The quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences

Author:

Zuber‐Skerritt Ortrun,Fletcher Margaret

Abstract

PurposeThe paper seeks to identify the quality characteristics of critical action research and action research theses compared to traditional research thesis writing.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on the literature and the authors' experience with supervising and examining action research theses, the paper identifies key problem areas in the literature and suggests effective strategies for meeting these challenges and avoiding pitfalls through reflective practice and questioning insight. The paper includes sets of crucial questions for higher degree students to address.FindingsThe paper presents definitions of and checklists for quality action research, a quality thesis, and a quality action research thesis. It also presents two conceptual models that illustrate the differences between the “research” and thesis “writing” activities and processes in general, and the collaborative core action research in the fieldwork and the critical action research thesis that needs to be the candidate's independent contribution to knowledge in theory and practice.Originality/valueThe definitions, checklists and conceptual models will be useful to postgraduates, supervisors and examiners of action research theses, because they clarify for them the similarities and differences between a traditional thesis in the social sciences and a thesis by action research.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Education

Reference51 articles.

1. Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., Mctaggart, R. and Zuber‐Skerritt, O. (1991), “Defining, confining or refining action research?”, in Zuber‐Skerritt, O. (Ed.), Action Research for Change and Development, Gower, Aldershot, pp. 3‐9.

2. Bradbury, H. and Reason, P. (2001), “Conclusion: broadening the bandwidth of validity: issues and choice‐points for improving the quality of action research”, in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds), Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry and Practice, Sage Publications, London, pp. 447‐55.

3. Brause, R. (1999), Writing Your Doctoral Dissertation, Routledge Falmer, London.

4. Brown, R. (1994), “The ‘big picture’ about managing writing”, in Zuber‐Skerritt, O. and Ryan, Y. (Eds), Quality in Postgraduate Education, Kogan Page, London, pp. 90‐109.

5. Brown, R. (1998), “How to focus your reader with the main message”, in Conrad, L. and Zuber‐Skerritt, O. (Eds), Developing as Researchers, 2nd ed., GIHE, Griffith University, Brisbane, pp. 11‐24.

Cited by 67 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3