Experimental action research as the preferred methodology in social, behavioral, health and human sciences
Abstract views: 85
/ 
PDF downloads: 70
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14851067Keywords:
Action research, randomized controlled trials, social, behavioral, health and human sciencesAbstract
This editorial argues that experimental action research is more suitable than randomized controlled experimental research for social sciences, nursing, midwifery practice, behavioral, health and humanities. Drawing upon philosophical and methodological perspectives from Guba (1981), Lincoln and Guba (1985), Habermas (1987), Gunbayi and Sorm (2018), Whitehead and Schneider (2013), and Gunbayi (2020a, b), the paper critiques the positivist paradigm underlying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and advocates for action research as a more contextually relevant, participatory, and ethically sound approach. The discussion is grounded in an analysis of mixed methods research, social paradigms, and knowledge-constitutive interests, supporting the claim that experimental action research better aligns with the complexities of human-centric disciplines.
References
Allyn Fives, Daniel W. Russell, John Canavan, Rena Lyons, Patricia
Eaton, Carmel Devaney, Norean Kearns & Aoife O'Brien (2015) The ethics of randomized
controlled trials in social settings: can social trials be scientifically promising and must there
be equipoise? International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38:1, 56-71.
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology & 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 treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin Books.
Bonell, C., Fletcher, A., Morton, M., Lorenc, T., & Moore, L. (2012). Realist randomized controlled trials: A new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Social Science & 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). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. Routledge.
Cartwright, N. (2011). A philosopher’s view of the long road from RCTs to effectiveness. The Lancet, 377(9775), 1400-1401.
Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Comte, A. (2009). A general view of positivism. Cambridge University Press.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Cooper, H. M. (1998). Synthesizing Research: A Guide for 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). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 337, a1655.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine, 210, 2-21.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Dwan, K., Gamble, C., Williamson, P. R., & Kirkham, J. J. (2013). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias- An Updated Review. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e66844
Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method. The Free Press.
Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701-2711.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press.
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. (2011). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75-92.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks,105-117.
Gunbayi, I. (2020a). Action research as a mixed methods research: Definition, philosophy, types, process, political and ethical issues, and pros and cons. Journal of Mixed Methods Studies, 2, 16-25.
Gunbayi, I. (2020b). Knowledge-constitutive interests and social paradigms in guiding mixed methods research (MMR). Journal of Mixed Methods Studies, 1, 44-56.
Gunbayı, İ., & Sorm, S. (2018). Social paradigms in guiding social research design: The functional, interpretive, radical humanist and radical structural paradigms. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 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 emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. American Journal of Epidemiology, 183(8), 758-764.
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 559-604), Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Marrow, A. J. (1969). The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin. Basic Books, Inc.
McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2011). All you need to know about action research. 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, London.
Miller, F. G., & Brody, H. (2003). A critique of clinical equipoise: Therapeutic misconception in the ethics of clinical trials. The Hastings Center Report, 33(3), 19-28.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Sage Publications, Inc.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Sage.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.,Thousand Oaks.
Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences. Free Press.
Whitehead, D., & Schneider, Z. (2013). Mixed-Methods Research in Nursing and Midwifery Research: Methods and Appraisal 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 