The quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences

Abstract

PurposeThe paper seeks to identify the quality characteristics of critical action research and action research theses compared to traditional research thesis writing.Design/methodology/approachDrawing 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.FindingsThe 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/valueThe 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.

Facilitating Small Firm Learning Networks in the Irish Tourism Sector

“…In order to delineate between roles (see Zuber-Skerritt and Fletcher, 2007 ), the authors ensured stakeholder awareness of each role, by outlining the dual role of the researcher within the TLN programme and also introducing and detailing the core AR project to TLN participants. Furthermore, each researcher clarifi ed which role pertained in relevant interactions with TLN stakeholders.…”

Quality in Action Research: Reflections for Second-Order Inquiry

“…The external evaluation model, and in particular, the academic evaluation of AR may be expressed by returning to and adapting the schema proposed by Zuber-Skerritt and Fletcher (2007). Basing their reflections on the performing of action research thesis in social sciences, these authors make a distinction between a primary process (which they refer to as the core action research) and a secondary process (the performing and writing of an academic work on the core process).…”

La investigación-acción en la educación básica en Iberoamérica. Una revisión de la literatura

“…Esto revela o bien la poca práctica de escritura académica que tienen los maestros de aula, o bien la poca legitimidad de estos estudios en revistas arbitradas o indizadas, sobre todo cuando pueden ser escritos por maestros ajenos al mundo académico. Sin embargo, esta realidad está cambiando en otras regiones en la medida en que más maestros acceden a estudios de posgrado, y vinculan sus tesis con su ejercicio profesional (Halai, 2012;Herr & Anderson, 2015;McNiff, 2014;Zuber-Skerritt & Fletcher, 2007).…”

“…La segunda es el debate en relación con el estatus "científico" de la IA y su legitimidad en las tesis de posgrado, e incluso -nos atrevemos a añadir-en algunas revistas indizadas. Al respecto, se reconoce que hacer y escribir IA supone criterios de calidad distintos a los acostumbrados sin perder la rigurosidad (McNiff, 2014;Zuber-Skerritt & Fletcher, 2007), lo que exige un aprendizaje para el maestro-investigador y para los pares evaluadores. La tercera es la discusión sobre las formas de mostrar y evaluar los principios éticos de la investigación, dado su carácter colaborativo (los sujetos son parte de la investigación) y transformador de la práctica.…”