Abstract

Action research has been presented as a promising approach for academic inquiry because of its focus on real world problems and its ability to provide researchers with a rich body of field data for knowledge building. Published examples of action research, however, are hard to find in business communication literature. What are the reasons for this? I try to provide a basis for answering this question as well as helping other business communication researchers-particularly those interested in computer-mediated communication issues-to decide whether and when to employ action research. I offer a first-person, confessional tale-like account of an action research study of computer-mediated communication in groups. In order to focus on the lessons learned, my focus is on the process of conducting action research and not on empirical results. Some of the situations and related lessons discussed are somewhat surprising and illustrate the complex nature of action research. The doctoral research, conducted over four years in Brazil and New Zealand, highlights the challenges associated with action research's dual goal of serving practitioners and the research community.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2003-06-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2003.813164
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

Cites in this index (2)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Also cites 53 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1037/13613-000
  2. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x
  3. 10.1177/001872679304600201
  4. 10.1177/0021886390262014
  5. 10.1177/002188638402000203
  6. 10.1177/001872677002300601
  7. 10.1177/001872679304601105
  8. 10.1007/978-0-387-35309-8_4
  9. 10.1145/291469.291479
  10. 10.1108/13287269780000733
  11. 10.1177/026839629601100305
  12. 10.1038/sj.ejis.3000298
  13. 10.1108/09593849910267206
  14. 10.1108/09593840110384753
  15. 10.2307/249422
  16. 10.1108/itp.2001.16114aaa.001
  17. 10.1287/isre.2.1.1
  18. 10.1046/j.1365-2575.2001.00097.x
  19. 10.1287/orsc.1.3.220
  20. 10.2307/3250978
  21. 10.4018/irmj.1998010104
  22. 10.1080/07421222.1993.11518012
  23. 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
  24. 10.4135/9781483325385.n6
  25. 10.1287/orsc.5.4.502
  26. 10.1037//0003-066X.37.3.245
  27. Reliability and Validity Assessment
  28. 10.1177/001872679304601005
  29. 10.1177/001872679304601007
  30. 10.2307/249588
  31. 10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.77
  32. 10.1016/0378-7206(93)90066-3
  33. 10.1108/EUM0000000001295
  34. 10.1108/13287269780000732
  35. 10.1016/S0167-9236(03)00022-8
  36. 10.2307/2392581
  37. 10.1177/0001848191041003003
  38. 10.1108/13665629710190059
  39. 10.4135/9781446213704.n12
  40. 10.2307/2392366
  41. 10.1080/07421222.1994.11518043
  42. 10.2307/2392599
  43. The Logic of Causal Order
  44. 10.1016/0030-5073(82)90254-9
  45. 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
  46. 10.1145/175222.175226
  47. 10.1111/j.1745-6606.1994.tb00821.x
  48. 10.1023/A:1008615812104
  49. 10.2307/249410
  50. 10.4324/9780203994627
  51. 10.2307/249407
  52. 10.2307/249405
  53. 10.2307/258557