Experimental action research as the preferred methodology in social, behavioral, health and human sciences
Abstract views: 745
/ 
PDF downloads: 17
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17491395Keywords:
Action research, randomized controlled trials, social, behavioral, health and human sciencesAbstract
The aim of this editorial is to reveal that experimental action research is more suitable than randomized experimental research for social sciences, nursing, midwifery application, behavioral, health and human sciences. In this editorial based on philosophy and methodological perspectives of Guba (1981), Lincoln & Guba (1985), Habermas (1987), Gunbayi & Sorm (2018), Whitehead & Schneider (2013) and Gunbayi (2020a, b) the positivist philosophy underlying RCT’s is criticized, and it is claimed that action research is much more related contextually and appropriate in terms participants and ethics. This editorial is based on the analysis of mixed methods research, social paradigms and knowledge constitutive interests and experimental action research and supports the claims that experimental action research is much more suitable for the complexity of human centered disciplines.
References
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(10), 854-857.
Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1 , 311-320.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A review in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin Books.
Bonell, C., Fletcher, A., Morton, M., Lorenc, T., & Moore, L. (2012). Realistic randomized controlled trials: A novel approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Social Sciences & Medicine, 75 (12), 2299-2306.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Action Research, 1(1), 9-28.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Being critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. Routledge.
Cartwright, N. (2011). A philosopher's view of the long road from RCTs to effectiveness. Scalpel, 377(9775), 1400-1401.
Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing better. Oxford University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Comte, A. ([1848] 2009). An overview of positivism. Cambridge University Press.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis considerations for field settings. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Cooper, H.M. (1998). Synthesizing Research: A Guide to Literature Reviews. New York, NY, USA: Sage.
Cornish, F., & Gillespie, A. (2009). A pragmatist approach to the problem of knowledge in health psychology. Journal of Health Psychology, 14(6), 800-809.
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008). Development and evaluation of complex interventions: New Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 337, a1655.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Sciences & Medicine, 210, 2-21.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). SAGE qualitative research handbook (5th ed.). Los Angeles, California: Sage.
Dwan, K., Gamble, C., Williamson, P. R., & Kirkham, J. J. (2013). A systematic review of empirical evidence on study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - An Updated Review. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e66844
Durkheim, E. ([1895] 1982). Rules of sociological method. Free Press.
Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701-2711.
Fives, A., Russell, D. W., Canavan, J., Lyons R., Eaton, P., Devaney, C., Kearns, N. & O'Brien, A: (2015) The ethics of randomized controlled trials in social settings: can social trials be scientifically promising and should they be balanced? International Journal of Research and Methods in Education, 38:1, 56-71.
Freire, P. (1972), Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Greenhalgh, T., Howick, J., and Maskrey, N. (2014) Evidence-Based Medicine: A Movement in Crisis? BMJ, 348, g3725-g3725.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. SAGE Publications Inc.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for evaluating the reliability of natural research. Journal of Educational Communication and Technology, 29, 75-92.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks,105-117.
Gunbayi, I. (2020a). Action research as mixed methods research: Definition, philosophy, types, process, political and ethical issues, pros and cons. Journal of Mixed Methods Studies, 2, 16-25.
Gunbayi, I. (2020b). Knowledge-building interests and social paradigms in guiding mixed methods research (MMR). Journal of Mixed Methods Studies, 1, 44-56.
Gunbayi, İ., & Sorm, S. (2018). Social paradigms that guide social research design: Functional, interpretive, radical humanist, and radical structural paradigms. International Journal of New Trends in Education and Their Effects, 9(2), 57-76.
Habermas, J. (1987). Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Polity Press
Hernan, M. A., & Robins, J. M. (2016). Using big data to mimic a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. American Journal of Epidemiology, 183(8), 758-764.
Ioannidis, J.P. (2005). Why are most of the published research findings wrong? PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research. N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), SAGE qualitative research handbook (3rd ed., pp. 559-604), Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority issues. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Natural questioning. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
Marrow, A. J. (1969). The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2011). Everything you need to know about action research. 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, Landon.
Miller, F. G., & Brody, H. (2003). Critique of clinical equilibrium: The therapeutic fallacy in the ethics of clinical trials. Hastings Central Report, 33(3), 19-28.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic assessment. Sage Publications, Inc.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). SAGE action research handbook: Participatory inquiry and practice. Smart.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton, Mifflin & Company.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook on mixed methods in social and behavioural research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks.
Weber, M. (1949). Methodology of social sciences. Free press.
Whitehead, D., & Schneider, Z. (2013). Mixed Methods Research in Nursing and Midwifery Research: Methods and Evaluation for Evidence-Based Practice. In Z. Schneider, & D. Whitehead (Eds.), Mixed Methods Research (4th ed., pp. 263-284). Elsevier-Mosby.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Action Qualitative & Mixed Methods Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The journal is licensed under a 