Action Research and Scientific Method: Presumed Discrepancies and Actual Similarities

Abstract

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