a situation in which there is increasingly:

.
data-gathering by participants themselves (or with the help of others) in relation
to their own questions;
.
participation (in problem-posing and in answering questions) in
decision-making;
QAE .
power-sharing and the relative suspension of hierarchical ways of working, in a
15,4 conscious move towards social and industrial democracy;
.
collaboration among members of the group as a “critical community”;
.
self-reflection, self-evaluation and self-management by autonomous and
responsible persons and groups;
416 .
progressive (and public) learning by doing and making mistakes in a
“self-reflective spiral” of planning, acting, observing, reflective planning, etc.;
and
.
reflection that supports the idea of the “(self-)reflective practitioner”;

then your is a situation in which action research is occurring.

Altrichter et al. (1991, p. 9) suggested that this working definition was acceptable to the
full range of Symposium participants, because it was:
.
not too threatening to existing understandings and practices;
.
not too vague so that everything was included but was rather rich in examples
which might support the development of shared meanings;
.
open enough so that further elaboration and development seemed possible; and
.
shared with respect to the process of its formulation for a specific context.

Independently, Zuber-Skerritt (1992, p. 2) developed a theoretical framework of

effective action research, known as the CRASP model:
Action research is:
.
Critical (and self-critical) collaborative enquiry by
.
Reflective practitioners being
.
Accountable and making the results of their enquiry public,
. Self-evaluating their practice and engaged in
.
Participative problem-solving and continuing professional development.

Both definitions have been influenced by the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory (and
other philosophies). Therefore, the type of action research we discuss in this paper is
“critical” or “emancipatory”, rather than merely “technical” or “practical” action
research (Carr and Kemmis, 1986).
Recently similar efforts have sought to define action research. Here we agree with
and summarise the essence of quality action research according to the Handbook of
Action Research (Reason and Bradbury, 2001, p. 1):
. . . action research is a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical
knowledge in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory
worldview which we believe is emerging at this historical moment. It seeks to bring together
action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of
practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the flourishing
of individual persons and their communities.
Reason and Marshall (2001, p. 413) believe that action research is a personal, political
and social process and that it is important to help students with the emergent process
of inquiry as much as with the content, literature and methodology. They consider the
personal process from three interrelated perspectives – the existential, psychodynamic Quality of
and transpersonal perspectives – and try to help students to: action research
.
identify their central existential concerns, life issues and choices; theses
.
view “current patterns of experience and behaviour as rooted in unresolved
distress from earlier (often childhood) experiences”; and
.
view their “individual experience as a reflection of archetypal patterns of the 417
collective unconscious” and integrate their intuitive knowledge with their
intellectual and experiential knowledge.

Therefore, Reason and Marshall (2001, p. 415) claim that their style of supervising AR
theses is mainly process-oriented rather than content-oriented. They see their role in
helping students to stay in charge of their own research that has life relevance and to
find their authentic voices and forms for expressing their action research:
. . . our primary attention in supervision is on students’ life energies as they engage with their
research. We seek to facilitate the personal learning in research, and so help people realise
their potential project which has relevance to their lives. In our view, good research is an
expression of a need to learn and change, to shift some aspect of oneself.
Bradbury and Reason (2001, p. 449) address questions of quality and validity of AR.
They suggest five key issues in quality AR that we need to consider. These issues are:
(1) ensuring the quality of participation and relationship in AR;
(2) reflecting on the value of the practical outcomes of work;
(3) drawing on and integrating diverse ways of knowing and using different
methodologies appropriately and creatively in the context of our AR;
(4) evaluating the value of our work against its purpose of creating a better life and
world for us and others; and
(5) achieving systematic, systemic change over time, this means the enduring
consequence of our work, by integrating “the three manifestations of work: for
oneself (‘first-person research practice’), work for partners (‘second-person
research practice’) and work for people in the wider context (‘third-person
research practice’)”.

To synthesise the research reported in the literature, we conclude from our own
experience that authors of quality action research need to meet certain requirements,
listed below:
.
practice-oriented (improving practice);
.
participative (including in their research all stakeholders and others who will be
affected by the results of the research);
. focussed on significant issues relevant not only to themselves but also to their
community/organisation or fellow human beings in the wider world;
.
using multiple perspectives of knowing, triangulation of appropriate methods
and theories, and connecting their own judgements to discussion in the current
literature;
QAE .
rigour in their action research methodology and creative, innovative,
contributing something new to knowledge in theory and practice within and
15,4 across systems;
.
explicit about their assumptions so that readers and examiners may use
appropriate criteria for judging the quality of their work; and
.
reflective, critical, self-critical and ethical.
418
Planning and doing quality action research are one thing; writing an action research
thesis is another, and supervising it is yet another. Many action researchers in their
former education have learned how to do quantitative research, but not how to do
qualitative research and how to write a qualitative research paper or thesis, let alone an
action research thesis. And yet, they will have to satisfy the general requirements of a
Master’s or doctoral thesis, regardless of the methods used. Action research is
predominantly qualitative and therefore for many candidates presents a new – and
potentially exciting – venture.
An interesting literature has emerged in recent years on qualitative research (e.g.
Glesne, 1999; Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Holliday, 2002; Flick, 2006; Marshall, 2006),
and on thesis writing (e.g. Brown, 1994, 1998; Gottlieb, 1994; Phillips, 1996; Sillitoe and
Crosling, 1999; Brause, 1999; Phillips and Pugh, 2000; Wisker, 2005; Herr and
Anderson, 2005). However, it is difficult for postgraduates and supervisors to identify
the literature most relevant for their experience and to put this useful advice into good
practice. The present paper aims to present the essential guidelines for writing an AR
thesis and possible pitfalls. In the next section we briefly address the notion of quality
in a thesis and propose a set of principles that contribute to quality.

3. What is a quality thesis?

We doubt that we could even hope to do justice to this topic in a paper of this nature.
There are so many different models, approaches, methodologies that may be
incorporated, depending on the purpose and the context. In this paper we focus on what
is our strength, which is the translation of action research into the action research thesis.
However, before we do so, we wish to quote a keynote speaker who presented in a
series of four major academic staff development programs on postgraduate research,
supervision and training, which one of the authors convened through 1992-1995. This
program was funded by the Australian Government and resulted in four books, a
series of four video programs, and four manuals on “Conducting Workshops on
Postgraduate Supervision”. The speaker was at the time the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of
the University of Queensland, and in 2007 is Vice-Chancellor of the Australian Catholic
University. He defined a good postgraduate thesis as follows (Sheehan, 1994, pp. 19-20):
A sound thesis should provide a critical analysis of a topic, be critical of the author as much
as of others and always point to further work that needs to be done. It should bear on a
particular problem [. . .] in a focused fashion and should be written succinctly and in flawless
format. It should use theory cautiously, not recklessly, and its design should always tally
with the objectives of the work as stated in the text of the thesis at the outset. The programme
of research should flow logically and relentlessly in the text of the thesis, with the main text
being reserved for the major steps of the developing argument. The thesis must have a
position and it must be stated clearly, and this position must always be argued in a way that
is fair to what others in the literature think about the phenomena with which the thesis is
concerned.
Drawing on this definition and our experience we have developed the following Quality of
principles affecting the quality of a thesis: action research
.
Quality versus quantity. Many universities now specify the maximum length of a theses
thesis to be 200-250 pages. This means:
. Succinctness and concise language in the thesis proper and detailed evidence and
support materials in appendices.
419
.
Perfect format and freedom from errors. With computer and software packages
such as “Endnote” and spell check, there is no excuse for errors and
inconsistencies of headings, spellings, etc. In addition, professional editors may
be used.
.
Critical tone, i.e. the use of self-criticism, constructive criticism of the literature,
and recognising multiple perspectives.
. Sound methodology to be clearly defined, explained and argued.
.
Original contribution to knowledge in the field in both practice and theory.

The most important criterion on which doctoral theses are examined and judged in all
universities worldwide is the achievement of an original contribution to knowledge in
the field. What does this mean? In our view this means a new understanding or insight,
e.g. a new concept or concepts, a new conceptual framework or model that may be
based on aspects of various theories in the literature and/or on data from the fieldwork.
In qualitative research, including action research, the latter is defined as “grounded
theory” (Glaser, 1992), theory grounded in experience and based on data analysis. This
essential characteristic of a thesis (original contribution to knowledge) applies to any
scholarly work in the human and social sciences, including a thesis by action research.
However, an AR thesis is required to contribute to knowledge in both theory and
practice. Knowledge in practice relates to practitioners’ improvement and
transformation of their workplace practices into ones that are new, unique and
different from past practices in the particular system.
The challenge for AR candidates is to translate (incorporate/embed) these
characteristics into the unique requirements of AR research and writing, as explained
in the following section.

4. What is a quality action research thesis?

One of the authors (first author) asked senior managers enrolled in a Doctor of
Business Administration (DBA) program in the Business School Netherlands in
Johannesburg to provide their views on the features of a quality action research thesis,
at the end of a three-day course on “Action Research and Dissertation Writing” in 2004.
They collaboratively arrived at the following criteria:
.
solving a real, complex problem;
.
true participation and collaboration;
.
research must enable action;
.
contributing to knowledge in theory and practice;
. clear projection of reflective processes;
.
critical and self-critical approach;
QAE .
must have an argument (the golden thread);
15,4 . providing evidence/proof for all claims;
.
must be ethical;
.
emphasising quality, rather than quantity (conciseness);
.
must be of publishable standard;
420 .
must be flawless in style, structure and presentation; and
.
displaying originality.

4.1 Solving a real, complex problem

We have already mentioned some of the criteria for judging the quality of a thesis in
general, but one characteristic of a good action research thesis is the identification and
solution of a complex problem in the real world or workplace, involving all
stakeholders, including the workers at the coalface who often have the best knowledge
of that particular problem. In other words, it is not the candidate as an outside
researcher and detached, “objective” observer who decides on the focal problem for
investigation. Rather, he or she has to find out first what might be one of the major
significant problems shared by a real work group, community or organisation, in order
to obtain their participation and collaboration and support from top management. This
is what Kurt Lewin called the “thematic concern”. This real-world thematic concern is
of primary importance; the candidate’s topic is secondary and should be aligned to the
primary concern. Why would an organisation allow a research student to do fieldwork
in their workplace and use their valuable time and resources? The answer must be:
only if the research enables action (i.e. practical improvement, professional and/or
organisational learning, therefore change or development for the better) for the people
involved in the AR.

4.2 Contribution to knowledge in theory and practice

It follows from the above that an AR thesis needs to advance knowledge, not only in
theory but also in practice. This is an additional, distinctive criterion for evaluating an
AR thesis. Normally, action researchers have no difficulty in facilitating a process that
leads to practical improvement, innovation, positive change or development; but they
often find it difficult to facilitate the participants’ and their own reflection on and in
action, which leads to conceptual, theoretical knowledge. Therefore the thesis needs to
show a clear projection of reflective processes. We recommend that reflection be an
integral part in each chapter and/or at the end of the thesis as a final chapter or
epilogue, reflecting on the whole process of the candidate’s research and writing, of
individual, group and organisational learning, and of professional and organisational
development and growth. Reflection needs to be critical and self-critical.
The thesis must have an argument that is briefly introduced in the first chapter
(introduction), developed throughout the thesis like “a golden thread”, and summarised
at the end (conclusions). The argument and all knowledge claims must be proven with
evidence.
Emphasis is on ethics in research, quality (not quantity) and written to a
publishable standard, hence flawless in style, structure and presentation.
A dilemma most candidates of AR theses face is the question of how they as
collaborative action researchers can prove that their resulting contribution to theory
and practice is original and their own work. Therefore, Zuber-Skerritt and Perry (2002) Quality of
developed a conceptual model of an action research thesis, based on their joint action research
publication a decade earlier, to make the distinction clear between independent and
collaborative action research, as illustrated in Figure 1. theses
We distinguish between the core action research – that is, the candidate’s fieldwork
– and the thesis action research and writing – which constitutes the candidate’s
individual work. The fieldwork is collaborative and participative. Participants may be 421
involved in the data collection, analysis and interpretation, and in the spiral of action
research cycles. In each cycle they plan the team project together with the candidate,
they act by implementing their plan, they observe and evaluate the action, and then
reflect on the results and on the whole process of this core action research and on what
they can learn or have learned from it. At the end, one of the participants (and it may
well be the candidate) presents an oral and written report to all stakeholders and to a
wider audience, if appropriate. The results are made public. However, these results

Figure 1.
Conceptual model of an
action research thesis
QAE may be owned by all participants in the research, and the publications are joint
intellectual property.
15,4 The candidate’s role in his/her own independent thesis research and writing
involves at least four main phases:
(1) planning the thesis (research and writing);
(2) acting in the fieldwork;
422
(3) observing and evaluating the fieldwork; and
(4) reflecting on the results of the fieldwork in the light of the literature and his/her
theoretical framework, leading to the thesis’s argument and contribution to
knowledge in the field.
4.2.1 Planning the thesis. This includes context and situation analysis, defining the focal
research question of the thesis in alignment with the team’s thematic concern, literature
review (first of the methodology and second of the problem/content area) and identifying
the “gap” and the candidate’s potential original contribution(s) to knowledge, setting up a
bibliographical database, such as “Endnote”, a reflection journal (electronic and as a hard
copy) and making a strategic action plan and a structure for the thesis.
4.2.2 Acting in the fieldwork. To start, the candidate needs to activate the core action
research project with the team and then facilitate the whole process of team planning,
acting (implementing the plan), observing (evaluating and documenting the
innovations, interventions and evidence for successes and failures), and reflecting on
the above process, on the results, and on their own and their organisation’s learning.
This process may be repeated and the plan revised several times until the team is
satisfied and ready to report to stakeholders and maybe the public. The candidate’s
role is co-researcher, project manager and process facilitator.
4.2.3 Observing and evaluating the fieldwork. Apart from the team’s observation and
evaluation in the core action research project, the candidate at this stage needs to take a
more distant view or perspective. She or he needs to analyse and evaluate the whole
team project independently from the team, in the light of the literature and his/her own
theoretical framework. This individual evaluative work will triangulate and synthesise
his/her own perspective during the fieldwork (documented in the reflection journal), the
team’s perspective (in the written report to be treated as a public document like any
other piece of literature), and stakeholder, management and leadership perspectives
(based on feedback in interviews, focus groups or qualitative surveys) during and after
the fieldwork.
4.2.4 Reflecting on the results of the fieldwork. This independent evaluation will also
facilitate and contribute to the candidate’s own reflection, creative conceptualisation
and theorisation of the whole research process and results, leading to the identification
of his/her contribution to knowledge in theory by filling a gap in the literature, and in
practice by making a difference in an organisation, community or group.
4.2.5 The candidate’s own original contribution to knowledge. We refer to our section
on this topic above, but hasten to point out that an action research thesis in addition
needs to make explicit, and argue for:
.
the assumptions underlying the phenomenological paradigm of action research;
.
the use of predominantly qualitative research methodology; and
.
ethics and values in action research.
It is not within the scope of this paper to explain these three areas in detail, so here we Quality of
summarise the essence and refer to the relevant literature. action research
First, the phenomenological paradigm assumes that knowledge can be created on
the basis of personal and professional experience and reflection on this experience, and theses
that (grounded) theory can be derived from and grounded in experiential data from
multiple perspectives and through triangulation of methods. Unlike positivists, who
believe in “objective truth” and facts that can be researched by detached, neutral 423
observers, action researchers argue that the nature, behaviour and minds of human
beings constitute a complex whole, which cannot be observed objectively, or be
understood accurately through a part, by outside researchers. Action researchers
recognise that observations are not neutral, objective or value-free, but are subjective
and dependent on the observer’s theoretical framework and value system. They hold
that what positivists call “subjects” need to be treated as “participants” in the research
process (e.g. in analysing and interpreting data) to make the results as objective as
possible. The criteria of “validity” and “reliability” used in traditional research are
interpreted differently in action research as “authenticity”, that is, the results of the
research are valid and reliable if they are recognisable and authentic to the people
involved in the research, even if not necessarily to others. For a detailed discussion, see
Carr and Kemmis (1986) and Zuber-Skerritt (2001).
Second, in this phenomenological paradigm of action research, it is more
appropriate to use mainly qualitative, rather than quantitative research methods,
because the aim is not to survey large samples of populations or “subjects” in order to
predict future trends or to make generalizations about past and present. Rather, the
aim is to work with a relatively small group of people in depth as “participants” in the
research, because they are knowledgeable, interested, motivated and open to
participating in solving their own problem(s) and improving their own situation.
Action research requires a detailed, in-depth study of the case under investigation and
uses methods such as interviews, group discussions, focus groups, nominal group
technique, reflection journals and so forth to collect and analyse rich data from
individuals and small groups. The recent literature on qualitative research that we
refer to above expands and clarifies this discussion.
Third, there are also differences in ethics and values between traditional and action
research. The Special Issue on “Ethics and action research” in a 2006 issue of the
journal Action Research[2] addresses these differences. In particular, we refer to the
articles by Eikeland, Brydon-Miller and Greenwood. Eikeland (2006) discusses the
work of Zeni (2001, p. 37) and many ethical dilemmas, concluding that “conventional
research is unfit for action research because of its practice of ‘othering’ human beings
as research subjects”. Universities have committees or boards responsible for advising
and monitoring ethical standards related to research. Brydon-Miller and Greenwood
(2006) explain that institutional review boards (IRBs) in universities are required to
ensure that ethical standards are followed to avoid harm to human beings and the
institution’s legal liability for violation. However, these ethical regulations have been
designed for conventional positivist research that is able to articulate well-defined
hypotheses, pre-determined methods and predictable or expected outcomes in advance.
In action research there cannot be such pre-determination, because by its very nature
AR is open-ended, collaborative, situation specific, methodologically eclectic, and thus
not prescriptive in its use of methods, processes or final goals.
QAE Brydon-Miller and Greenwood (2006, p. 120) argue:
15,4 Democratic collaboration, co-generation of knowledge, and a commitment to the
democratisation of human situations are the major guidelines that AR follows and so it
stands to reason that the interests of the human subjects[3] involved would be respected with
care throughout the process. Indeed, AR is, or should be, far from the evils that IRBs are
supposed to combat.
424 These authors, in the true spirit of AR, involved the institutional stakeholders (Chair
and members of the IRB) at Cornell University and the University of Cincinnati in a
dialogue to come to a common understanding of AR and of how the committee would
review AR projects: “Subsequently, IRB reviews of AR projects have been both [sic]
thorough, fair-minded, and thoughtful”.
We recommend a similar educational AR process be used in institutions where IRBs
apply conventional positivist research ethics and find it difficult to review AR projects.
We can work with our IRBs to ensure that review processes are developed that reflect the
values underlying the theory and practice of action research. Brydon-Miller and
Greenwood (2006, p. 126) remind us that there are two aspects of AR: action and research.
They suggest that the actions or interventions developed with participants in AR do not
constitute research and should not require IRB approval. “What does require review is the
process of taking this action and transforming it into research for presentation or
publication”. And so, “we should develop strategies for incorporating the development of
IRB proposals and consent forms into the action research process itself”.
Values are the cornerstones of ethics. Zuber-Skerritt (2005, pp. 53-4) has identified
seven core values and ethical principles underpinning successful action research and
how these values and principles can be translated into actions that students as
researchers carry out.

5. Problems and strategies in the process of thesis research and writing

We have observed at least four main challenges in practice and have found that these
are confirmed in the literature:
(1) the lonely researcher syndrome;
(2) defining the focal problem or central research question;
(3) understanding the difference between conducting research and writing a thesis;
and
(4) overcoming barriers to writing an action research thesis.

5.1 The lonely researcher syndrome

Unlike candidates in the natural sciences, who normally work in teams or in
laboratories alongside other research students and staff, postgraduates in the human
and social sciences are often working in isolation at home or in their office. For these
latter students, failure and attrition rates are much higher. Whittle (1992) reports on
and explains why postgraduates in science at the University of Adelaide complete their
higher degrees almost four times faster than their peers in arts. She then suggests how
postgraduate performance in arts degrees might be improved by adopting and
adapting some of the supervisory practices in Science. Conrad et al. (1992), on the basis
of their research and experience in three different Australian universities, discuss some
alternatives to the single-supervisor model, involving students in their own and each Quality of
other’s supervision. Other studies in this volume and its subsequent editions action research
(Zuber-Skerritt and Ryan, 1994; Zuber-Skerritt, 1996; Ryan and Zuber-Skerritt, 1999)
are based on our staff development programs on postgraduate supervision mentioned theses
above, with hundreds of supervisors from nine universities. These suggest that the
lonely researcher syndrome and its related problems can be overcome by self-selected
support groups and specially designed workshops with postgraduates and supervisors 425
on the key problem areas in the whole process of research and writing.
A recent technological tool being trialled by one of the authors (second author) is the
use of a virtual space or wiki that enables supervisors and students to share ideas,
writing, resources and problems as they emerge during the research process. This
space connects students and creates a virtual learning community where issues are
explored and permanently recorded for the benefit of all involved (see Fletchspace at
http://fletch2.pbwiki.com/).

5.2 Defining the focal problem or central question

One common problem area is students’ identification and definition of their central
research question to be sufficiently focussed such that the student can address and
manage it within the given time limit. Problem definition is therefore a critical component
of the research process and is central to research design. It will determine the literature to
be reviewed as well as the design of the study, including the sample, methods and
analytical techniques applied to the data that produce informative results and contribute
to new knowledge and understandings related to the problem. In the complex world of
qualitative research, including action research, reducing complicated problems to a
laconic central question that is realistic and goes to the heart of a significant issue remains
a doctoral student’s greatest challenge. While candidates generally have a research area of
interest and some idea of a research problem when they commence their studies, they
need support in refining their research focus. It is very difficult for students to do this in
isolation (Fletcher, 2005). They need to engage in dialogue with others, read the literature
and reflect on their own and others’ experiences in the area.
There is an additional issue for action researchers who intend to combine part-time
postgraduate studies and full-time work or vice versa. For it is much more difficult to
successfully complete a thesis if the central problem or “thematic concern” for a
candidate to address at work is different from the focal research question of the
candidate’s thesis, rather than aligned with it. Therefore, we recommend that
candidates who are determined to write an action research thesis first explore what is
the central concern in their workplace system; who in the system would be most
interested in and committed to solving the problem and to working collaboratively in
an action research team at work; and only then define their research question to be
addressed in the thesis. This means that the first step is to identify a workplace
problem for the fieldwork and the interested stakeholders and to do a context analysis,
e.g. SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) and resources inventory
(what do we have, need, are able to get, access or not?) for the project. Once this
thematic concern is clear, the candidate may be helped by supervisors and peers in
defining the action research question for the thesis.
From our workshop experiences, we have refined a strategy where candidates (in a
small group of three or four) can each in turn be helped to formulate their central research
QAE question by being in the “hot seat” and asked the five sets of thought-provoking questions
15,4 listed in Table I. There is one important ground rule: no one (except the candidate in the
hot seat) is allowed to talk in sentences; but non-candidates are only to ask constructive
questions. This Socratic approach to thesis design is not easy for the “critical friends” or
for the candidate in the hot seat who is thus forced – and helped – to probe for answers
through deeper, critical thought, to make their tacit, implicit knowledge more explicit, and
426 in the process refine their wide-ranging thoughts into an, or even the most, appropriate
question to guide their research. Once introduced and understood, this Socratic approach
to thesis planning may be reiterated and used by small support groups of students
independently throughout their candidature.

Guiding questions Your thinking Define

1. What? Focal question

What do you want to focus on?
What is your central issue, problem or concern?

2. Why? Significance
What has and has not been done previously in this
area?
Is there a gap in the literature?
Why are you doing this?
What’s the purpose of your work?
What will you do differently or new?
Why is this worthy of study?
Why is it important and who will benefit from it?

3. What? Contribution to
What will be your new, original contribution to knowledge
practical and theoretical knowledge in the field?
What is new or different in your work that has not
been done before?

4. How? Method
How will you address your central research
question?
How will you argue, demonstrate and produce
evidence to substantiate that your work/thesis
makes a substantial contribution to new, original
knowledge in the field in theory and practice?
What research methods will you use?

5. When? Timeline
When do you start and finish your thesis?
What is your timetable from start of research to
submission of thesis?
Is your research project realistic and manageable
Table I. in that timeframe?
Socratic approach to Or what could you change?
thesis planning What are the milestones in your timetable?
As students develop a deeper understanding of how their focal question impacts on all Quality of
aspects of their research, they are in a better position to manage the complex process of action research
reading the literature and collecting data. They now have a clearer view of what they
are researching and can use this to frame decisions about what, when and how data theses
must be collected. The guiding question that should underpin every subsequent stage
of doctoral research is: “How will this contribute to my answering the focal question?”.
427

5.3 Understanding the difference between conducting research and writing a thesis
Undertaking research is a process very different from writing a thesis. While these
processes are co-dependent, a student needs to distinguish the differences between
them and recognise the different aspects of each. We have found Wisker’s (2005)
building metaphor a helpful illustration of these differences and have adapted the
model in Figure 2 to compare researching with writing an AR thesis.
Undertaking research is engaging in a process-oriented activity, while writing a
thesis is engaging in a product-oriented activity. The former is chronological, the latter
must be logical. Figure 2 shows how one “builds” research and thesis writing from the
ground up. It shows how progression in research is often stop/start, as conducting
qualitative research involves a journey where most students at some stage hit a “brick
wall” that separates their data gathering from their analysis (and sometimes the
students from their will to complete the thesis!). Students overcome this crisis through
persistence as they develop skills in managing large data sets. Having a support
network – an “AR group” – and understanding supervisors is very important at this
stage. Removing the “wall” allows the candidates to continue their research journey,
proceeding with data analysis and formulating results. A support network can also
provide students with a lifeline during writing, which is a solitary process that can
leave some students feeling isolated by comparison with the research stage that
usually involves some or much interaction with others.
The research and writing tasks are dissimilar in nature. Thesis writing must be
clear and concise, with a logical and cogent argument that weaves a “thread” through
the thesis. Importantly for producing a focused study with a tight argument, the
writing must exclude what is not essential for developing the argument. In contrast,
action research activities are not linear and are seldom logical. Research involves lots
of exploration, experimenting, and trying out ideas – keeping some and rejecting
others. Action research activities usually start with development issues and concerns
for practical improvement and organisational change. It may be long after attending to
the practical problem that the candidates recognise that their contributions in and
beyond the workplace can constitute a valuable contribution to production of
knowledge in their field and can be disseminated through publication in a thesis.
The action research journey winds like a mountain road, with many side tracks,
road blocks, detours and cul-de-sacs. The thesis, on the other hand, is a different
journey where expression, structure and telling the research story in a straightforward
way is the focus. Although candidates are encouraged to write continuously from the
beginning (e.g. writing notes in “Endnote” and in their reflection diary, writing papers
or draft chapters), the final thesis needs to be lean, concise, and to the point (i.e. no
detours). The difference is illustrated in Figure 2.
QAE
15,4

428

Figure 2.
The two buildings of
“research” and “writing”
an action research thesis

5.4 Overcoming barriers to writing an action research thesis

Most candidates find writing a thesis a daunting task, involving as it does a transition
from the analysis of literature and data to the synthesis of ideas and information,
expressed in writing to form “thesis” argument and ultimately contribution to
knowledge. Failure to make this transition may leave the candidate immobilised,
under-confident, and thus unable to submit the thesis on time or at all.
 Considering recent policies on research quantum, including postgraduate Quality of
completions, in Australian, British and New Zealand higher education sectors, action research
universities and supervisors have a vested interest in helping postgraduate students to
overcome anxieties about writing a thesis within a specified time limit. The approach theses
we suggest is cognitive (via information technology, books, handouts and advice from
supervisors, institutional and/or departmental regulations and guidelines regarding
the format of the thesis, style sheet and reference system, etc.), affective (via support 429
groups and discussion) and skill development oriented (in workshops, e.g. on the nuts
and bolts of thesis writing, using a bibliographic database such as “Endnote”, “brain
dumps”, “mind maps”, a “reflection diary” or research journal, and the difference
between first and final drafts). We have found the following strategies helpful for
students during thesis writing:
. Brain dumps – This is a simple technique where students scribble down all they
can that is related to their research. There is no right or wrong here and even
seemingly irrelevant words can come to represent significant or emerging
conceptual understandings. Each word can become a trigger for other words and
ideas, making this a valuable knowledge stock-take as well as a confidence
building exercise for students, who are often surprised at the extent and depth of
what they know about their field. Brain dumps can be a starting point for
organising knowledge in a mind map.
.
Mind maps – Mapping what is in one’s mind about the thesis topic means
conceptually organising ideas under headings, elaborating these ideas in detail,
and linking them conceptually. Several mind maps can be created using the same
information but organising the ideas according to different conceptual
constructs. Construct mapping such as this is an excellent method for
clarifying and organising one’s ideas before starting to write a paper or thesis,
and model/theory building. Model building is creating “grounded theory”. It
proceeds from experimenting to soliciting feedback from others, and revising the
model until the best way of representing the data, results or conclusions is
achieved. Some students using action research find it too difficult or
inappropriate to think in concept maps. They may prefer to use a linear
approach to writing and theorising. However, mind mapping can be learned,
both manually with paper and pen, and using computer software (for example
www.mindmanager.com). The advantage of learning the process of concept
mapping to facilitate model building is that it enables students using action
research to adapt existing models and create their own models, initially in their
minds, on the basis of their research. Abstract concepts and generalisations are
often easier to represent in the form of a graphic design (e.g. flow-charts or
diagrams) before explaining them in words. Thus mental models – both
theoretical and process models – aid and result from reflection on practice.
.
Reflection diaries – Often called “research journals” or “log books”, reflection
diaries are strong heuristic tools for reflection as well as for formulating the
essence of this reflection in written form. The action research journal is a
legitimate source of data and a qualitative research method. It constitutes the
action researcher’s subjective perspective that needs to be triangulated with
other perspectives. Without a journal, a research student’s reflection is often
QAE transitory and vanishes in the sub-conscious mind where it becomes part of their
15,4 tacit knowledge. The purpose of systematic diary writing within the thesis
process is therefore to facilitate the construction or creation of new knowledge
and to enable students as action researchers to make their tacit knowledge more
explicit through their thesis.

430 The process we have found most effective for postgraduate students as action
researchers is:
.
recording the most significant events (experiences, meetings, discussions,
activities, a major task, project or assignment) in their journal;
.
reflecting on these events and on their learning from the events;
.
writing down both their reflections and the actions they plan to take as a result of
their reflection and learning (ticking off the actions when they have been
completed, or when action is no longer necessary);
.
reviewing their journal entries weekly, keeping the important records and
trashing the rest (but trashed items to be kept aside in a folder in case they need
to be recovered later); and
.
conducting a similar culling process monthly – in this way, the data in the
reflection journal are continuously reduced and therefore more manageable and
easier to analyse later.

Keeping a reflection diary in such a systematic manner has the advantage that action
research students “learn from experience” (Kolb, 1984), become more effective and
“reflective practitioners” (Schön, 1983), and are able to develop learning principles and
personal theories, and to take appropriate action.
5.5 Difference between first and final drafts
It is important that students understand the difference between first and final drafts of
the thesis. The role of the first rough draft is for students to:
.
capture their main ideas (mind maps);
.
clearly design the cohesion and logic of their argument(s);
.
build the structure of the whole thesis and of each chapter; and
.
commit their ideas to paper as rapidly and un-selfconsciously as possible, in a
concentrated time period, in order to maintain continuity of thought and logical
argument and also to save time, because having long breaks in between writing
sessions means that the writers need to go back, to read again and again what
they wrote before, and to remind themselves of what they intended to do next.
The advantage of writing a first, fast rough draft is that candidates can get feedback
from supervisors and “critical friends” at an early stage on the content of their “thesis”,
their contribution to knowledge, and problems or shortcomings that can often be fixed
quickly, rather than having to go back to the start later on. Another advantage is that if
students have a clear picture in mind of what and how to argue, then it is likely that
their writing will also be clear. But if their ideas are fuzzy, their writing is likely to be
vague, disjointed and unconvincing. That is why the student must understand the
importance of planning the thesis and writing the first draft. Finally, a psychological
advantage is that students start writing without inhibitions that impede writing, and Quality of
without excessive concern for detail, precise language or fine-tuning of the argument, action research
all of which are addressed through later revision.
Last touches can be done in the final draft. For it is the role of the final draft to theses
attend to the editorial aspects of concise language, style, perfect format and a
consistent referencing system. The referencing system can be easily attended to by
using a bibliographic database and software package, such as “Endnote”, available in 431
both IBM and Macintosh formats. Students as action researchers must meet all these
requirements and in addition, they need to understand and make explicit the particular
action research paradigm, its underlying assumptions and values, ethics and validity,
and criteria for evaluating a quality action research thesis.
For more strategies to overcome barriers to writing an AR thesis and to sustain the
energies necessary to persevere to completion, we refer the reader to Passfield (1997).

6. Conclusions
The challenge of action research is to convince scholars in the human and social
sciences that AR is not better or worse than but different from traditional
methodologies and is just as valid a form of research. This can be achieved only
through careful explanation, demonstration and models of quality action research
papers and theses.
It can be concluded from this paper that undertaking any form of research is a
complex and difficult process with action research as a method having a particular set
of problems that need to be considered. However, the whole experience including
learning from action research has the potential to be more challenging, exciting,
enjoyable, practical, educational, and more personally enriching, because it not only
involves research (for understanding and gaining/creating new knowledge), but also
action (improvement of practice, and professional and organisational development), as
well as learning through reflection on and in action.
Action research integrates theory and practice, research and development, left and
right brain activity (i.e. analytical, logical thinking and intuitive, innovative, creative
thinking). This is the essence and great achievement of action research. However, it
must be well argued and supported by strong evidence that is convincingly presented.
Evidence may be provided through multiple perspectives, personal views and
feedback from all participants and stakeholders (i.e. from those people who will be
affected by the recommendations and results of the research), as well as through
triangulation of multiple methods, such as reflection diary (first person), active
participants (second person) and interviews, surveys, focus groups, nominal group
techniques, etc. (third person).
Quality and rigour in an action research thesis are achieved through:
.
a methodology that is carefully designed, explained and justified;
.
an individual, original contribution that is well argued, demonstrated,
documented and supported by evidence for every knowledge claim (e.g.
through participant confirmation/validation of data analysis and interpretation);
.
the use of relevant literature, i.e. the methodological literature first to justify the
candidate’s choice, and the content literature later (after aligning the candidate’s
QAE focal research question with the thematic concern of the core action research
15,4 group), to confirm or disconfirm the candidate’s data and research findings; and
.
a writing style that is clear, concise (using appendices for detailed information),
conceptually sound, free of errors, and written in the first person singular and
plural, as appropriate.

432 In this paper we have identified the main challenges and criteria for assessing the
quality of action research and of an action research thesis. We now conclude with some
crucial questions for a candidate to answer and some advice on how to address these
challenges, and our definition of a quality AR thesis.

6.1 Addressing crucial questions

For a higher degree thesis or dissertation by action research students must ask
themselves, and know the answers to, the “why?”, “what?”, “where?”, “who?”, “how?”
and “when?” questions described below:
.
Why do you want to do action research? We have already established that it is
not necessarily easier, and may be more difficult. If you make this choice and
decision, it is mainly because your aims are not only to do research and
contribute to knowledge in the field and perhaps also to advance your career by
getting a higher degree. Your aims are also to make a significant contribution to
organisational change or development – that is, to practical improvement in a
section, group, part or across the whole of an organisation – and last but not
least, you want to achieve the participants’ and your own personal and
professional growth, learning and development. There is strong evidence that
these aims can best be achieved through action learning and action research (e.g.
Passfield, 1996; Dotlich and Noel, 1998).
.
What is your vision, focus, research question or problem, and, in Kurt Lewin’s
terms, what is the thematic concern of your core action research group?
.
Where will you find a group or an organisation to share your thematic concern?
Where can you do your fieldwork? In which higher education institution will you
enrol? Not all universities, faculties, departments or supervisors support or even
accept action research as a philosophy and methodology for scholarly research.
So it is important to find a supportive environment in which you can thrive and
enjoy your work.
.
Who are the stakeholders in your project? For example, who is your client or
sponsor? We know from the literature on organisational change and
development that it is crucial to have the support of top management for any
substantial change to occur. Who are the members of your core action research
project team, and how will you build an effective team spirit? Who are the
members of your action learning set/group, that is, your fellow research students
or associates in the university?
.
How will you achieve your goal, aims and objectives? We have come to the
conclusion that you can save a lot of time and problems if you enrol, actively
participate, and successfully complete the assignments in the Action Research
and Evaluation On-line AREOL course (see www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/
areol/areolind.html) and/or if you complete a qualitative research methods
 course. This is especially helpful if you are required to write a detailed research Quality of
proposal, including the methodology to be used and a literature review; and if action research
you are supported by regular workshops and meetings with your action learning
set. We have found that the benefits of these group sessions are great to theses
participants. You actually experience, live and model the values and processes of
action learning and action research; you are more motivated and excited to
research and write; and you benefit from the networking, synergy and energy in 433
the group.
.
When will you start and finish your thesis? Without making a strong
commitment and a realistic timeline for every phase in the research and writing
process, the candidature can be a daunting task, a negative experience and result
in late submission or non-completion of the thesis.

Candidates should seek the support of their supervisor and their advice as they develop
the skills to ask and answer these questions. Selecting appropriate examiners is a
further important consideration. Appropriate examiners are particularly crucial for
action research theses, because apart from the general criteria for assessment outlined
above, examiners of AR theses have to be knowledgeable of and sympathetic to the AR
paradigm and its underlying philosophical assumptions and values and to the use of
predominantly qualitative research methods.
The worth or quality of an AR project must be evident to the participants in the
research (organisation/community) and to peers in the wider community of
professionals and scholars. We conclude with our definition of a quality AR thesis.

6.2 Definition of a quality action research thesis

A quality AR thesis is one that:
. presents critical analysis of a well defined action research question/problem;
.
investigates a significant problem or “thematic concern” or major issue in
professional, organisational and/or community development – significant not
only to the researcher(s), but also to the whole group, organisation or community
who are affected by the problem and its solution;
.
uses and justifies an appropriate methodology and methods (including
participant confirmation and reflection diary);
.
creates/advances knowledge in the field (practical, theoretical and/or experiential
knowledge);
.
provides convincing evidence for this knowledge claim;
. points to limitations and further research to be done;
.
demonstrates how critical reflection has contributed to transforming knowledge
and practices;
.
communicates all of the above in a clear, logical, succinct and coherent manner;
and
.
makes the results public in the thesis and where possible in published form
through journal article(s), book chapter(s), a monograph, occasional paper and/or
a book.
QAE Notes
15,4 1. A German expression, literally translated as “time” ( ¼ Zeit) “spirit” ( ¼ Geist), meaning “the
mind of the age” and referring to the philosophical, cultural and social attitudes/trends in a
particular era.
2. “Ethics and action research”, a Special Issue of the Action Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, 2006.
3. We understand here that Brydon-Miller and Greenwood (2006) have spoken of “subjects”
434 rather than “participants”, since their task was to convince university ethics staff and
therefore used the language that these staff members would understand.

References
Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., Mctaggart, R. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1991), “Defining, confining or
refining action research?”, in Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.), Action Research for Change and
Development, Gower, Aldershot, pp. 3-9.
Bradbury, H. and Reason, P. (2001), “Conclusion: broadening the bandwidth of validity: issues
and choice-points for improving the quality of action research”, in Reason, P. and
Bradbury, H. (Eds), Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry and Practice, Sage
Publications, London, pp. 447-55.
Brause, R. (1999), Writing Your Doctoral Dissertation, Routledge Falmer, London.
Brown, R. (1994), “The ‘big picture’ about managing writing”, in Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Ryan, Y.
(Eds), Quality in Postgraduate Education, Kogan Page, London, pp. 90-109.
Brown, R. (1998), “How to focus your reader with the main message”, in Conrad, L. and
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Eds), Developing as Researchers, 2nd ed., GIHE, Griffith University,
Brisbane, pp. 11-24.
Brydon-Miller, M. and Greenwood, D. (2006), “A re-examination of the relationship between
action research and human subjects review processes”, Action Research, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 117-28.
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986), Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research,
Deakin University Press, Geelong.
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2005), Doing Action Research in Your Own Organisation, Sage
Publications, London.
Conrad, L., Perry, C. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992), “Alternatives to traditional postgraduate
supervision in the social sciences”, in Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.), Starting Research:
Supervision and Training, TEDI, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds) (2000), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dick, B. (2005), “Making process accessible: robust processes for learning, change and action
research”, DLitt thesis, International Management Centres Association, Buckingham,
available at www.uq.net.au/ , zzbdick/dlitt/ (accessed 6 June 2007).
Dotlich, D.L. and Noel, J.L. (1998), Action Learning: How the World’s Top Companies Are
Re-creating Their Leaders and Themselves, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Eikeland, O. (2006), “Condescending ethics and action research”, Action Research, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 37-47.
Fals-Borda, O. (Ed.) (1998), People’s Participation: Challenges Ahead, Tercer Mundo Editores,
Bogota.
Fals-Borda, O. (2006), “The North-South convergence”, Action Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 351-8.
Fals-Borda, O. and Rahman, M.A. (Eds) (1991), Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly Quality of
with Participatory Action Research, Apex Press, New York, NY.
action research
Fletcher, M.A. (2005), “Action learning/action research: a teacher-centered approach for
self-improving schools”, Literacy Learning: Middle Years, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 16-24. theses
Fisher, K. and Phelps, R. (2006), “Recipe or performing art? Challenging conventions for writing
action research theses”, Action Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 143-64.
Flick, U. (2006), An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London. 435
Freire, P. (1972), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Glaser, B. (1992), Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing, Sociology Press,
Mill Valley, CA.
Glesne, C. (1999), Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction, Longman, New York, NY.
Gottlieb, N. (1994), “Supervising the writing of a thesis”, in Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Ryan, Y. (Eds),
Quality in Postgraduate Education, Kogan Page, London, pp. 110-9.
Herr, K.G. and Anderson, G.L. (2005), The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students
and Faculty, Sage Publications, New York, NY.
Holliday, A. (2002), Doing and Writing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1988), The Action Research Planner, Deakin University Press,
Geelong.
Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2006), Doing Action Research in Education, Sage Publications,
London.
Marshall, C. (2006), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London.
Pasmore, W. (2001), “Action research in the workplace: the socio-technical perspective”,
in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds), Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry
and Practice, Sage Publications, London, pp. 38-47.
Passfield, R. (1996), “Action learning for professional and organisational development: an action
research case study in higher education”, PhD thesis, Griffith University, Brisbane.
Passfield, R. (1997), “Managing the energy of thesis writing: a Chakra perspective”, ALAR
Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 19-39.
Phillips, E.M. (1996), “The quality of a good thesis”, in Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.), Frameworks for
Postgraduate Education, Southern Cross University Press, Lismore, pp. 197-212.
Phillips, E.M. and Pugh, D.S. (2000), How to Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and Their
Supervisors, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds) (2001), Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry
and Practice, Sage Publications, London.
Reason, P. and Marshall, J. (2001), “On working with graduate research students”, in Reason, P.
and Bradbury, H. (Eds), Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry and Practice,
Sage Publications, London, pp. 413-9.
Ryan, Y. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1999), Supervising Postgraduates from Non-English Speaking
Backgrounds, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Sheehan, P. (1994), “From thesis writing to research application: learning the research culture”, in
Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Ryan, Y. (Eds), Quality in Postgraduate Education, Kogan Page,
London, pp. 14-23.
QAE Schön, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Temple
Smith, London.
15,4 Sillitoe, J. and Crosling, G. (1999), “Thesis planning and writing: a structured approach”, in Ryan,
Y. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Eds), Supervising Postgraduates from Non-English Speaking
Backgrounds, Society of Research into Higher Education and Open University Press,
Buckingham, pp. 167-74.
436 Whittle, J. (1992), “Research culture, supervision practices and postgraduate performance”,
in Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.), Starting Research: Supervision and Training, TEDI, University
of Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 86-107.
Wisker, G. (2005), The Good Supervisor: Supervising Postgraduate and Undergraduate Research
for Doctoral Theses and Dissertations, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Zeni, J. (2001), Ethical Issues in Practitioner Research, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1991/1996), Action Research for Change and Development, Gower, Aldershot.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992), Professional Development in Higher Education: A Theoretical
Framework for Action Research, Kogan Page, London.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.) (1996), Frameworks for Postgraduate Education, Southern Cross
University Press, Lismore.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2001), “Action learning and action research: paradigm, praxis and programs”,
in Sankaran, S., Dick, B., Passfield, R. and Swepson, P. (Eds), Effective Change
Management Using Action Research and Action Learning: Concepts, Frameworks,
Processes and Applications, Southern Cross University Press, Lismore, pp. 1-20.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2005), “A model of values and actions for personal knowledge management”,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 49-64.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Perry, C. (2002), “Action research within organizations and university
thesis writing”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 171-9.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Ryan, Y. (Eds) (1994), Quality in Postgraduate Education, Kogan Page,
London.

Corresponding author
Ortrun Zuber-Skerrit can be contacted at: ortrun@mac.com

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.