action research is experimental in nature

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Action research.

• Eileen S. Johnson Eileen S. Johnson Oakland University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.696
• Published online: 29 May 2020

Action research has become a common practice among educational administrators. The term “action research” was first coined by Kurt Lewin in the 1930s, although teachers and school administrators have long engaged in the process described by and formally named by Lewin. Alternatively known as practitioner research, self-study, action science, site-based inquiry, emancipatory praxis, etc., action research is essentially a collaborative, democratic, and participatory approach to systematic inquiry into a problem of practice within a local context. Action research has become prevalent in many fields and disciplines, including education, health sciences, nursing, social work, and anthropology. This prevalence can be understood in the way action research lends itself to action-based inquiry, participation, collaboration, and the development of solutions to problems of everyday practice in local contexts. In particular, action research has become commonplace in educational administration preparation programs due to its alignment and natural fit with the nature of education and the decision making and action planning necessary within local school contexts. Although there is not one prescribed way to engage in action research, and there are multiple approaches to action research, it generally follows a systematic and cyclical pattern of reflection, planning, action, observation, and data collection, evaluation that then repeats in an iterative and ongoing manner. The goal of action research is not to add to a general body of knowledge but, rather, to inform local practice, engage in professional learning, build a community practice, solve a problem or understand a process or phenomenon within a particular context, or empower participants to generate self-knowledge.

• action research cycle
• educational practice
• historical trends
• philosophical assumptions
• variations of action research

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 26 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.126.86.119]
• 185.126.86.119

Character limit 500 /500

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Med Internet Res
• v.24(1); 2022 Jan

Best Practices and Lessons Learned for Action Research in eHealth Design and Implementation: Literature Review

Kira oberschmidt.

1 eHealth Cluster, Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede, Netherlands

2 Biomedical Signals and Systems Group, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands

Christiane Grünloh

Femke nijboer, lex van velsen, associated data.

Full overview of all categories and description of settings for each category.

Full list of categories per setting variable.

Action research (AR) is an established research framework to introduce change in a community following a cyclical approach and involving stakeholders as coresearchers in the process. In recent years, it has also been used for eHealth development. However, little is known about the best practices and lessons learned from using AR for eHealth development.

This literature review aims to provide more knowledge on the best practices and lessons learned from eHealth AR studies. Additionally, an overview of the context in which AR eHealth studies take place is given.

A semisystematic review of 44 papers reporting on 40 different AR projects was conducted to identify the best practices and lessons learned in the research studies while accounting for the particular contextual setting and used AR approach.

Recommendations include paying attention to the training of stakeholders’ academic skills, as well as the various roles and tasks of action researchers. The studies also highlight the need for constant reflection and accessible dissemination suiting the target group.

Conclusions

This literature review identified room for improvements regarding communicating and specifying the particular AR definition and applied approach.

Introduction

The way health care is organized and executed is of great societal concern, as it affects our quality of life. Hence, health care systems and eHealth technologies used to support health care should be designed in a way that meets the needs and expectations of their stakeholders. One way of doing this is through action research (AR). According to Bradbury and Lifvergren [ 1 ], AR in health care “seeks to (1) improve patient experiences and the health of populations, (2) reduce the per capita cost, (3) improve the work life of those who deliver care, and (4) bring health care providers into circumstances that allow for continuous learning together with patients.” AR has been used as a research framework in nursing and health care, for example, to improve the quality of patient care and investigate changes in action [ 2 ]. AR is a collaborative approach, where people affected by the change envisioned in AR become active members of the research team. AR is often used in the design of eHealth systems. However, existing literature reviews of AR in eHealth predominantly focus on the development of new frameworks [ 3 - 5 ] but not on how eHealth AR is currently carried out. Therefore, this literature review outlines the state of the art of AR in eHealth design.

eHealth projects cover a wide variety of topics and technologies and can therefore greatly benefit patients, professionals, and many other health care stakeholders. However, to gain the most from eHealth systems and technologies, it is crucial that they match with what is needed in practice [ 6 ]. To ensure such a match, Van Gemert-Pijnen and colleagues [ 6 ] suggest, among other things, working together with relevant stakeholders in all stages of the project, implementing the study results in practice, and continuously evaluating the process. Similarly, co-design has been mentioned as a useful technique for creating eHealth systems that suit the needs of the end users [ 3 ]. These ideas fit well with the principles of AR, which will be outlined below.

Definitions of AR have changed over the years. AR originated with Kurt Lewin [ 7 ], who described it as several consecutive circles of planning, action, and reflection. These cycles are shown in Figure 1 , developed by Williamson and colleagues [ 2 ]. In later definitions, the cyclical nature of AR remains one of its key features. Reason and Bradbury [ 8 ], who build on Lewin’s work, define AR as research that (1) involves stakeholders not only as participants but also as members of the research team, (2) consists of (at least) 1 cycle of planning, action, and reflection, (3) establishes direct changes, and (4) then evaluates those changes in and with the community. Their work [ 8 ] includes many interesting examples of AR from various fields. Furthermore, Bradbury and colleagues defined 7 “choice points for quality in action research” [ 9 ], criteria that can be used to plan, conduct, report, and assess AR projects .

Action research cycles (adapted from Kurt Lewin [ 7 ] by Williamson and colleagues [ 2 ]).

Within AR, different variations exist, such as action design research (ADR) or participatory action research (PAR). Usually, there is agreement on the main principles of AR explained earlier, but some authors or groups emphasize some aspects over others. For example, as the name suggests, ADR incorporates elements of design research into AR [ 10 ], whereas PAR highlights the involvement of the community [ 11 ]. For a more detailed overview of the similarities and differences between some of these approaches, see Williamson et al [ 2 ] or Coghlan and Brannick [ 11 ].

In general, AR and AR approaches such as ADR are similar to participatory design (PD) approaches that are used in human computer interaction (HCI) research. However, AR emphasizes reflection on and learning from the process that was carried out, whereas the main aim of PD is to create a solution [ 12 ]. AR, as opposed to PD, does not start with a clear goal of what needs to be developed but defines this throughout the process together with stakeholders. Additionally, AR is more immersive and calls for stakeholder involvement for a longer period of time due to its iterative cycles [ 13 ]. Nevertheless, in some cases, studies that are described as PD-related ones also meet Reason and Bradbury’s criteria [ 8 ] for AR [ 14 ]. Hayes [ 12 ] argues that AR and HCI research can supplement each other, as both often provide solutions on a local scale. As Hughes [ 15 ] describes, there is no standard way of implementing AR in health care due to the broadness of the field. Instead, there is a variety regarding the why, how, and with whom AR in health care is carried out [ 15 , 16 ]. For example, levels of stakeholder engagement and the context in which AR takes place can vary [ 16 ]. Other differences among AR studies include the topic, country, project duration, main target group, and methods used. Therefore, these aspects are considered in this review. The purpose of this review is to give an overview of the current literature on eHealth AR and summarize the best practices and points of improvement for future eHealth AR projects. Special attention is paid to the contextual variables of the research (eg, setting, duration, number of stakeholders), as this is expected to influence the outcomes, best practices, and points of improvement of a study. To provide an overview of AR in eHealth, this literature review addresses the following subquestions:

• What is the context of AR eHealth projects?
• How do eHealth AR studies define and operationalize AR?
• What are the best practices for conducting AR in concrete eHealth studies?
• What are the lessons learned from conducting AR in concrete eHealth studies?

Study Selection and Screening

The search was carried out in June 2020. PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched using combinations of the search terms “action research” or “participatory design” and “eHealth,” “health technology,” “digital health,” or “telemedicine.” PubMed was chosen for its extensive medical database, and Scopus and Google Scholar were chosen as large scientific databases. Searching for “action research” turns up articles that include similar and related keywords like “participatory action research,” “action design research,” or “action-based research.” “Participatory design” was included as a search term because PD has significant overlap with AR, and both are sometimes used to supplement each other. The list of synonyms for “eHealth,” although not exhaustive, is expected to cover the various facets of the field. The initial search yielded 739 results. Articles were included if they (1) used and explicitly mentioned AR and (2) were about eHealth or health technology. Papers were excluded if they (1) were not written in English, (2) only included a study protocol but did not report results, or (3) only included a review of other articles. Full-text screening of the same 15 articles was performed by 2 authors (KO and CG); the authors discussed whether to include the studies until an agreement was reached. Next, the first author screened the full texts of the remaining articles, with some exceptions where a second opinion was necessary. These were again discussed between the first and second authors until an agreement was reached. Ultimately, 44 articles were included, reporting on 40 different projects. Figure 2 shows the flowchart of the inclusion process.

Inclusion flowchart of the literature search and screening process.

Data Extraction

For each study, the definition of AR that was provided by the authors, and the related AR approaches that they cited (if any) were extracted. Additionally, information about contextual variables of the study was derived. Specifically, we identified the topic, country, organizational context, project duration, types of stakeholders involved, the main target group of the research, and methods used. The types of involved stakeholders were grouped according to the framework described by Schiller et al [ 17 ], in which they define the main stakeholder categories as the public, policy makers, and governments, the research community, practitioners and professionals, health and social service providers, civil society organizations, and private businesses. Finally, the best practices and lessons learned were derived. The best practices and lessons learned were activities that could move forward and benefit the AR project, without necessarily being recognized as standard components of AR. The difference between what was seen as a best practice and as a lesson learned was based on the timing and reporting of these actions. An activity was labeled as a best practice if researchers already planned their project with this in mind (eg, mentioning it in the description of the methods). On the other hand, lessons learned were those points that researchers came to know during their project, which were reported mainly in the discussion section. From the first 5 articles, the best practices and lessons learned were extracted by 2 authors (KO and CG), and they compared their results. The remaining data were extracted by 1 author (KO) in consultation with the second author where a second opinion was necessary. Furthermore, 5 authors published not 1 but 2 papers about their project. For these papers, the same study context was described whereas the definition of and approach to AR and the best practices and lessons learned were reported separately, as these sometimes differed between the articles. A reflection on 2 projects was included in 1 article. In this case, each project context was reported separately whereas only 1 AR definition and approach as well as one set of best practices and lessons learned were outlined.

A general overview of all the included studies describing the AR approach, AR definition, and contextual variables was obtained. The contextual variables (topic, location, target group, stakeholders, duration, and methods used) were categorized. Furthermore, the studies were mapped in a matrix based on the study duration and the types and number of different stakeholders that participated in the study. The contextual data were coded and categorized inductively. To identify which AR approach was the most used, the citation frequency of each approach in the included studies was recorded. Furthermore, the cited AR approaches that were available were accessed and checked for cross-referencing. All cited AR definitions were mapped to show the relationship between them. The AR definitions used, best practices, and lessons learned were coded by 1 author (KO). The best practices and lessons learned were coded individually first and then combined for both categories.

The setting of the included studies was described based on 6 categories (topic, location, duration, involved stakeholders, target group, and methods). Multimedia Appendix 1 presents all the categories and the description of the setting for each study. The most common aspects of each category will be discussed below.

We identified 9 broader categories of the research topics in the 44 included studies (see Table 2.1 in Multimedia Appendix 2 for the full list). The most common were home care and telemonitoring, and health promotion and education (both n=8), followed by electronic medical records and health information systems (n=7), and mental health services (n=5).

The studies were set in 21 different countries, Australia being the most common (n=5) followed by the United States (n=4) and Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (all n=3). Some studies from nonwestern countries, like Tanzania or Colombia were included, but no country was represented more than once or twice. Within the different countries, studies took place in various contexts, the most prevalent of which were rural areas (n=6) and hospitals (n=5). All contexts and countries can be found in Tables 2.2 and 2.3 of Multimedia Appendix 2 .

Target Groups

Among the 44 studies, 2 studies explicitly focused on 2 different target groups at the same time, whereas all other studies had 1 main target group. In most cases, the target groups were patients (n=11). Of these, the most common group was patients with cancer (n=3). There were 6 studies each focusing on clinicians as well as children and young adults, and 5 studies targeted older adults (see Table 2.4 in Multimedia Appendix 2 for the full list of target groups).

Stakeholders

In many cases, several stakeholders were included in the study, up to 6 different types of stakeholders included in some cases. In summary, 20 different types of stakeholders were involved (see Table 2.5 in Multimedia Appendix 2 for the full list). Health care workers (n=18) and patients and their representatives (n=12) were involved the most, followed by governmental bodies (n=9) and general nonmedical staff members (n=8). When clustering these stakeholder types according to the framework defined by Schiller and colleagues [ 17 ], the largest group consisted of practitioners and professionals (n=48), followed by members of the public (n=38). Policy makers and government bodies (n=13), the research community (n=10), private businesses (n=6), and civil society organizations (n=3) were represented less often. The only group that was not represented at all included health and social service providers.

Not all of the 44 studies reported the duration of the project (n=7). Studies that did report the duration (n=33) lasted from a few months (n=5) to more than 10 years (n=2). The majority (n=13) of these studies reported a project duration between 2 and 3 years, and the average project duration was 2.7 years. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the 10 most frequently involved types of stakeholders for the different project durations in the 33 projects that reported the project duration. Stakeholder types are shown in the order of how many times they were involved in total; however, because some studies did not report project durations, the numbers in this graph differ from those described above. The 2 biggest stakeholder groups, health care workers and patients, were rarely, or in the case of patients even not at all, involved in long-term studies.

Heat map showing the most commonly involved types of stakeholders against the project duration.

In Figure 4 , the study duration is mapped against the number of different stakeholders that were involved in each of the 33 projects that reported a project duration. Studies that did not report the overall project duration are not included in the figure. Most of the included studies lasted for up to 2 years, including 2 or 3 stakeholder groups. There are some longer studies including more stakeholder groups.

Heat map showing the number of stakeholders involved against the project duration.

Research Methods Used

As mentioned earlier, AR is a framework that does not advise the use of a single methodology, and studies can therefore include a variety of different research methods. Most of the 44 included studies indeed used several methods, with some studies employing up to 6 different methods . Interviews were used most frequently (n=24), followed by focus groups (n=22), workshops (n=14), and surveys (n=13). On average, studies used nearly 3 different methods (average 2.8). All methods can be found in Table 2.6 of Multimedia Appendix 2 .

AR Definitions

The articles contained 44 definitions of AR. They could be grouped according to 4 different aspects that they emphasized. First, 21 studies emphasized that in AR projects, practitioners and other stakeholders become (co)researchers (n=21). Second, AR is a cyclical process that includes different stages (n=19). Third, 14 studies described how AR focuses on solving a practical issue and aims to extend research knowledge. The fourth aspect was that AR takes place in a community setting (n=10). Further, 2 studies included 3 of these aspects in their definitions, and only 2 other studies mentioned all 4 aspects. Most studies included either 1 (n=16) or 2 (n=17) of the aspects, whereas 7 studies included none of these points in their definition or did not at define AR in detail. Table 1 provides an overview of the number of mentions per aspect and the studies mentioning these aspects.

Number of mentions and studies mentioning the aspects of the AR definition.

AR Approaches

Table 2 gives an overview of the AR approaches that were cited at least twice in the included articles. The AR approach was not cited in 4 studies. In some cases, different papers from the same authors were cited; however, as these eventually described the same approach, the citation count was added up. The most commonly cited approach was that proposed by Reason and Bradbury [ 8 ]. As described earlier, the key elements of this approach are that AR (1) involves stakeholders as coresearchers, (2) consists of plan, act, and reflect cycles, (3) makes a change in practice, and (4) evaluates the said changes in and with the community. Overall, most definitions share these main aspects but differ in terms of the aspects that are particularly emphasized. For example, Baskerville and colleagues [ 55 ] highlight the duality of practical work and scientific knowledge, whereas Baum and colleagues [ 56 ] underline the need for reflective practice that includes all stakeholders. Figures 5 and ​ and6 6 depict the cited approaches in more detail. There are 3 independent researchers or groups that are mentioned as being the origin of AR, namely Lewin [ 7 ], Trist and colleagues [ 57 ], and Freire [ 58 ]. Wherever the origin of AR was mentioned, some cases have named 2 of these, as observed in Figure 5 . The cited AR approaches also frequently refer to each other and sometimes authors collaborate with each other, for example on books about AR (see Figure 6 ). There are no very distinct groups conducting their own AR, but the different AR groups are often connected and build upon each other’s work.

Overview of the most cited action research approaches in the included articles per author or research group, including the number of citations.

Overview of the action research approaches referred to in the included articles, indicating those papers that are mentioned as “the origin” of action research. Studies that either name an approach as being the origin of action research, or are being named as such, are highlighted in blue for better readability.

Overview of action research approaches referred to in the included articles. Arrows indicate citations between the action research approach papers. The number of times that the articles included in this review cited each approach is indicated in the box. We have used different arrow thicknesses for better readability. Blue boxes indicate those papers that were available and checked for citations.

Best Practices and Lessons Learned

As previously described, an activity was identified as a “best practice” if researchers already planned their project with this in mind (eg, mentioning it in the description of methods). Lessons learned were those points that researchers came to know during their project. These were mostly reported in the discussion section. In total, 85 best practices and 66 lessons learned were identified, which were clustered into 22 categories of best practices and 16 categories of lessons learned. Among the 44 papers, 3 papers did not indicate any best practices that they followed, whereas 12 papers did not include any identifiable lessons learned. There were 8 overlapping categories, identified as best practices in some articles and as lessons learned in others. These will be discussed in more detail below.

Best Practices

The identified best practices in the 44 studies were most often related to the use of a specific method (n=9), namely personas (n=2), world café, journey mapping, role play, scenarios, case studies, design cards, and mixing different types of data collection methods (all n=1). Other best practices were a continuous evaluation of the project and a reflection on the process by the research team (n=8). The importance of establishing active contact between researchers and stakeholders and raising the confidence and skills of stakeholders was emphasized by 7 studies. The improvement of stakeholder skills mainly referred to research and analytical skills, allowing stakeholders to set up their own studies or continue the work after the project was finished. There were several specific suggestions to improve the regular project team meetings, for example, to always use the same agenda or to share a common area (office space) to make contact easier. Some other best practices concern the reporting and presentation of outcomes (n=6). The complete list of best practice categories can be found in Table 3 .

Overview of all best practice categories and number of mentions per category (N=44).

Lessons Learned

Apart from the best practices, the lessons learned from each study were identified. The most common lessons learned were increasing stakeholder knowledge and skills (n=8) and continuous evaluation of the project and reflection on the process (n=6). Both of these had been identified as best practices in other articles (more on this overlap below). Recommendations for the use of specific methods were also common (n=5). Lessons learned regarding reporting, adapting the project to fit the needs of stakeholders, fostering a welcoming environment, and the questionable replicability of the research were each mentioned 4 times. All lessons learned are shown in Table 4 .

Overview of all lessons learned categories and number of mentions per category (N=44).

Overlapping Best Practices and Lessons Learned

As stated earlier, some aspects were identified as best practices in some articles and as lessons learned in others. In total, we identified 7 such overlapping aspects. Overall, the most mentioned aspect was the importance of raising stakeholder skills and confidence (n=15, where best practices= 7 and lessons learned=8). Many articles reported the need for stakeholders to learn new skills, for example related to academic research, or the need to be convinced about their ability to perform these tasks. Almost all the studies that reported this as a best practice or lesson learned involved health care professionals as stakeholders. Other commonly mentioned points were recommendations for specific methods, even though the suggested methods differed (n=14, where best practices=9 and lessons learned=5) and there was continuous reframing and evaluation of the project (n=14, where best practices=8 and lessons learned=6). Continuous reframing often referred to the iterations of planning, action, and evaluation in AR projects. Studies that described this mostly did not include this cyclical nature of AR in their definition of it. In total, there were 10 recommendations regarding the reporting and presentation of results (best practices=6 and lessons learned=4), for example calling for open and accessible publishing of outcomes. The best practices and lessons learned included recommendations about meeting regularly (n=9, where best practices=7 and lessons learned=2), adapting to the needs of stakeholders (n=8, where best practices=3 and lessons learned=5), and investing in the relationship between partners (n=6, where best practices=3 and lessons learned=3).

Chronology of Overlapping Best Practices and Lessons Learned

When observing the publication timeline, most of the overlapping aspects appeared as a lesson learned in earlier publications, and then as a best practice in papers published at a later point in time. This was the case regarding stakeholder skills, appearing as a lesson learned in 1999 [ 33 ] and as a best practice in 2016 [ 25 ]; continuous reframing of the project was a lesson learned in 2003 [ 19 ] and best practice in 2009 [ 42 ]; further, having regular meetings was a lesson learned in 2006 [ 72 ] and a best practice in 2018 [ 27 ], and adapting the research to stakeholder needs was a lesson learned in 2007 [ 32 ] and a best practice in 2016 [ 77 ]. Such a clear timeline could not be seen for accessible reporting, appearing as a lesson learned in 2017 [ 78 ] and a best practice in 2007 [ 45 ], and the relationship between partners appearing as a lesson learned in 2017 [ 36 ] and as a best practice in 2008 [ 38 ].

Principal Results

To identify recommendations on how to conduct AR in eHealth studies, this literature review analyzed the setting, AR description, and best practices and lessons learned in 44 studies. The most important recommendations from this review, which will be discussed in more detail below, are as follows: actively raising stakeholder skills and confidence; fulfilling multiple roles and tasks as a researcher; fostering constant reflection and evaluation; ensuring open and accessible dissemination; reporting in a more structured and comprehensive way.

These recommendations are not exclusively related to eHealth, despite them being derived from a review of eHealth AR studies. Hence, it is possible that the recommendations are also relevant for AR in various other fields. Therefore, where possible, examples from different disciplines are discussed below to explain or supplement a recommendation.

Stakeholder Skills and Confidence

Being involved in a project as coresearcher can potentially increase stakeholders’ confidence, besides teaching them new skills [ 79 ]. However, this does not happen automatically. Similar to our findings, the narrative review conducted by Harrison and colleagues [ 80 ] also identified educating the research team as the most important task when stakeholders are involved in health care research. Nevertheless, there is limited research on how skill training for stakeholders could look like, and this can vary greatly between studies. Stakeholders in some eHealth studies might need to learn content-related information [ 81 ], whereas other studies require methodological or statistical skills [ 54 ]. Researchers should provide adequate training and material for their project and encourage stakeholders to make use of it. The studies included in this review that recommended stakeholder skill training almost exclusively worked with health care professionals. The relationship between recommending skill training and working mainly with health care professionals remains unclear. A possible explanation could be that other stakeholder groups in other studies already had the necessary skills and thus did not require any additional training. Another possibility is that other stakeholders were not given the same roles that health care professionals held, and therefore, they did not need skill training. Finally, as we will discuss later, reporting of AR activities was not always very extensive. Thus, stakeholders outside the health care sector were possibly trained, and these studies did not report on this aspect. Generally, not all participants prefer the same level of engagement in a project, and researchers should respect these preferences [ 82 ].

Tasks and Roles of the Researcher

Different aspects of the role and tasks of the researcher in an AR project are discussed. Brydon-Miller and Aragón describe the many different tasks that action researchers need to fulfil as their “500 hats” [ 83 ]. These are not specific to eHealth studies, but they can occur in any AR study. As researchers and stakeholders have many varied duties, their roles are not fixed and might change over the course of the project [ 19 ]. One main task of the researchers that continues throughout the project is the need to foster a welcoming environment for all stakeholders [ 42 ]. Researchers should also be present and actively involve themselves at a higher level than that needed in non-AR projects [ 38 ]. Additional AR-specific tasks for the researchers include investing in partner relationships [ 35 ] or breaking down power structures [ 28 ]. Generally, AR studies demand more self-reflection and awareness from the researchers than other projects and researchers should keep this in mind when entering an AR project.

Constant Reflection

The importance of continuous reframing and evaluation of the project was emphasized in several studies. Although evaluation is 1 of the AR cycles, studies providing recommendations on this topic rarely included this in their definition of AR. Owing to the lack of reports on AR cycles, which will be discussed below, it is unclear if these studies still followed the AR cycles without reporting on them. However, sometimes, it seems that periodic planned evaluation is not enough. Instead, the participants need to regularly reflect on the current status of the project and their role in it. Therefore, new AR projects should create suitable spaces for evaluation and reflection in ways that fit the projects and stakeholders. This is especially important because reflection can become difficult once a person is in the middle of the project [ 49 ]. Holeman and Kane [ 53 ] emphasize that reflection should not only take place within the project, but it should also be explicitly reported to help other researchers. If action researchers take reflection seriously and include honest evaluations in their publishing, the AR community members can learn from each other. Additionally, researchers and other stakeholders within the project learn and benefit from constant reflection [ 9 ].

Accessible Dissemination

Another important aspect concerns paying attention to open and understandable dissemination of results within the community and among researchers. Action researchers need to communicate findings to the academic world while also finding ways to inform the target group about the project in ways that suit the target users’ needs. An example of open and accessible dissemination can be found in Canto-Farachala and Larrea [ 83 ]. They present the results of their AR project regarding territorial development on an interactive website, allowing others to learn from their work. However, it seems that accessible reporting is still not the norm in AR, as Avison and colleagues [ 62 ] describe that many AR studies are generally “published in books rather than as articles. Action researchers have large and complicated stories to tell.” Future AR projects should attempt to narrate their stories in such a way that others can learn from them.

Comprehensive Reporting

The different way of describing AR studies also leads to another issue, incomplete and elusive reporting. Although most studies did provide at least a short description of what they saw as AR, 7 studies provided no definition at all. Additionally, there were only 4 studies that included 3 or all of the 4 aspects of the AR definition in their description. Even the most mentioned aspects appeared in less than half of the included papers. Even though most papers did cite an AR approach of definition, some did not. In combination with the often-limited descriptions of AR, this makes it difficult to obtain a clear picture of how AR is perceived and performed in a particular study. This resonates with what Bradbury and colleagues [ 9 ] describe as 1 of the quality points of AR, namely “action research process and related methods (should be) clearly articulated and illustrated.” The best practices and lessons learned that were extracted from the included studies were seldom mentioned explicitly. Best practices were often hidden in the description of the project, without much reasoning. Similarly, lessons learned were often described as adaptations made during the project or as plans for the future. Although we observed that some lessons learned turned into best practices over time, we think that researchers could benefit more from each other’s work by providing concrete recommendations. This review is a step in that direction. Both aspects show that the reporting of AR studies in eHealth can be improved to show more clearly what eHealth AR projects can look like and help others in setting up such projects with specific recommendations.

Limitations

Approximately a third of the included papers (14 out of 44) were published more than 10 years ago. This also means that some of the technologies that are described in the older papers are now relatively old. However, this literature review focuses mainly on the AR methodology and lessons learned about doing action research. Therefore, there was no exclusion criterium regarding the publication date of the papers.

The search yielded several PD-related papers. These papers could have been included, given that some definitions of PD are very similar to AR. However, as our aim was to provide an overview of how AR is done, these were excluded as the researchers of these studies themselves did not identify their studies as being related to AR (ie, not referring to, mentioning, or describing AR). Although this offers a clearer picture of how researchers conduct AR, it also creates a potential limitation in that best practices and lessons learned could be enriched from PD literature.

This overview of AR approaches focuses mostly on the interconnectedness among the approaches, without a comprehensive comparison of the content. Comparing the approaches with regard to the specific aspects of AR that they describe would be a review in and of itself, going beyond the scope of this current review. Therefore, we decided to focus on the definitions that the authors themselves provided even when they also cited AR approaches, as these are most likely to reflect their own vision of AR.

This review illustrates how AR is conducted in eHealth studies. Studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria mainly took place in western countries and lasted for 2 to 3 years. Different stakeholders were involved, but the most commonly involved groups were health care professionals and patients. As for the methods used, most studies opted for focus groups and interviews. Even though many studies cited the AR approach proposed by Reason and Bradbury [ 8 ], their own definitions of AR were often not explicit in terms of how they implemented AR. Future projects should report their AR definition as well as the best practices and lessons learned more clearly. Other recommendations include paying attention toward developing the skill and confidence of the stakeholders, being aware of the changing role of the researcher, frequently evaluating the project, and disseminating results in an understandable manner.

Abbreviations

Multimedia appendix 1, multimedia appendix 2.

Authors' Contributions: KO performed the literature search and analysis and was a major contributor in designing the study and writing the manuscript. CG contributed to the design of the study, assisted with the search and analysis, and made major contributions to the manuscript. FN and LvV contributed to the design of the study and substantially revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant 857188).

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Neag School of Education

Educational Research Basics by Del Siegle

Action research.

An Introduction to Action Research Jeanne H. Purcell, Ph.D.

 Your Options

• Review Related Literature
• Examine the Impact of an Experimental Treatment
• Monitor Change
• Identify Present Practices
• Describe Beliefs and Attitudes

Action Research Is…

• Action research is a three-step spiral process of (1) planning which involves fact-finding, (2) taking action, and (3) fact-finding about the results of the action. (Lewin, 1947)
• Action research is a process by which practitioners attempt to study their problems scientifically in order to guide, correct, and evaluate their decisions and action. (Corey, 1953).
• Action research in education is study conducted by colleagues in a school setting of the results of their activities to improve instruction. (Glickman, 1990)
• Action research is a fancy way of saying Let’s study what s happening at our school and decide how to make it a better place. (Calhoun,1994)

Conditions That Support Action Research

• A faculty where a majority of teachers wish to improve some aspect (s) of education in their school.
• Common agreement about how collective decisions will be made and implemented.
• A team that is willing to lead the initiative.
• Study groups that meet regularly.
• A basic knowledge of the action research cycle and the rationale for its use.
• Someone to provide technical assistance and/or support.

The Action Research Cycle

• Identify an area of interest/problem.
• Identify data to be collected, the format for the results, and a timeline.
• Collect and organize the data.
• Analyze and interpret the data.
• Decide upon the action to be taken.
• Evaluate the success of the action.

Collecting Data: Sources

Existing Sources

• Attendance at PTO meetings
• + and – parent communications
• Office referrals
• Special program enrollment
• Standardized scores

Inventive Sources

• Interviews with parents
• Library use, by grade, class
• Minutes of meetings
• Nature and amount of in-school assistance related to the innovation
• Number of books read
• Observation journals
• Record of peer observations
• Student journals
• Teacher journals
• Videotapes of students: whole class instruction
• Videotapes of students: Differentiated instruction
• Writing samples

Collecting Data: From Whom?

• From everyone when we are concerned about each student’s performance.
• From a sample when we need to increase our understanding while limiting our expenditure of time and energy; more in-depth interviews or observations may follow.

Collecting Data: How Often?

• At regular intervals
• At critical points

Collecting Data: Guidelines

• Use both existing and inventive data sources.
• Use multiple data sources.
• Collect data regularly.
• Seek help, if necessary.

Organizing Data

• Keep it simple.
• Disaggregate numbers from interviews and other qualitative types of data.
• Plan plenty of time to look over and organize the data.
• Seek technical assistance if needed.

Analyzing Data

• What important points do they data reveal?
• What patterns/trends do you note? What might be some possible explanations?
• Do the data vary by sources? Why might the variations exist?
• Are there any results that are different from what you expected? What might be some hypotheses to explain the difference (s)?
• What actions appear to be indicated?

Taking Action

• Do the data warrant action?
• What might se some short-term actions?
• What might be some long-term actions?
• How will we know if our actions have been effective?
• What benchmarks might we expect to see along the way to effectiveness ?

Action Plans

• Target date
• Responsibility
• Evidence of Effectiveness

Action Research Handout

Bibliography

Brubacher, J. W., Case, C. W., & Reagan, T. G. (1994). Becoming a reflective educator . Thousand Oaks: CA: Corwin Press.

Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (1996). Teachers doing research . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Calhoun, Emily (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school . Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices . New York: Teachers College Press.

Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hubbard, R. S. & Power, B. M. (1993). The art of classroom inquiry . Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Lewin, K. (1947). Group decisions and social change. In Readings in social psychology . (Eds. T M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartley). New York: Henry Holt.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

A Review of the Nature of Action Research

Related Papers

Victoria J Palmer

Social Research Update

Colin Todhunter

International Journal of Action Research

Olav Eikeland

The article explores and discusses whether we as action researchers are undermining or subverting our own intuitions and intentions, or at least not doing justice to it, when mixing a) learning and exploration through individual and collective action and reflection, with b) elements from conventional researchmethods. The article'sb asic question: Can the intentions and resultsf rom a) be reduced to and validated fully or partly through b) conventional methods?C an we save the scientific legitimacyo fa ction research by ultimately resorting to conventional methods and theories?W hat does action research uniquely add in relation to conventional learning, knowledge generation, and change projects?W ed iscuss some challengesr aised by questions like these, and suggest ways of handling them. After exploring ways of being "seduced" by conventional methods, we concludebyrecommending ag noseology to replace ao ne-dimensional epistemology, and by explaining and recommending the procedure of immanent critique as aw ay of developing insights and competencies from the inside of practices; i. e. a genuinely Action research method.

How do we conceptualise, communicate, and describe Action Research in alanguagewhich expresses and corresponds adequately to the basic assumptions behind Action Research?Our call for papers tried to pinpoint some very specific challenges for Action Research as we see it: As Action Researchers, when writing applications for research funds, when communicating research insights, when developing knowledge in collaboration with stakeholders, when reasoning and voicing knowledgeinresearch communities, we often feel forced to navigate in alanguage field foreign to our Action Research activity,and compelled to use conventional, mostly interpretive social research terminology to legitimise our creation of knowledge as research. This languagefield is, to alarge extent, still based on aprincipal division of labour between intellectual and manual work, knower and known, and researchera nd researched, creating ahorizon of meaning linked to astill dominantbut old-fashioned and monopolised knowledge management regime. This terminology reflects an institutionalised but hardly validated division of labour in the understanding of social knowledgegeneration, othering the subjects of study. Thereby the more basic and radical knowledge generation processes happening in certain forms of Action Research are made almost invisible and stretched between the "inner" language of contextualknowledge and value production, and other, "outer" ways of communicating scientific knowledge and research insights presumed as valid by aw ider research community and in society at large. Nevertheless, Action Research gains popularity in different professions and professional studies, in management and organszation studies, community development work, and in other areas concerned with practical relevance, application, and development. The situation reflects societal changes concerning the social distribution of education and knowledge generation, from having been monopolised in specialised academic institutions to becoming much more socially distributed. As indicated, social or human knowledge development and creation need to come to its own, and find its own form, similarly to how natural science and technology have come to their own during modernity. Bringing social and human knowledgetoits own, however, does not mean imitation or emulation of natural science. Extantf orms of inquiry all need to be critically examined, transformed,a nd adjusted to the radically practice based creation of knowledge in core Action Research. Certain forms of practitioner Action Research are already making progress in their attempts at this by connecting to more colloquial and prevalent understandings of experience which do not operate within the divisions of conventional research. These attempts are si

IJAR – International Journal of Action Research

Søren Frimann

International Journal of Applied Sciences: Current and Future Research Trends

Khaled El Haj Ismail , adane tsegaye

Action Research is a research approach that is constantly evolving in social sciences and management. Although this approach is deemed contentious, many positivist researchers have expressed their dissatisfaction and questioned its validity as a scientific methodology that adheres to rigorous research methods and standards. On the other hand, several researchers, particularly those who are considered practitioners of applied research, have discussed and defended action research as a viable methodology for generating knowledge, developing solutions, and contributing to the knowledge development of one's own, one's organization's, and one's community, while promoting and taking actions to solve business and socioeconomic problems in a rapidly changing and unpredictably volatile environment. Historically, the validity of Action Research as a branch of epistemology has been debated in conjunction with the topic of the validity of Action Research in relation to traditional research. This research paper is an attempt to discuss and clarify the ambiguity behind the characteristics of the action research and present its most essential aspects and competitive advantages in different field, with strong emphasize on the role of researchers or practitioners and their active collaboration with organizations to generate sustainable action-based learning and integrated at the individual and organizational levels.

Damtew W Berku

The main purpose of this review was to examine the gaps observed in conceptualizing and operationalizing action research and make suggestions for future practice. In doing so, among the different types of literature review, a narrative literature review was used. Using keywords for searching the literature, different online sources were consulted; relevant data (literature) were selected and analyzed. Based on the results of the analysis, I offer suggestions, made modifications, and concluding remarks.

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum Qualitative Social Research

Action Research

Recent action research books are reviewed. I give attention to books on appreciative inquiry, action science, systems approaches and action learning. Community, health, education and organizational applications are included. Major action research journals are noted. Based on this literature I identify a number of current trends: the growth of action research and especially appreciative inquiry; an increasing sense of community among action researchers; and growing attention to the practical details of participation and involvement. I question the absence of more material on building theory from action research, and on action research and complexity.

Methodology: Innovative Approaches to Research. PRESENTING NEW RESEARCHERS AT LEEDS MET

this peer reviewed publication presents a selection of short papers on innovative approaches to research being pioneered by postgraduate and early career researchers at leeds Metropolitan University. It is an incubator journal meant for new writers, editors and reviewers with little or no publishing experience, and provided an opportunity to be mentored by more senior colleagues. the papers deal with research methodologies and are practice-based, reflective and pragmatic.

RELATED PAPERS

Robert U. Ayres

Jurnal Aplikasi Bisnis Kesatuan

Chairunisa Febriani

Alejandra Mosco Jaimes

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

James Meyerhoff

Gustavo Paz

Computers in Human Behavior

Hsi-Peng Lu

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Yan Brailowsky

Beate Sikorski

Marcos Centeno Martín

Sait Okumuş

DR VIBHASH CHANDRA JHA

Pediatrics International

Gulay Karaguzel

Visi Pustaka: Buletin Jaringan Informasi Antar Perpustakaan

Chaidir Amir

INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing

RENAGULI ABULIEZI

Interfaces Científicas - Educação

Renan Vicente

Physical Review B

Guizzetti Giorgio

Verimlilik dergisi

ayben senturk

RSC Advances

Mariusz Pietrowski

Decision Support Systems

Parasitology Research

Alessandra Riccieri

Scientific reports

Sunny Sharma

Pantel Vokonas

Journal Of Commercial and Property Law

NASIRU TIJANI

Jurnal Suara Hukum

Nalendra Pradipto

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

Published on 27 January 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on 21 April 2023.

Table of contents

Types of action research, action research models, examples of action research, action research vs. traditional research, advantages and disadvantages of action research, frequently asked questions about action research.

There are 2 common types of action research: participatory action research and practical action research.

• Participatory action research emphasises that participants should be members of the community being studied, empowering those directly affected by outcomes of said research. In this method, participants are effectively co-researchers, with their lived experiences considered formative to the research process.
• Practical action research focuses more on how research is conducted and is designed to address and solve specific issues.

Both types of action research are more focused on increasing the capacity and ability of future practitioners than contributing to a theoretical body of knowledge.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Action research is often reflected in 3 action research models: operational (sometimes called technical), collaboration, and critical reflection.

• Operational (or technical) action research is usually visualised like a spiral following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”
• Collaboration action research is more community-based, focused on building a network of similar individuals (e.g., college professors in a given geographic area) and compiling learnings from iterated feedback cycles.
• Critical reflection action research serves to contextualise systemic processes that are already ongoing (e.g., working retroactively to analyse existing school systems by questioning why certain practices were put into place and developed the way they did).

Action research is often used in fields like education because of its iterative and flexible style.

After the information was collected, the students were asked where they thought ramps or other accessibility measures would be best utilised, and the suggestions were sent to school administrators. Example: Practical action research Science teachers at your city’s high school have been witnessing a year-over-year decline in standardised test scores in chemistry. In seeking the source of this issue, they studied how concepts are taught in depth, focusing on the methods, tools, and approaches used by each teacher.

Action research differs sharply from other types of research in that it seeks to produce actionable processes over the course of the research rather than contributing to existing knowledge or drawing conclusions from datasets. In this way, action research is formative , not summative , and is conducted in an ongoing, iterative way.

As such, action research is different in purpose, context, and significance and is a good fit for those seeking to implement systemic change.

Action research comes with advantages and disadvantages.

• Action research is highly adaptable , allowing researchers to mould their analysis to their individual needs and implement practical individual-level changes.
• Action research provides an immediate and actionable path forward for solving entrenched issues, rather than suggesting complicated, longer-term solutions rooted in complex data.
• Done correctly, action research can be very empowering , informing social change and allowing participants to effect that change in ways meaningful to their communities.

Disadvantages

• Due to their flexibility, action research studies are plagued by very limited generalisability  and are very difficult to replicate . They are often not considered theoretically rigorous due to the power the researcher holds in drawing conclusions.
• Action research can be complicated to structure in an ethical manner . Participants may feel pressured to participate or to participate in a certain way.
• Action research is at high risk for research biases such as selection bias , social desirability bias , or other types of cognitive biases .

Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.

Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.

Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.

A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”

Sources for this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

George, T. (2023, April 21). What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/action-research-cycle/

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th edition). Routledge.

Naughton, G. M. (2001).  Action research (1st edition). Routledge.

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, primary research | definition, types, & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, what is an observational study | guide & examples.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

1 What is Action Research for Classroom Teachers?

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

• What is the nature of action research?
• How does action research develop in the classroom?
• What models of action research work best for your classroom?
• What are the epistemological, ontological, theoretical underpinnings of action research?

Educational research provides a vast landscape of knowledge on topics related to teaching and learning, curriculum and assessment, students’ cognitive and affective needs, cultural and socio-economic factors of schools, and many other factors considered viable to improving schools. Educational stakeholders rely on research to make informed decisions that ultimately affect the quality of schooling for their students. Accordingly, the purpose of educational research is to engage in disciplined inquiry to generate knowledge on topics significant to the students, teachers, administrators, schools, and other educational stakeholders. Just as the topics of educational research vary, so do the approaches to conducting educational research in the classroom. Your approach to research will be shaped by your context, your professional identity, and paradigm (set of beliefs and assumptions that guide your inquiry). These will all be key factors in how you generate knowledge related to your work as an educator.

Action research is an approach to educational research that is commonly used by educational practitioners and professionals to examine, and ultimately improve, their pedagogy and practice. In this way, action research represents an extension of the reflection and critical self-reflection that an educator employs on a daily basis in their classroom. When students are actively engaged in learning, the classroom can be dynamic and uncertain, demanding the constant attention of the educator. Considering these demands, educators are often only able to engage in reflection that is fleeting, and for the purpose of accommodation, modification, or formative assessment. Action research offers one path to more deliberate, substantial, and critical reflection that can be documented and analyzed to improve an educator’s practice.

Purpose of Action Research

As one of many approaches to educational research, it is important to distinguish the potential purposes of action research in the classroom. This book focuses on action research as a method to enable and support educators in pursuing effective pedagogical practices by transforming the quality of teaching decisions and actions, to subsequently enhance student engagement and learning. Being mindful of this purpose, the following aspects of action research are important to consider as you contemplate and engage with action research methodology in your classroom:

• Action research is a process for improving educational practice. Its methods involve action, evaluation, and reflection. It is a process to gather evidence to implement change in practices.
• Action research is participative and collaborative. It is undertaken by individuals with a common purpose.
• Action research is situation and context-based.
• Action research develops reflection practices based on the interpretations made by participants.
• Knowledge is created through action and application.
• Action research can be based in problem-solving, if the solution to the problem results in the improvement of practice.
• Action research is iterative; plans are created, implemented, revised, then implemented, lending itself to an ongoing process of reflection and revision.
• In action research, findings emerge as action develops and takes place; however, they are not conclusive or absolute, but ongoing (Koshy, 2010, pgs. 1-2).

In thinking about the purpose of action research, it is helpful to situate action research as a distinct paradigm of educational research. I like to think about action research as part of the larger concept of living knowledge. Living knowledge has been characterized as “a quest for life, to understand life and to create… knowledge which is valid for the people with whom I work and for myself” (Swantz, in Reason & Bradbury, 2001, pg. 1). Why should educators care about living knowledge as part of educational research? As mentioned above, action research is meant “to produce practical knowledge that is useful to people in the everyday conduct of their lives and to see that action research is about working towards practical outcomes” (Koshy, 2010, pg. 2). However, it is also about:

creating new forms of understanding, since action without reflection and understanding is blind, just as theory without action is meaningless. The participatory nature of action research makes it only possible with, for and by persons and communities, ideally involving all stakeholders both in the questioning and sense making that informs the research, and in the action, which is its focus. (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, pg. 2)

In an effort to further situate action research as living knowledge, Jean McNiff reminds us that “there is no such ‘thing’ as ‘action research’” (2013, pg. 24). In other words, action research is not static or finished, it defines itself as it proceeds. McNiff’s reminder characterizes action research as action-oriented, and a process that individuals go through to make their learning public to explain how it informs their practice. Action research does not derive its meaning from an abstract idea, or a self-contained discovery – action research’s meaning stems from the way educators negotiate the problems and successes of living and working in the classroom, school, and community.

While we can debate the idea of action research, there are people who are action researchers, and they use the idea of action research to develop principles and theories to guide their practice. Action research, then, refers to an organization of principles that guide action researchers as they act on shared beliefs, commitments, and expectations in their inquiry.

Reflection and the Process of Action Research

When an individual engages in reflection on their actions or experiences, it is typically for the purpose of better understanding those experiences, or the consequences of those actions to improve related action and experiences in the future. Reflection in this way develops knowledge around these actions and experiences to help us better regulate those actions in the future. The reflective process generates new knowledge regularly for classroom teachers and informs their classroom actions.

Unfortunately, the knowledge generated by educators through the reflective process is not always prioritized among the other sources of knowledge educators are expected to utilize in the classroom. Educators are expected to draw upon formal types of knowledge, such as textbooks, content standards, teaching standards, district curriculum and behavioral programs, etc., to gain new knowledge and make decisions in the classroom. While these forms of knowledge are important, the reflective knowledge that educators generate through their pedagogy is the amalgamation of these types of knowledge enacted in the classroom. Therefore, reflective knowledge is uniquely developed based on the action and implementation of an educator’s pedagogy in the classroom. Action research offers a way to formalize the knowledge generated by educators so that it can be utilized and disseminated throughout the teaching profession.

Research is concerned with the generation of knowledge, and typically creating knowledge related to a concept, idea, phenomenon, or topic. Action research generates knowledge around inquiry in practical educational contexts. Action research allows educators to learn through their actions with the purpose of developing personally or professionally. Due to its participatory nature, the process of action research is also distinct in educational research. There are many models for how the action research process takes shape. I will share a few of those here. Each model utilizes the following processes to some extent:

• Plan a change;
• Take action to enact the change;
• Observe the process and consequences of the change;
• Reflect on the process and consequences;
• Act, observe, & reflect again and so on.

Figure 1.1 Basic action research cycle

There are many other models that supplement the basic process of action research with other aspects of the research process to consider. For example, figure 1.2 illustrates a spiral model of action research proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart (2004). The spiral model emphasizes the cyclical process that moves beyond the initial plan for change. The spiral model also emphasizes revisiting the initial plan and revising based on the initial cycle of research:

Figure 1.2 Interpretation of action research spiral, Kemmis and McTaggart (2004, p. 595)

Other models of action research reorganize the process to emphasize the distinct ways knowledge takes shape in the reflection process. O’Leary’s (2004, p. 141) model, for example, recognizes that the research may take shape in the classroom as knowledge emerges from the teacher’s observations. O’Leary highlights the need for action research to be focused on situational understanding and implementation of action, initiated organically from real-time issues:

Figure 1.3 Interpretation of O’Leary’s cycles of research, O’Leary (2000, p. 141)

Lastly, Macintyre’s (2000, p. 1) model, offers a different characterization of the action research process. Macintyre emphasizes a messier process of research with the initial reflections and conclusions as the benchmarks for guiding the research process. Macintyre emphasizes the flexibility in planning, acting, and observing stages to allow the process to be naturalistic. Our interpretation of Macintyre process is below:

Figure 1.4 Interpretation of the action research cycle, Macintyre (2000, p. 1)

We believe it is important to prioritize the flexibility of the process, and encourage you to only use these models as basic guides for your process. Your process may look similar, or you may diverge from these models as you better understand your students, context, and data.

Definitions of Action Research and Examples

At this point, it may be helpful for readers to have a working definition of action research and some examples to illustrate the methodology in the classroom. Bassey (1998, p. 93) offers a very practical definition and describes “action research as an inquiry which is carried out in order to understand, to evaluate and then to change, in order to improve educational practice.” Cohen and Manion (1994, p. 192) situate action research differently, and describe action research as emergent, writing:

essentially an on-the-spot procedure designed to deal with a concrete problem located in an immediate situation. This means that ideally, the step-by-step process is constantly monitored over varying periods of time and by a variety of mechanisms (questionnaires, diaries, interviews and case studies, for example) so that the ensuing feedback may be translated into modifications, adjustment, directional changes, redefinitions, as necessary, so as to bring about lasting benefit to the ongoing process itself rather than to some future occasion.

Lastly, Koshy (2010, p. 9) describes action research as:

a constructive inquiry, during which the researcher constructs his or her knowledge of specific issues through planning, acting, evaluating, refining and learning from the experience. It is a continuous learning process in which the researcher learns and also shares the newly generated knowledge with those who may benefit from it.

These definitions highlight the distinct features of action research and emphasize the purposeful intent of action researchers to improve, refine, reform, and problem-solve issues in their educational context. To better understand the distinctness of action research, these are some examples of action research topics:

Examples of Action Research Topics

• Flexible seating in 4th grade classroom to increase effective collaborative learning.
• Structured homework protocols for increasing student achievement.
• Developing a system of formative feedback for 8th grade writing.
• Using music to stimulate creative writing.
• Weekly brown bag lunch sessions to improve responses to PD from staff.
• Using exercise balls as chairs for better classroom management.

Action Research in Theory

Action research-based inquiry in educational contexts and classrooms involves distinct participants – students, teachers, and other educational stakeholders within the system. All of these participants are engaged in activities to benefit the students, and subsequently society as a whole. Action research contributes to these activities and potentially enhances the participants’ roles in the education system. Participants’ roles are enhanced based on two underlying principles:

• communities, schools, and classrooms are sites of socially mediated actions, and action research provides a greater understanding of self and new knowledge of how to negotiate these socially mediated environments;
• communities, schools, and classrooms are part of social systems in which humans interact with many cultural tools, and action research provides a basis to construct and analyze these interactions.

In our quest for knowledge and understanding, we have consistently analyzed human experience over time and have distinguished between types of reality. Humans have constantly sought “facts” and “truth” about reality that can be empirically demonstrated or observed.

Social systems are based on beliefs, and generally, beliefs about what will benefit the greatest amount of people in that society. Beliefs, and more specifically the rationale or support for beliefs, are not always easy to demonstrate or observe as part of our reality. Take the example of an English Language Arts teacher who prioritizes argumentative writing in her class. She believes that argumentative writing demonstrates the mechanics of writing best among types of writing, while also providing students a skill they will need as citizens and professionals. While we can observe the students writing, and we can assess their ability to develop a written argument, it is difficult to observe the students’ understanding of argumentative writing and its purpose in their future. This relates to the teacher’s beliefs about argumentative writing; we cannot observe the real value of the teaching of argumentative writing. The teacher’s rationale and beliefs about teaching argumentative writing are bound to the social system and the skills their students will need to be active parts of that system. Therefore, our goal through action research is to demonstrate the best ways to teach argumentative writing to help all participants understand its value as part of a social system.

The knowledge that is conveyed in a classroom is bound to, and justified by, a social system. A postmodernist approach to understanding our world seeks knowledge within a social system, which is directly opposed to the empirical or positivist approach which demands evidence based on logic or science as rationale for beliefs. Action research does not rely on a positivist viewpoint to develop evidence and conclusions as part of the research process. Action research offers a postmodernist stance to epistemology (theory of knowledge) and supports developing questions and new inquiries during the research process. In this way action research is an emergent process that allows beliefs and decisions to be negotiated as reality and meaning are being constructed in the socially mediated space of the classroom.

Theorizing Action Research for the Classroom

All research, at its core, is for the purpose of generating new knowledge and contributing to the knowledge base of educational research. Action researchers in the classroom want to explore methods of improving their pedagogy and practice. The starting place of their inquiry stems from their pedagogy and practice, so by nature the knowledge created from their inquiry is often contextually specific to their classroom, school, or community. Therefore, we should examine the theoretical underpinnings of action research for the classroom. It is important to connect action research conceptually to experience; for example, Levin and Greenwood (2001, p. 105) make these connections:

• Action research is context bound and addresses real life problems.
• Action research is inquiry where participants and researchers cogenerate knowledge through collaborative communicative processes in which all participants’ contributions are taken seriously.
• The meanings constructed in the inquiry process lead to social action or these reflections and action lead to the construction of new meanings.
• The credibility/validity of action research knowledge is measured according to whether the actions that arise from it solve problems (workability) and increase participants’ control over their own situation.

Educators who engage in action research will generate new knowledge and beliefs based on their experiences in the classroom. Let us emphasize that these are all important to you and your work, as both an educator and researcher. It is these experiences, beliefs, and theories that are often discounted when more official forms of knowledge (e.g., textbooks, curriculum standards, districts standards) are prioritized. These beliefs and theories based on experiences should be valued and explored further, and this is one of the primary purposes of action research in the classroom. These beliefs and theories should be valued because they were meaningful aspects of knowledge constructed from teachers’ experiences. Developing meaning and knowledge in this way forms the basis of constructivist ideology, just as teachers often try to get their students to construct their own meanings and understandings when experiencing new ideas.  

Classroom Teachers Constructing their Own Knowledge

Most of you are probably at least minimally familiar with constructivism, or the process of constructing knowledge. However, what is constructivism precisely, for the purposes of action research? Many scholars have theorized constructivism and have identified two key attributes (Koshy, 2010; von Glasersfeld, 1987):

• Knowledge is not passively received, but actively developed through an individual’s cognition;
• Human cognition is adaptive and finds purpose in organizing the new experiences of the world, instead of settling for absolute or objective truth.

Considering these two attributes, constructivism is distinct from conventional knowledge formation because people can develop a theory of knowledge that orders and organizes the world based on their experiences, instead of an objective or neutral reality. When individuals construct knowledge, there are interactions between an individual and their environment where communication, negotiation and meaning-making are collectively developing knowledge. For most educators, constructivism may be a natural inclination of their pedagogy. Action researchers have a similar relationship to constructivism because they are actively engaged in a process of constructing knowledge. However, their constructions may be more formal and based on the data they collect in the research process. Action researchers also are engaged in the meaning making process, making interpretations from their data. These aspects of the action research process situate them in the constructivist ideology. Just like constructivist educators, action researchers’ constructions of knowledge will be affected by their individual and professional ideas and values, as well as the ecological context in which they work (Biesta & Tedder, 2006). The relations between constructivist inquiry and action research is important, as Lincoln (2001, p. 130) states:

much of the epistemological, ontological, and axiological belief systems are the same or similar, and methodologically, constructivists and action researchers work in similar ways, relying on qualitative methods in face-to-face work, while buttressing information, data and background with quantitative method work when necessary or useful.

While there are many links between action research and educators in the classroom, constructivism offers the most familiar and practical threads to bind the beliefs of educators and action researchers.  

Epistemology, Ontology, and Action Research

It is also important for educators to consider the philosophical stances related to action research to better situate it with their beliefs and reality. When researchers make decisions about the methodology they intend to use, they will consider their ontological and epistemological stances. It is vital that researchers clearly distinguish their philosophical stances and understand the implications of their stance in the research process, especially when collecting and analyzing their data. In what follows, we will discuss ontological and epistemological stances in relation to action research methodology.

Ontology, or the theory of being, is concerned with the claims or assumptions we make about ourselves within our social reality – what do we think exists, what does it look like, what entities are involved and how do these entities interact with each other (Blaikie, 2007). In relation to the discussion of constructivism, generally action researchers would consider their educational reality as socially constructed. Social construction of reality happens when individuals interact in a social system. Meaningful construction of concepts and representations of reality develop through an individual’s interpretations of others’ actions. These interpretations become agreed upon by members of a social system and become part of social fabric, reproduced as knowledge and beliefs to develop assumptions about reality. Researchers develop meaningful constructions based on their experiences and through communication. Educators as action researchers will be examining the socially constructed reality of schools. In the United States, many of our concepts, knowledge, and beliefs about schooling have been socially constructed over the last hundred years. For example, a group of teachers may look at why fewer female students enroll in upper-level science courses at their school. This question deals directly with the social construction of gender and specifically what careers females have been conditioned to pursue. We know this is a social construction in some school social systems because in other parts of the world, or even the United States, there are schools that have more females enrolled in upper level science courses than male students. Therefore, the educators conducting the research have to recognize the socially constructed reality of their school and consider this reality throughout the research process. Action researchers will use methods of data collection that support their ontological stance and clarify their theoretical stance throughout the research process.

Koshy (2010, p. 23-24) offers another example of addressing the ontological challenges in the classroom:

A teacher who was concerned with increasing her pupils’ motivation and enthusiasm for learning decided to introduce learning diaries which the children could take home. They were invited to record their reactions to the day’s lessons and what they had learnt. The teacher reported in her field diary that the learning diaries stimulated the children’s interest in her lessons, increased their capacity to learn, and generally improved their level of participation in lessons. The challenge for the teacher here is in the analysis and interpretation of the multiplicity of factors accompanying the use of diaries. The diaries were taken home so the entries may have been influenced by discussions with parents. Another possibility is that children felt the need to please their teacher. Another possible influence was that their increased motivation was as a result of the difference in style of teaching which included more discussions in the classroom based on the entries in the dairies.

Here you can see the challenge for the action researcher is working in a social context with multiple factors, values, and experiences that were outside of the teacher’s control. The teacher was only responsible for introducing the diaries as a new style of learning. The students’ engagement and interactions with this new style of learning were all based upon their socially constructed notions of learning inside and outside of the classroom. A researcher with a positivist ontological stance would not consider these factors, and instead might simply conclude that the dairies increased motivation and interest in the topic, as a result of introducing the diaries as a learning strategy.

Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, signifies a philosophical view of what counts as knowledge – it justifies what is possible to be known and what criteria distinguishes knowledge from beliefs (Blaikie, 1993). Positivist researchers, for example, consider knowledge to be certain and discovered through scientific processes. Action researchers collect data that is more subjective and examine personal experience, insights, and beliefs.

Action researchers utilize interpretation as a means for knowledge creation. Action researchers have many epistemologies to choose from as means of situating the types of knowledge they will generate by interpreting the data from their research. For example, Koro-Ljungberg et al., (2009) identified several common epistemologies in their article that examined epistemological awareness in qualitative educational research, such as: objectivism, subjectivism, constructionism, contextualism, social epistemology, feminist epistemology, idealism, naturalized epistemology, externalism, relativism, skepticism, and pluralism. All of these epistemological stances have implications for the research process, especially data collection and analysis. Please see the table on pages 689-90, linked below for a sketch of these potential implications:

Again, Koshy (2010, p. 24) provides an excellent example to illustrate the epistemological challenges within action research:

A teacher of 11-year-old children decided to carry out an action research project which involved a change in style in teaching mathematics. Instead of giving children mathematical tasks displaying the subject as abstract principles, she made links with other subjects which she believed would encourage children to see mathematics as a discipline that could improve their understanding of the environment and historic events. At the conclusion of the project, the teacher reported that applicable mathematics generated greater enthusiasm and understanding of the subject.

The educator/researcher engaged in action research-based inquiry to improve an aspect of her pedagogy. She generated knowledge that indicated she had improved her students’ understanding of mathematics by integrating it with other subjects – specifically in the social and ecological context of her classroom, school, and community. She valued constructivism and students generating their own understanding of mathematics based on related topics in other subjects. Action researchers working in a social context do not generate certain knowledge, but knowledge that emerges and can be observed and researched again, building upon their knowledge each time.

Researcher Positionality in Action Research

In this first chapter, we have discussed a lot about the role of experiences in sparking the research process in the classroom. Your experiences as an educator will shape how you approach action research in your classroom. Your experiences as a person in general will also shape how you create knowledge from your research process. In particular, your experiences will shape how you make meaning from your findings. It is important to be clear about your experiences when developing your methodology too. This is referred to as researcher positionality. Maher and Tetreault (1993, p. 118) define positionality as:

Gender, race, class, and other aspects of our identities are markers of relational positions rather than essential qualities. Knowledge is valid when it includes an acknowledgment of the knower’s specific position in any context, because changing contextual and relational factors are crucial for defining identities and our knowledge in any given situation.

By presenting your positionality in the research process, you are signifying the type of socially constructed, and other types of, knowledge you will be using to make sense of the data. As Maher and Tetreault explain, this increases the trustworthiness of your conclusions about the data. This would not be possible with a positivist ontology. We will discuss positionality more in chapter 6, but we wanted to connect it to the overall theoretical underpinnings of action research.

Advantages of Engaging in Action Research in the Classroom

In the following chapters, we will discuss how action research takes shape in your classroom, and we wanted to briefly summarize the key advantages to action research methodology over other types of research methodology. As Koshy (2010, p. 25) notes, action research provides useful methodology for school and classroom research because:

Advantages of Action Research for the Classroom

• research can be set within a specific context or situation;
• researchers can be participants – they don’t have to be distant and detached from the situation;
• it involves continuous evaluation and modifications can be made easily as the project progresses;
• there are opportunities for theory to emerge from the research rather than always follow a previously formulated theory;
• the study can lead to open-ended outcomes;
• through action research, a researcher can bring a story to life.

Action Research Copyright © by J. Spencer Clark; Suzanne Porath; Julie Thiele; and Morgan Jobe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Action Research: Its Nature and Validity

• Published: February 1998
• Volume 11 , pages 9–21, ( 1998 )

Cite this article

• Peter Checkland 1 &
• Sue Holwell 1  

6776 Accesses

359 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The process of knowledge acquisition which has the strongest truth claim is the research process of natural science, based on testing hypotheses to destruction. But the application of this process to phenomena beyond those for which it was developed, namely, the natural regularities of the physical universe, is problematical. For research into social phenomena there is increasing interest in “action research” in various forms. In this process the researcher enters a real-world situation and aims both to improve it and to acquire knowledge. This paper reviews the nature and validity of action research, arguing that its claim to validity requires a recoverable research process based upon a prior declaration of the epistemology in terms of which findings which count as knowledge will be expressed.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Action Research

Research: Meaning and Purpose

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and MacLain-Smith, D. (1982). Action Science: Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and Intervention , Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Google Scholar  

Blum, F. H. (1955). Action research—A scientific approach? Philos. Sci. 22 (1), 1–7.

Campbell, D. T. (1988). In Overmann, E. S. (ed.), Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science: Selected Papers , University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

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

Checkland, P. (1985). From optimizing to learning: A development of systems thinking for the 1990s. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 36 (9), 757–767.

Checkland, P. (1991). From framework through experience to learning: The essential nature of action research. In Nissen, H.-E., Klein, H. K., and Hirschheim, R. (eds.), Information Systems Research , Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Checkland, P. (1997). Rhetoric and reality in contracting: Research in and on the NHS. In Flynn, R., and Williams, G. (eds.), Contracting for Health , Oxford University Press, London.

Checkland, P., and Holwell, S. (1997). Information, Systems and Information Systems , John Wiley, Chichester.

Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action , J. Wiley, Chichester.

Clark, P. A. (1972). Action Research and Organizational Change , Harper and Row, London.

Dash, D. P. (1997). Problems of Action Research, Working Paper No. 14, University of Lincolnshire and Humberside.

Eden, C., and Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for the study of organizations. In Clegg, S., Hardy, C., and Nord, W. (eds.), The Handbook of Organization Studies , Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Engels, P. G. H., and Salomon, M. L. (1997). Facilitating Innovation for Development , Royal Tropical Institute, The Netherlands.

Foster, M. (1972). An introduction to the theory and practice of action research in work organizations. Hum. Relat. 25 (6), 529–556.

Hult, M., and Lennung, S. (1980). Towards a definition of action research: a note and bibliography. J. Manage. Stud. 17 (2), 242–250.

Keynes, J. M. (1938). Discussion of R. F. Harrod's presidential address to the Royal Economic Society. In Moggridge, D. E. (ed.) (1976), Keynes , Fontana/Collins, London.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics 11: Channels of group life; Social planning and action research. Hum. Relat. 1, 143–153.

Moggridge, D. E. (1976). Keynes , Fontana/Collins, London.

Phillips, D. C. (1992). The Social Scientist's Bestiary: A Guide to Fabled Threats to, and Defences of, Naturalistic Social Science , Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Revans, R. (1972). Hospitals: Communication, Choice and Change , Tavistock, London.

Susman, G. (1983). Action research. In Morgan, G. (ed.), Beyond Method , Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 95–113.

Susman, G., and Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Admin. Sci. Q. 23, 582–603.

Torbet, W. R. (1991). The Power of Balance: Transforming Self, Society and Scientific Inquiry , Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., and Janik, A. (1979). An Introduction to Reasoning , Macmillan, New York.

Whyte, W. F. (ed.) (1991). Participatory Action Research , Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Ziman, J. J. (1968). Public Knowledge, an Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science , Cambridge University Press, London.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LAI 4YX, UK

Peter Checkland & Sue Holwell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Checkland, P., Holwell, S. Action Research: Its Nature and Validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research 11 , 9–21 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022908820784

Download citation

Issue Date : February 1998

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022908820784

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• action research
• research methodology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Facility for Rare Isotope Beams

At michigan state university, frib researchers lead team to merge nuclear physics experiments and astronomical observations to advance equation-of-state research, world-class particle-accelerator facilities and recent advances in neutron-star observation give physicists a new toolkit for describing nuclear interactions at a wide range of densities..

For most stars, neutron stars and black holes are their final resting places. When a supergiant star runs out of fuel, it expands and then rapidly collapses on itself. This act creates a neutron star—an object denser than our sun crammed into a space 13 to  18 miles wide. In such a heavily condensed stellar environment, most electrons combine with protons to make neutrons, resulting in a dense ball of matter consisting mainly of neutrons. Researchers try to understand the forces that control this process by creating dense matter in the laboratory through colliding neutron-rich nuclei and taking detailed measurements.

A research team—led by William Lynch and Betty Tsang at FRIB—is focused on learning about neutrons in dense environments. Lynch, Tsang, and their collaborators used 20 years of experimental data from accelerator facilities and neutron-star observations to understand how particles interact in nuclear matter under a wide range of densities and pressures. The team wanted to determine how the ratio of neutrons to protons influences nuclear forces in a system. The team recently published its findings in Nature Astronomy .

“In nuclear physics, we are often confined to studying small systems, but we know exactly what particles are in our nuclear systems. Stars provide us an unbelievable opportunity, because they are large systems where nuclear physics plays a vital role, but we do not know for sure what particles are in their interiors,” said Lynch, professor of nuclear physics at FRIB and in the Michigan State University (MSU) Department of Physics and Astronomy. “They are interesting because the density varies greatly within such large systems.  Nuclear forces play a dominant role within them, yet we know comparatively little about that role.” 

When a star with a mass that is 20-30 times that of the sun exhausts its fuel, it cools, collapses, and explodes in a supernova. After this explosion, only the matter in the deepest part of the star’s interior coalesces to form a neutron star. This neutron star has no fuel to burn and over time, it radiates its remaining heat into the surrounding space. Scientists expect that matter in the outer core of a cold neutron star is roughly similar to the matter in atomic nuclei but with three differences: neutron stars are much larger, they are denser in their interiors, and a larger fraction of their nucleons are neutrons. Deep within the inner core of a neutron star, the composition of neutron star matter remains a mystery. 

  “If experiments could provide more guidance about the forces that act in their interiors, we could make better predictions of their interior composition and of phase transitions within them. Neutron stars present a great research opportunity to combine these disciplines,” said Lynch.

Accelerator facilities like FRIB help physicists study how subatomic particles interact under exotic conditions that are more common in neutron stars. When researchers compare these experiments to neutron-star observations, they can calculate the equation of state (EOS) of particles interacting in low-temperature, dense environments. The EOS describes matter in specific conditions, and how its properties change with density. Solving EOS for a wide range of settings helps researchers understand the strong nuclear force’s effects within dense objects, like neutron stars, in the cosmos. It also helps us learn more about neutron stars as they cool.

“This is the first time that we pulled together such a wealth of experimental data to explain the equation of state under these conditions, and this is important,” said Tsang, professor of nuclear science at FRIB. “Previous efforts have used theory to explain the low-density and low-energy end of nuclear matter. We wanted to use all the data we had available to us from our previous experiences with accelerators to obtain a comprehensive equation of state.”   

Researchers seeking the EOS often calculate it at higher temperatures or lower densities. They then draw conclusions for the system across a wider range of conditions. However, physicists have come to understand in recent years that an EOS obtained from an experiment is only relevant for a specific range of densities. As a result, the team needed to pull together data from a variety of accelerator experiments that used different measurements of colliding nuclei to replace those assumptions with data. “In this work, we asked two questions,” said Lynch. “For a given measurement, what density does that measurement probe? After that, we asked what that measurement tells us about the equation of state at that density.”   

In its recent paper, the team combined its own experiments from accelerator facilities in the United States and Japan. It pulled together data from 12 different experimental constraints and three neutron-star observations. The researchers focused on determining the EOS for nuclear matter ranging from half to three times a nuclei’s saturation density—the density found at the core of all stable nuclei. By producing this comprehensive EOS, the team provided new benchmarks for the larger nuclear physics and astrophysics communities to more accurately model interactions of nuclear matter.

The team improved its measurements at intermediate densities that neutron star observations do not provide through experiments at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Germany, the RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science in Japan, and the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (FRIB’s predecessor). To enable key measurements discussed in this article, their experiments helped fund technical advances in data acquisition for active targets and time projection chambers that are being employed in many other experiments world-wide.   

In running these experiments at FRIB, Tsang and Lynch can continue to interact with MSU students who help advance the research with their own input and innovation. MSU operates FRIB as a scientific user facility for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC), supporting the mission of the DOE-SC Office of Nuclear Physics. FRIB is the only accelerator-based user facility on a university campus as one of 28 DOE-SC user facilities .  Chun Yen Tsang, the first author on the Nature Astronomy  paper, was a graduate student under Betty Tsang during this research and is now a researcher working jointly at Brookhaven National Laboratory and Kent State University. 

“Projects like this one are essential for attracting the brightest students, which ultimately makes these discoveries possible, and provides a steady pipeline to the U.S. workforce in nuclear science,” Tsang said.

The proposed FRIB energy upgrade ( FRIB400 ), supported by the scientific user community in the 2023 Nuclear Science Advisory Committee Long Range Plan , will allow the team to probe at even higher densities in the years to come. FRIB400 will double the reach of FRIB along the neutron dripline into a region relevant for neutron-star crusts and to allow study of extreme, neutron-rich nuclei such as calcium-68. 

Eric Gedenk is a freelance science writer.

Michigan State University operates the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB) as a user facility for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC), supporting the mission of the DOE-SC Office of Nuclear Physics. Hosting what is designed to be the most powerful heavy-ion accelerator, FRIB enables scientists to make discoveries about the properties of rare isotopes in order to better understand the physics of nuclei, nuclear astrophysics, fundamental interactions, and applications for society, including in medicine, homeland security, and industry.

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of today’s most pressing challenges. For more information, visit energy.gov/science.

Can climate change accelerate transmission of malaria? Pioneering research sheds light on impacts of temperature

Malaria is a mosquito-borne disease caused by a parasite that spreads from bites of infected female Anopheles mosquitoes. If left untreated in humans, malaria can cause severe symptoms, health complications and even death.

In tropical and subtropical regions where malaria is prevalent, scientists are concerned that climate warming might increase the risk of malaria transmission in certain areas and contribute to further spread. However, there is still much to learn about the relationship between temperature and the mosquito and parasite traits that influence malaria transmission.

In "Estimating the effects of temperature on transmission of the human malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum," a groundbreaking study published in the journal Nature Communications , researchers at the University of Florida, Pennsylvania State University and Imperial College, combined novel experimental data within an innovative modeling framework to examine how temperature might affect transmission risk in different environments in Africa.

"In broad terms, scientists know that temperature affects key traits such as mosquito longevity, the time it takes for a mosquito to become infectious after feeding on an infected host, and the overall ability of the mosquito to transmit the disease" said Matthew Thomas, a UF/IFAS professor and UF/IFAS Invasion Science Research Institute (ISRI) director. "But what might seem surprising is that these temperature dependencies have not been properly measured for any of the primary malaria vectors in Africa."

"Our findings provide novel insights into the effects of temperature on the ability of Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes -- arguably the most important malaria mosquito in Africa -- to transmit Plasmodium falciparum, the most prevalent species of human malaria in Africa," said Eunho Suh, joint first-author with Isaac Stopard at Imperial College, and assistant research professor at Penn State, who conducted the empirical research as a post-doctoral student in Thomas' previous lab.

The study involved several detailed laboratory experiments in which hundreds of mosquitoes were fed with Plasmodium falciparum-infected blood and then exposed at different temperatures to examine the progress of infection and development rate within the mosquitoes, as well as the survival of the mosquitoes themselves.

"The novel data were then used to explore the implications of temperature on malaria transmission potential across four locations in Kenya that represent diverse current environments with different intensities of baseline transmission, and that are predicted to experience different patterns of warming under climate change," explained Thomas.

The study supports previous research results in demonstrating that various mosquito and parasite traits exhibit intermittent relationships with temperature and that under future warming temperatures, transmission potential is likely to increase in some environments but could reduce in others. However, the new data suggest that parasites can develop more quickly at cooler temperatures and that the rate of parasite development might be less sensitive to changes in temperature, than previously thought.

The data also indicate that the successful development of parasites in the mosquito, declines at thermal extremes, contributing to the upper and lower environmental bounds for transmission.

Combining these results into a simple transmission model suggests that contrary to earlier predictions, the anticipated surge in malaria transmission, attributed to climate warming, may be less severe than feared, particularly in cooler regions like the Kenyan Highlands.

"Some of the current assumptions on mosquito ecology and malaria transmission derive from work done in the early part of the last century. Our study is significant in highlighting the need to revisit some of this conventional understanding," said Thomas.

"While the time it takes for a mosquito to become infectious is strongly dependent on environmental temperature, it also depends on the species and possibly strain of malaria and mosquito," said Suh.

The comprehensive study and findings represent a significant step forward in understanding the intricacies of malaria transmission and paves the way for future research aimed at controlling malaria on a global scale.

"Our work focused on the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum in the African malaria vector, Anopheles gambiae. However, Plasmodium vivaxis another important parasite species responsible for most malaria in Asia, as well as the recently reported malaria cases in the U.S.," said Suh. "Like Plasmodium falciparum, the established model describing the effects of temperature on development of Plasmodium vivaxremains poorly validated."

The same is true for other vector-borne diseases, such as dengue or Zika virus, added Suh.

"We need more work of the type we present in the current paper, ideally using local mosquito and parasite or pathogen strains, to better understand the effects of climate and climate change on transmission risk," he said.

• Infectious Diseases
• HIV and AIDS
• Pests and Parasites
• Insects (including Butterflies)
• Global Warming
• Environmental Issues
• Catastrophe modeling
• COX-2 inhibitor
• Climate model
• Sexually transmitted disease
• Scientific method
• Earth science
• Temperature record of the past 1000 years

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Florida . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Eunho Suh, Isaac J. Stopard, Ben Lambert, Jessica L. Waite, Nina L. Dennington, Thomas S. Churcher, Matthew B. Thomas. Estimating the effects of temperature on transmission of the human malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum . Nature Communications , 2024; 15 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-47265-w

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Loneliness Runs Deep Among Parents
• Food in Sight? The Liver Is Ready!
• Acid Reflux Drugs and Risk of Migraine
• Do Cells Have a Hidden Communication System?
• Mice Given Mouse-Rat Brains Can Smell Again
• How Do Birds Flock? New Aerodynamics
• Cancer: Epigenetic Origin Without DNA Mutation
• Climate Change Driving Biodiversity Loss
• Why Can't Robots Outrun Animals?
• Evolution of Gliding in Marsupials

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

Nature’s Agents Team Photo

Who are Nature’s Agents

Ife- My name is Ifeoluwa but I go by Ife for short. I am a second year at Berks majoring in Political Science.

Liz- My name is Elizabeth, I am a sophomore here at Penn State Berks and I am a Criminal Justice Major while also minoring in Psychology. 

Kelly- My name is Kelly, I am a Sophomore here at Penn State Berks currently studying Communication Arts and Sciences.

Research Issue: 

Greenhouse gasses are gasses in the atmosphere that raise the surface temperature of the Earth. It disrupts the climate, weather patterns, oceans, and the overall environment.  Some of the main causes are by human hand such as the burning of fossil fuels.

Earth Day at Berks Campus

*Click the link in the image to our narrated presentation!

Brief description:.

As a group we applied our strengths to Berks County Earth Day 2024…whether that be creativity, leadership, or marketing skill. Over the course of a few months through multiple forms of communication and meetings we gradually pitched into Earth Day. By making posters, maps, data sheets, and helping with logistics we managed to successfully execute this project.  

Ife, Liz, and Kelly at Earth Day Infobooth

*Click the link in the image t o our service video!

Reflection:.

This year, our group has had the privilege to work with the event, Berks County Earth Day 2024. This year marks the 54th anniversary of the event hosted at City Park in Reading. Not only does this event promote community growth but also shows us examples of sustainability and just how valuable our environment is. With live music, entertainment and many exhibits, we are thankful to have been able to be a part of this event in our community. 

Share this:

Leave a reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Spring 2024 Team Projects

• Education Majors
• Earth’s Promise
• Flower Power 24′
• Marsh Madness 24′
• Nature’s Agents
• Seeds for Change
• Sustainable Smiles

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Latest science news, discoveries and analysis

Bird flu in US cows: is the milk supply safe?

Future of Humanity Institute shuts: what's next for ‘deep future’ research?

Judge dismisses superconductivity physicist’s lawsuit against university

NIH pay raise for postdocs and PhD students could have US ripple effect

Hello puffins, goodbye belugas: changing arctic fjord hints at our climate future, china's moon atlas is the most detailed ever made, ‘shut up and calculate’: how einstein lost the battle to explain quantum reality, rat neurons repair mouse brains — and restore sense of smell, ecologists: don’t lose touch with the joy of fieldwork chris mantegna.

Should the Maldives be creating new land?

Lethal AI weapons are here: how can we control them?

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

How gliding marsupials got their ‘wings’

Audio long read: why loneliness is bad for your health, nato is boosting ai and climate research as scientific diplomacy remains on ice, plastic pollution: three numbers that support a crackdown, the maldives is racing to create new land. why are so many people concerned.

Retractions are part of science, but misconduct isn’t — lessons from a superconductivity lab

Any plan to make smoking obsolete is the right step

Citizenship privilege harms science

European ruling linking climate change to human rights could be a game changer — here’s how charlotte e. blattner, will ai accelerate or delay the race to net-zero emissions, current issue.

Surprise hybrid origins of a butterfly species

Stripped-envelope supernova light curves argue for central engine activity, optical clocks at sea, research analysis.

Ancient DNA traces family lines and political shifts in the Avar empire

A chemical method for selective labelling of the key amino acid tryptophan

Robust optical clocks promise stable timing in a portable package

Targeting RNA opens therapeutic avenues for Timothy syndrome

Bioengineered ‘mini-colons’ shed light on cancer progression, galaxy found napping in the primordial universe, tumours form without genetic mutations, marsupial genomes reveal how a skin membrane for gliding evolved.

Scientists urged to collect royalties from the ‘magic money tree’

Breaking ice, and helicopter drops: winning photos of working scientists

Shrouded in secrecy: how science is harmed by the bullying and harassment rumour mill

How ground glass might save crops from drought on a caribbean island, londoners see what a scientist looks like up close in 50 photographs, books & culture.

How volcanoes shaped our planet — and why we need to be ready for the next big eruption

Dogwhistles, drilling and the roots of Western civilization: Books in brief

Cosmic rentals

Las borinqueñas remembers the forgotten puerto rican women who tested the first pill, dad always mows on summer saturday mornings, nature podcast.

Latest videos

Nature briefing.

An essential round-up of science news, opinion and analysis, delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Asking the better questions that unlock new answers to the working world's most complex issues.

Trending topics

AI insights

EY podcasts

EY webcasts

Operations leaders

Technology leaders

Marketing and growth leaders

Cybersecurity and privacy leaders

Risk leaders

EY Center for Board Matters

EY helps clients create long-term value for all stakeholders. Enabled by data and technology, our services and solutions provide trust through assurance and help clients transform, grow and operate.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Strategy, transaction and transformation consulting

Technology transformation

Tax function operations

Climate change and sustainability services

EY Ecosystems

Supply chain and operations

EY Partner Ecosystem

Explore Services

We bring together extraordinary people, like you, to build a better working world.

Experienced professionals

MBA and advanced-degree students

Student and entry level programs

Contract workers

EY-Parthenon careers

Discover how EY insights and services are helping to reframe the future of your industry.

Case studies

Energy and resources

How data analytics can strengthen supply chain performance

13-Jul-2023 Ben Williams

How Takeda harnessed the power of the metaverse for positive human impact

26-Jun-2023 Edwina Fitzmaurice

Banking and Capital Markets

How cutting back infused higher quality in transaction monitoring

11-Jul-2023 Ron V. Giammarco

At EY, our purpose is building a better working world. The insights and services we provide help to create long-term value for clients, people and society, and to build trust in the capital markets.

EY is now carbon negative

19-Sep-2022 Carmine Di Sibio

Our commitment to audit quality

13-Nov-2023 Julie A. Boland

No results have been found

Recent Searches

BEPS 2.0: as policies evolve, engagement is key

It remains to be seen whether the US will align its tax law with the OECD/G20’s global BEPS 2.0 rules. MNEs will feel the impact in 2024. Learn more.

How GenAI strategy can transform innovation

Companies considering or investing in a transformative GenAI strategy should tie generative artificial intelligence use cases to revenue, cost and expense. Learn more

Top five private equity trends for 2024

Read about the five key trends private equity firms will emphasize in 2024 as they create value

Select your location

close expand_more

Nature-related reporting tied to the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures recommendations is limited, according to the inaugural EY US Nature Risk Barometer

Press contact

Multidisciplinary professional services organization

• Send e-mail to EY Americas
• 87% of S&P 500 companies studied disclosed information against at least one of the 14 recommendations in the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework.
• On average, companies reported against just over half (51%) of the TNFD recommendations, but depth of reporting was limited, with an average alignment score of 13%.

Ernst & Young LLP (EY US) released its inaugural EY US Nature Risk Barometer (the “Barometer”) analysis in its report,  When will transparency drive action to protect and restore nature . To create the Barometer, 111 S&P 500 companies were scored on the breadth and depth of their reporting on nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities based on the recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures’ (TNFD) beta draft V0.4 framework.

The Barometer showed that most companies (87%) in the analysis are already disclosing some information against at least one of the 14 TNFD recommendations. However, these baseline results show the extent to which companies reported in alignment with the TNFD recommendations was limited.

According to the Barometer, companies earned on average a coverage score of 51%, meaning they disclosed some information for just over half of the TNFD recommendations.

The quality or depth of that reporting was still limited. Companies earned on average an alignment score of 13%, meaning they were not reporting the depth of information detailed in the TNFD recommendations.

“This analysis comes at a pivotal time, with new regulations bolstering the stakeholder focus on nature-related risks and opportunities” said  Veli Ivanova , EY Americas Chief Sustainability Officer and  Climate Change and Sustainability Services Leader . “Our inaugural EY US Nature Risk Barometer provides an overview of the nature-related reporting landscape and details steps corporations can take to mitigate risks and reap the benefits of nature-related reporting.”

The Barometer evaluated the companies’ disclosures against the four pillars in the TNFD framework (governance, strategy, risk and impact management, and metrics and targets) and found the greatest coverage and alignment in the strategy pillar.

The sectors scoring the highest included food and beverage, consumer goods, and infrastructure, while health care, financials and transportation scored lowest.

“Although we’re starting to see companies track and report on nature-related risks, there is more to be done,” said  Lucy Godshall , EY US Climate Change and Sustainability Services Principal. “With a formal framework such as TNFD, companies will have a clear guide for reporting that also can help them examine their progress and identify nature-related opportunities that will be good for business and society.”

Looking ahead . The Barometer called out five actions companies can take to protect and restore nature and communicate their progress and impact as they relate to nature:

• Understand and identify where the company’s value chain interfaces with nature , creating priority risks and opportunities in alignment with the TNFD framework and pinpointing the business areas that are most affected by and have an impact on nature.
• Develop an organizational nature and biodiversity strategy , including science-based targets to reduce the company’s impact on land and water and to mitigate biodiversity loss.
• Implement a strategy and institute effective governance  across operations and the supply chain to establish board oversight of nature-related disclosures and designate management’s role in assessing and managing nature-related topics within the company.
• Evaluate and report performance  to drive accountability and continuous improvement in a company’s nature-related strategy.
• Develop nature/biodiversity capacity and knowledge and identify collaboration opportunities  with other groups, such as through public-private partnerships or with Indigenous peoples and others, to identify ways to innovate, collaborate and build capacity as nature reporting gains momentum.   

The Barometer provides a baseline analysis of nature-related corporate disclosures across 10 sectors based on 111 S&P 500 companies’ public disclosures on biodiversity and nature-related activities and objectives. The analysis used the TNFD’s draft beta v0.4 framework and recommendations. The alignment to nature-related disclosures and coverage of them informed the report’s findings.

The TNFD, which represents financial institutions, corporations and market service providers with over US$20t in assets, is expected to publish its final risk management and disclosure framework in September 2023 to guide corporate nature-related risk reporting and actions on the evolving risks.

About EY | Building a better working world

EY exists to build a better working world, helping to create long-term value for clients, people and society and build trust in the capital markets.

Enabled by data and technology, diverse EY teams in over 150 countries provide trust through assurance and help clients grow, transform and operate.

Working across assurance, consulting, law, strategy, tax and transactions, EY teams ask better questions to find new answers for the complex issues facing our world today.

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. Information about how EY collects and uses personal data and a description of the rights individuals have under data protection legislation are available via  ey.com/privacy . EY member firms do not practice law where prohibited by local laws. For more information about our organization, please visit  ey.com .

This news release has been issued by Ernst & Young LLP, an EY member firm serving clients in the US.

• Connect with us
• Our locations
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Legal and privacy
• Accessibility
• Open Facebook profile
• Open X profile
• Open LinkedIn profile
• Open Youtube profile

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.