Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aguinis, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Action Research and Scientific Method: Presumed Discrepancies and Actual Similarities

Herman Aguinis

University of Colorado at Denver

Recent comparisons between action research (AR) and scientific method (SM) have typically focused on their differences and generally concluded that they are two distinct and incompatible methods for cumulating knowledge. The present article attempts to bridge the two approaches by reviewing their common roots and by analyzing the assumptions underlying three frequently noted discrepancies between these two forms of inquiry: (a) the treatment of (multivariate) causality, (b) the setting of the experiment or intervention-field versus laboratory-and the use of a control group, and (c) the use of qualitative versus quantitative data. The evidence presented suggests that despite the differences between AR and SM, these three presumed discrepancies are, in actuality, similarities. In addition, AR and SM seem to be less distant philosophically than some recent comparisons have recognized.

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 29, No. 4, 416-431 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0021886393294003
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
A. M. Grant and T. D. Wall
The Neglected Science and Art of Quasi-Experimentation: Why-to, When-to, and How-to Advice for Organizational Researchers
Organizational Research Methods, October 1, 2009; 12(4): 653 - 686.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
H. Savall, V. Zardet, M. Bonnet, and M. Peron
The Emergence of Implicit Criteria Actually Used by Reviewers of Qualitative Research Articles: Case of a European Journal
Organizational Research Methods, July 1, 2008; 11(3): 510 - 540.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
D. Bargal and C. Garvin
Summary and Implications for the Next Stage: An Epilogue
Small Group Research, February 1, 2008; 39(1): 104 - 110.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
D. Bargal
Book Review: Wheelan, S. (Ed.). (2005). The Handbook of Group Research and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Small Group Research, April 1, 2007; 38(2): 301 - 308.
[PDF]

Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
C. Cassell and P. Johnson
Action research: Explaining the diversity
Human Relations, June 1, 2006; 59(6): 783 - 814.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceHome page
J. W. Cox and S. Minahan
Organizational Decoration: A New Metaphor for Organization Development
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, June 1, 2006; 42(2): 227 - 243.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Management LearningHome page
L. Dickens and K. Watkins
Action Research: Rethinking Lewin
Management Learning, June 1, 1999; 30(2): 127 - 140.
[Abstract] [PDF]