Meta-Action Research: A Methodology for Improving Practice-Based Research

For decades, scholars have questioned whether it is possible to conduct research that is both relevant to practitioners and empirically sound. This is the very challenge faced by researchers at Dutch universities of applied sciences. Although there are compelling arguments that these two objectives - scientific rigour and practical relevance - are logically incompatible, we will show that with the right methodology, significant and substantial steps can be made towards their integration. In this paper we describe a meta-research project conducted within a Research Centre at a Dutch university of applied sciences. The purpose of this meta-research was to clarify and improve the methodology of the Centre. We chose to explore action research (AR) as one method that should be part of the Centre's research repertoire. The core idea underpinning AR is that attempting to change reality is the best way to get to know reality. Furthermore, we applied AR itself as a method for studying and changing the Centre's research practice. We found that AR works best when conceptualized as a Triple Process Structure. To do so, an action researcher must intertwine three processes: (1) a joint inquiry with practitioners to build their competence in improving their own practice; (2) a joint review with (representative) practitioners to conceptualize the issues and process of this inquiry; and (3) a contribution to academic theory through a published paper building on theory related to the specific content and process of the inquiry. This Triple Process Structure proved to be helpful in articulating methodological choices in five of the Centre's research projects. The paper will argue that these findings can be of value for all researchers who wish to create a better balance in meeting the competing demands of rigour and relevance.