action research is in nature

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

Published on January 27, 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on January 12, 2024.

Table of contents

Types of action research, action research models, examples of action research, action research vs. traditional research, advantages and disadvantages of action research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about action research.

There are 2 common types of action research: participatory action research and practical action research.

• Participatory action research emphasizes that participants should be members of the community being studied, empowering those directly affected by outcomes of said research. In this method, participants are effectively co-researchers, with their lived experiences considered formative to the research process.
• Practical action research focuses more on how research is conducted and is designed to address and solve specific issues.

Both types of action research are more focused on increasing the capacity and ability of future practitioners than contributing to a theoretical body of knowledge.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Action research is often reflected in 3 action research models: operational (sometimes called technical), collaboration, and critical reflection.

• Operational (or technical) action research is usually visualized like a spiral following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”
• Collaboration action research is more community-based, focused on building a network of similar individuals (e.g., college professors in a given geographic area) and compiling learnings from iterated feedback cycles.
• Critical reflection action research serves to contextualize systemic processes that are already ongoing (e.g., working retroactively to analyze existing school systems by questioning why certain practices were put into place and developed the way they did).

Action research is often used in fields like education because of its iterative and flexible style.

After the information was collected, the students were asked where they thought ramps or other accessibility measures would be best utilized, and the suggestions were sent to school administrators. Example: Practical action research Science teachers at your city’s high school have been witnessing a year-over-year decline in standardized test scores in chemistry. In seeking the source of this issue, they studied how concepts are taught in depth, focusing on the methods, tools, and approaches used by each teacher.

Action research differs sharply from other types of research in that it seeks to produce actionable processes over the course of the research rather than contributing to existing knowledge or drawing conclusions from datasets. In this way, action research is formative , not summative , and is conducted in an ongoing, iterative way.

As such, action research is different in purpose, context, and significance and is a good fit for those seeking to implement systemic change.

Action research comes with advantages and disadvantages.

• Action research is highly adaptable , allowing researchers to mold their analysis to their individual needs and implement practical individual-level changes.
• Action research provides an immediate and actionable path forward for solving entrenched issues, rather than suggesting complicated, longer-term solutions rooted in complex data.
• Done correctly, action research can be very empowering , informing social change and allowing participants to effect that change in ways meaningful to their communities.

Disadvantages

• Due to their flexibility, action research studies are plagued by very limited generalizability  and are very difficult to replicate . They are often not considered theoretically rigorous due to the power the researcher holds in drawing conclusions.
• Action research can be complicated to structure in an ethical manner . Participants may feel pressured to participate or to participate in a certain way.
• Action research is at high risk for research biases such as selection bias , social desirability bias , or other types of cognitive biases .

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.

Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.

Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.

A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”

Sources in this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

George, T. (2024, January 12). What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 27, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/action-research/

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th edition). Routledge.

Naughton, G. M. (2001).  Action research (1st edition). Routledge.

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is an observational study | guide & examples, primary research | definition, types, & examples, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Action Research: Steps, Benefits, and Tips

Introduction

History of action research, what is the definition of action research, types of action research, conducting action research.

Action research is an approach to qualitative inquiry in social science research that involves the search for practical solutions to everyday issues. Rooted in real-world problems, it seeks not just to understand but also to act, bringing about positive change in specific contexts. Often distinguished by its collaborative nature, the action research process goes beyond traditional research paradigms by emphasizing the involvement of those being studied in resolving social conflicts and effecting positive change.

The value of action research lies not just in its outcomes, but also in the process itself, where stakeholders become active participants rather than mere subjects. In this article, we'll examine action research in depth, shedding light on its history, principles, and types of action research.

Tracing its roots back to the mid-20th century, Kurt Lewin developed classical action research as a response to traditional research methods in the social sciences that often sidelined the very communities they studied. Proponents of action research championed the idea that research should not just be an observational exercise but an actionable one that involves devising practical solutions. Advocates believed in the idea of research leading to immediate social action, emphasizing the importance of involving the community in the process.

Applications for action research

Over the years, action research has evolved and diversified. From its early applications in social psychology and organizational development, it has branched out into various fields such as education, healthcare, and community development, informing questions around improving schools, minority problems, and more. This growth wasn't just in application, but also in its methodologies.

How is action research different?

Like all research methodologies, effective action research generates knowledge. However, action research stands apart in its commitment to instigate tangible change. Traditional research often places emphasis on passive observation , employing data collection methods primarily to contribute to broader theoretical frameworks . In contrast, action research is inherently proactive, intertwining the acts of observing and acting.

The primary goal isn't just to understand a problem but to solve or alleviate it. Action researchers partner closely with communities, ensuring that the research process directly benefits those involved. This collaboration often leads to immediate interventions, tweaks, or solutions applied in real-time, marking a departure from other forms of research that might wait until the end of a study to make recommendations.

This proactive, change-driven nature makes action research particularly impactful in settings where immediate change is not just beneficial but essential.

Action research is best understood as a systematic approach to cooperative inquiry. Unlike traditional research methodologies that might primarily focus on generating knowledge, action research emphasizes producing actionable solutions for pressing real-world challenges.

This form of research undertakes a cyclic and reflective journey, typically cycling through stages of planning , acting, observing, and reflecting. A defining characteristic of action research is the collaborative spirit it embodies, often dissolving the rigid distinction between the researcher and the researched, leading to mutual learning and shared outcomes.

Advantages of action research

One of the foremost benefits of action research is the immediacy of its application. Since the research is embedded within real-world issues, any findings or solutions derived can often be integrated straightaway, catalyzing prompt improvements within the concerned community or organization. This immediacy is coupled with the empowering nature of the methodology. Participants aren't mere subjects; they actively shape the research process, giving them a tangible sense of ownership over both the research journey and its eventual outcomes.

Moreover, the inherent adaptability of action research allows researchers to tweak their approaches responsively based on live feedback. This ensures the research remains rooted in the evolving context, capturing the nuances of the situation and making any necessary adjustments. Lastly, this form of research tends to offer a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand, harmonizing socially constructed theoretical knowledge with hands-on insights, leading to a richer, more textured understanding.

Disadvantages of action research

Like any methodology, action research isn't devoid of challenges. Its iterative nature, while beneficial, can extend timelines. Researchers might find themselves engaged in multiple cycles of observation, reflection, and action before arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. The intimate involvement of the researcher with the research participants , although crucial for collaboration, opens doors to potential conflicts. Through collaborative problem solving, disagreements can lead to richer and more nuanced solutions, but it can take considerable time and effort.

Another limitation stems from its focus on a specific context: results derived from a particular action research project might not always resonate or be applicable in a different context or with a different group. Lastly, the depth of collaboration this methodology demands means all stakeholders need to be deeply invested, and such a level of commitment might not always be feasible.

Examples of action research

To illustrate, let's consider a few scenarios. Imagine a classroom where a teacher observes dwindling student participation. Instead of sticking to conventional methods, the teacher experiments with introducing group-based activities. As the outcomes unfold, the teacher continually refines the approach based on student feedback, eventually leading to a teaching strategy that rejuvenates student engagement.

In a healthcare context, hospital staff who recognize growing patient anxiety related to certain procedures might innovate by introducing a new patient-informing protocol. As they study the effects of this change, they could, through iterations, sculpt a procedure that diminishes patient anxiety.

Similarly, in the realm of community development, a community grappling with the absence of child-friendly public spaces might collaborate with local authorities to conceptualize a park. As they monitor its utilization and societal impact, continual feedback could refine the park's infrastructure and design.

Contemporary action research, while grounded in the core principles of collaboration, reflection, and change, has seen various adaptations tailored to the specific needs of different contexts and fields. These adaptations have led to the emergence of distinct types of action research, each with its unique emphasis and approach.

Collaborative action research

Collaborative action research emphasizes the joint efforts of professionals, often from the same field, working together to address common concerns or challenges. In this approach, there's a strong emphasis on shared responsibility, mutual respect, and co-learning. For example, a group of classroom teachers might collaboratively investigate methods to improve student literacy, pooling their expertise and resources to devise, implement, and refine strategies for improving teaching.

Participatory action research

Participatory action research (PAR) goes a step further in dissolving the barriers between the researcher and the researched. It actively involves community members or stakeholders not just as participants, but as equal partners in the entire research process. PAR is deeply democratic and seeks to empower participants, fostering a sense of agency and ownership. For instance, a participatory research project might involve local residents in studying and addressing community health concerns, ensuring that the research process and outcomes are both informed by and beneficial to the community itself.

Educational action research

Educational action research is tailored specifically to practical educational contexts. Here, educators take on the dual role of teacher and researcher, seeking to improve teaching practices, curricula, classroom dynamics, or educational evaluation. This type of research is cyclical, with educators implementing changes, observing outcomes, and reflecting on results to continually enhance the educational experience. An example might be a teacher studying the impact of technology integration in her classroom, adjusting strategies based on student feedback and learning outcomes.

Community-based action research

Another noteworthy type is community-based action research, which focuses primarily on community development and well-being. Rooted in the principles of social justice, this approach emphasizes the collective power of community members to identify, study, and address their challenges. It's particularly powerful in grassroots movements and local development projects where community insights and collaboration drive meaningful, sustainable change.

Key insights and critical reflection through research with ATLAS.ti

Organize all your data analysis and insights with our powerful interface. Download a free trial today.

Engaging in action research is both an enlightening and transformative journey, rooted in practicality yet deeply connected to theory. For those embarking on this path, understanding the essentials of an action research study and the significance of a research cycle is paramount.

Understanding the action research cycle

At the heart of action research is its cycle, a structured yet adaptable framework guiding the research. This cycle embodies the iterative nature of action research, emphasizing that learning and change evolve through repetition and reflection.

The typical stages include:

• Identifying a problem : This is the starting point where the action researcher pinpoints a pressing issue or challenge that demands attention.
• Planning : Here, the researcher devises an action research strategy aimed at addressing the identified problem. In action research, network resources, participant consultation, and the literature review are core components in planning.
• Action : The planned strategies are then implemented in this stage. This 'action' phase is where theoretical knowledge meets practical application.
• Observation : Post-implementation, the researcher observes the outcomes and effects of the action. This stage ensures that the research remains grounded in the real-world context.
• Critical reflection : This part of the cycle involves analyzing the observed results to draw conclusions about their effectiveness and identify areas for improvement.
• Revision : Based on the insights from reflection, the initial plan is revised, marking the beginning of another cycle.

Rigorous research and iteration

It's essential to understand that while action research is deeply practical, it doesn't sacrifice rigor . The cyclical process ensures that the research remains thorough and robust. Each iteration of the cycle in an action research project refines the approach, drawing it closer to an effective solution.

The role of the action researcher

The action researcher stands at the nexus of theory and practice. Not just an observer, the researcher actively engages with the study's participants, collaboratively navigating through the research cycle by conducting interviews, participant observations, and member checking . This close involvement ensures that the study remains relevant, timely, and responsive.

Drawing conclusions and informing theory

As the research progresses through multiple iterations of data collection and data analysis , drawing conclusions becomes an integral aspect. These conclusions, while immediately beneficial in addressing the practical issue at hand, also serve a broader purpose. They inform theory, enriching the academic discourse and providing valuable insights for future research.

Identifying actionable insights

Keep in mind that action research should facilitate implications for professional practice as well as space for systematic inquiry. As you draw conclusions about the knowledge generated from action research, consider how this knowledge can create new forms of solutions to the pressing concern you set out to address.

Collecting data and analyzing data starts with ATLAS.ti

Download a free trial of our intuitive software to make the most of your research.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Action research.

• Eileen S. Johnson Eileen S. Johnson Oakland University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.696
• Published online: 29 May 2020

Action research has become a common practice among educational administrators. The term “action research” was first coined by Kurt Lewin in the 1930s, although teachers and school administrators have long engaged in the process described by and formally named by Lewin. Alternatively known as practitioner research, self-study, action science, site-based inquiry, emancipatory praxis, etc., action research is essentially a collaborative, democratic, and participatory approach to systematic inquiry into a problem of practice within a local context. Action research has become prevalent in many fields and disciplines, including education, health sciences, nursing, social work, and anthropology. This prevalence can be understood in the way action research lends itself to action-based inquiry, participation, collaboration, and the development of solutions to problems of everyday practice in local contexts. In particular, action research has become commonplace in educational administration preparation programs due to its alignment and natural fit with the nature of education and the decision making and action planning necessary within local school contexts. Although there is not one prescribed way to engage in action research, and there are multiple approaches to action research, it generally follows a systematic and cyclical pattern of reflection, planning, action, observation, and data collection, evaluation that then repeats in an iterative and ongoing manner. The goal of action research is not to add to a general body of knowledge but, rather, to inform local practice, engage in professional learning, build a community practice, solve a problem or understand a process or phenomenon within a particular context, or empower participants to generate self-knowledge.

• action research cycle
• educational practice
• historical trends
• philosophical assumptions
• variations of action research

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 28 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [162.248.224.4]
• 162.248.224.4

Character limit 500 /500

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

1 What is Action Research for Classroom Teachers?

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

• What is the nature of action research?
• How does action research develop in the classroom?
• What models of action research work best for your classroom?
• What are the epistemological, ontological, theoretical underpinnings of action research?

Educational research provides a vast landscape of knowledge on topics related to teaching and learning, curriculum and assessment, students’ cognitive and affective needs, cultural and socio-economic factors of schools, and many other factors considered viable to improving schools. Educational stakeholders rely on research to make informed decisions that ultimately affect the quality of schooling for their students. Accordingly, the purpose of educational research is to engage in disciplined inquiry to generate knowledge on topics significant to the students, teachers, administrators, schools, and other educational stakeholders. Just as the topics of educational research vary, so do the approaches to conducting educational research in the classroom. Your approach to research will be shaped by your context, your professional identity, and paradigm (set of beliefs and assumptions that guide your inquiry). These will all be key factors in how you generate knowledge related to your work as an educator.

Action research is an approach to educational research that is commonly used by educational practitioners and professionals to examine, and ultimately improve, their pedagogy and practice. In this way, action research represents an extension of the reflection and critical self-reflection that an educator employs on a daily basis in their classroom. When students are actively engaged in learning, the classroom can be dynamic and uncertain, demanding the constant attention of the educator. Considering these demands, educators are often only able to engage in reflection that is fleeting, and for the purpose of accommodation, modification, or formative assessment. Action research offers one path to more deliberate, substantial, and critical reflection that can be documented and analyzed to improve an educator’s practice.

Purpose of Action Research

As one of many approaches to educational research, it is important to distinguish the potential purposes of action research in the classroom. This book focuses on action research as a method to enable and support educators in pursuing effective pedagogical practices by transforming the quality of teaching decisions and actions, to subsequently enhance student engagement and learning. Being mindful of this purpose, the following aspects of action research are important to consider as you contemplate and engage with action research methodology in your classroom:

• Action research is a process for improving educational practice. Its methods involve action, evaluation, and reflection. It is a process to gather evidence to implement change in practices.
• Action research is participative and collaborative. It is undertaken by individuals with a common purpose.
• Action research is situation and context-based.
• Action research develops reflection practices based on the interpretations made by participants.
• Knowledge is created through action and application.
• Action research can be based in problem-solving, if the solution to the problem results in the improvement of practice.
• Action research is iterative; plans are created, implemented, revised, then implemented, lending itself to an ongoing process of reflection and revision.
• In action research, findings emerge as action develops and takes place; however, they are not conclusive or absolute, but ongoing (Koshy, 2010, pgs. 1-2).

In thinking about the purpose of action research, it is helpful to situate action research as a distinct paradigm of educational research. I like to think about action research as part of the larger concept of living knowledge. Living knowledge has been characterized as “a quest for life, to understand life and to create… knowledge which is valid for the people with whom I work and for myself” (Swantz, in Reason & Bradbury, 2001, pg. 1). Why should educators care about living knowledge as part of educational research? As mentioned above, action research is meant “to produce practical knowledge that is useful to people in the everyday conduct of their lives and to see that action research is about working towards practical outcomes” (Koshy, 2010, pg. 2). However, it is also about:

creating new forms of understanding, since action without reflection and understanding is blind, just as theory without action is meaningless. The participatory nature of action research makes it only possible with, for and by persons and communities, ideally involving all stakeholders both in the questioning and sense making that informs the research, and in the action, which is its focus. (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, pg. 2)

In an effort to further situate action research as living knowledge, Jean McNiff reminds us that “there is no such ‘thing’ as ‘action research’” (2013, pg. 24). In other words, action research is not static or finished, it defines itself as it proceeds. McNiff’s reminder characterizes action research as action-oriented, and a process that individuals go through to make their learning public to explain how it informs their practice. Action research does not derive its meaning from an abstract idea, or a self-contained discovery – action research’s meaning stems from the way educators negotiate the problems and successes of living and working in the classroom, school, and community.

While we can debate the idea of action research, there are people who are action researchers, and they use the idea of action research to develop principles and theories to guide their practice. Action research, then, refers to an organization of principles that guide action researchers as they act on shared beliefs, commitments, and expectations in their inquiry.

Reflection and the Process of Action Research

When an individual engages in reflection on their actions or experiences, it is typically for the purpose of better understanding those experiences, or the consequences of those actions to improve related action and experiences in the future. Reflection in this way develops knowledge around these actions and experiences to help us better regulate those actions in the future. The reflective process generates new knowledge regularly for classroom teachers and informs their classroom actions.

Unfortunately, the knowledge generated by educators through the reflective process is not always prioritized among the other sources of knowledge educators are expected to utilize in the classroom. Educators are expected to draw upon formal types of knowledge, such as textbooks, content standards, teaching standards, district curriculum and behavioral programs, etc., to gain new knowledge and make decisions in the classroom. While these forms of knowledge are important, the reflective knowledge that educators generate through their pedagogy is the amalgamation of these types of knowledge enacted in the classroom. Therefore, reflective knowledge is uniquely developed based on the action and implementation of an educator’s pedagogy in the classroom. Action research offers a way to formalize the knowledge generated by educators so that it can be utilized and disseminated throughout the teaching profession.

Research is concerned with the generation of knowledge, and typically creating knowledge related to a concept, idea, phenomenon, or topic. Action research generates knowledge around inquiry in practical educational contexts. Action research allows educators to learn through their actions with the purpose of developing personally or professionally. Due to its participatory nature, the process of action research is also distinct in educational research. There are many models for how the action research process takes shape. I will share a few of those here. Each model utilizes the following processes to some extent:

• Plan a change;
• Take action to enact the change;
• Observe the process and consequences of the change;
• Reflect on the process and consequences;
• Act, observe, & reflect again and so on.

Figure 1.1 Basic action research cycle

There are many other models that supplement the basic process of action research with other aspects of the research process to consider. For example, figure 1.2 illustrates a spiral model of action research proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart (2004). The spiral model emphasizes the cyclical process that moves beyond the initial plan for change. The spiral model also emphasizes revisiting the initial plan and revising based on the initial cycle of research:

Figure 1.2 Interpretation of action research spiral, Kemmis and McTaggart (2004, p. 595)

Other models of action research reorganize the process to emphasize the distinct ways knowledge takes shape in the reflection process. O’Leary’s (2004, p. 141) model, for example, recognizes that the research may take shape in the classroom as knowledge emerges from the teacher’s observations. O’Leary highlights the need for action research to be focused on situational understanding and implementation of action, initiated organically from real-time issues:

Figure 1.3 Interpretation of O’Leary’s cycles of research, O’Leary (2000, p. 141)

Lastly, Macintyre’s (2000, p. 1) model, offers a different characterization of the action research process. Macintyre emphasizes a messier process of research with the initial reflections and conclusions as the benchmarks for guiding the research process. Macintyre emphasizes the flexibility in planning, acting, and observing stages to allow the process to be naturalistic. Our interpretation of Macintyre process is below:

Figure 1.4 Interpretation of the action research cycle, Macintyre (2000, p. 1)

We believe it is important to prioritize the flexibility of the process, and encourage you to only use these models as basic guides for your process. Your process may look similar, or you may diverge from these models as you better understand your students, context, and data.

Definitions of Action Research and Examples

At this point, it may be helpful for readers to have a working definition of action research and some examples to illustrate the methodology in the classroom. Bassey (1998, p. 93) offers a very practical definition and describes “action research as an inquiry which is carried out in order to understand, to evaluate and then to change, in order to improve educational practice.” Cohen and Manion (1994, p. 192) situate action research differently, and describe action research as emergent, writing:

essentially an on-the-spot procedure designed to deal with a concrete problem located in an immediate situation. This means that ideally, the step-by-step process is constantly monitored over varying periods of time and by a variety of mechanisms (questionnaires, diaries, interviews and case studies, for example) so that the ensuing feedback may be translated into modifications, adjustment, directional changes, redefinitions, as necessary, so as to bring about lasting benefit to the ongoing process itself rather than to some future occasion.

Lastly, Koshy (2010, p. 9) describes action research as:

a constructive inquiry, during which the researcher constructs his or her knowledge of specific issues through planning, acting, evaluating, refining and learning from the experience. It is a continuous learning process in which the researcher learns and also shares the newly generated knowledge with those who may benefit from it.

These definitions highlight the distinct features of action research and emphasize the purposeful intent of action researchers to improve, refine, reform, and problem-solve issues in their educational context. To better understand the distinctness of action research, these are some examples of action research topics:

Examples of Action Research Topics

• Flexible seating in 4th grade classroom to increase effective collaborative learning.
• Structured homework protocols for increasing student achievement.
• Developing a system of formative feedback for 8th grade writing.
• Using music to stimulate creative writing.
• Weekly brown bag lunch sessions to improve responses to PD from staff.
• Using exercise balls as chairs for better classroom management.

Action Research in Theory

Action research-based inquiry in educational contexts and classrooms involves distinct participants – students, teachers, and other educational stakeholders within the system. All of these participants are engaged in activities to benefit the students, and subsequently society as a whole. Action research contributes to these activities and potentially enhances the participants’ roles in the education system. Participants’ roles are enhanced based on two underlying principles:

• communities, schools, and classrooms are sites of socially mediated actions, and action research provides a greater understanding of self and new knowledge of how to negotiate these socially mediated environments;
• communities, schools, and classrooms are part of social systems in which humans interact with many cultural tools, and action research provides a basis to construct and analyze these interactions.

In our quest for knowledge and understanding, we have consistently analyzed human experience over time and have distinguished between types of reality. Humans have constantly sought “facts” and “truth” about reality that can be empirically demonstrated or observed.

Social systems are based on beliefs, and generally, beliefs about what will benefit the greatest amount of people in that society. Beliefs, and more specifically the rationale or support for beliefs, are not always easy to demonstrate or observe as part of our reality. Take the example of an English Language Arts teacher who prioritizes argumentative writing in her class. She believes that argumentative writing demonstrates the mechanics of writing best among types of writing, while also providing students a skill they will need as citizens and professionals. While we can observe the students writing, and we can assess their ability to develop a written argument, it is difficult to observe the students’ understanding of argumentative writing and its purpose in their future. This relates to the teacher’s beliefs about argumentative writing; we cannot observe the real value of the teaching of argumentative writing. The teacher’s rationale and beliefs about teaching argumentative writing are bound to the social system and the skills their students will need to be active parts of that system. Therefore, our goal through action research is to demonstrate the best ways to teach argumentative writing to help all participants understand its value as part of a social system.

The knowledge that is conveyed in a classroom is bound to, and justified by, a social system. A postmodernist approach to understanding our world seeks knowledge within a social system, which is directly opposed to the empirical or positivist approach which demands evidence based on logic or science as rationale for beliefs. Action research does not rely on a positivist viewpoint to develop evidence and conclusions as part of the research process. Action research offers a postmodernist stance to epistemology (theory of knowledge) and supports developing questions and new inquiries during the research process. In this way action research is an emergent process that allows beliefs and decisions to be negotiated as reality and meaning are being constructed in the socially mediated space of the classroom.

Theorizing Action Research for the Classroom

All research, at its core, is for the purpose of generating new knowledge and contributing to the knowledge base of educational research. Action researchers in the classroom want to explore methods of improving their pedagogy and practice. The starting place of their inquiry stems from their pedagogy and practice, so by nature the knowledge created from their inquiry is often contextually specific to their classroom, school, or community. Therefore, we should examine the theoretical underpinnings of action research for the classroom. It is important to connect action research conceptually to experience; for example, Levin and Greenwood (2001, p. 105) make these connections:

• Action research is context bound and addresses real life problems.
• Action research is inquiry where participants and researchers cogenerate knowledge through collaborative communicative processes in which all participants’ contributions are taken seriously.
• The meanings constructed in the inquiry process lead to social action or these reflections and action lead to the construction of new meanings.
• The credibility/validity of action research knowledge is measured according to whether the actions that arise from it solve problems (workability) and increase participants’ control over their own situation.

Educators who engage in action research will generate new knowledge and beliefs based on their experiences in the classroom. Let us emphasize that these are all important to you and your work, as both an educator and researcher. It is these experiences, beliefs, and theories that are often discounted when more official forms of knowledge (e.g., textbooks, curriculum standards, districts standards) are prioritized. These beliefs and theories based on experiences should be valued and explored further, and this is one of the primary purposes of action research in the classroom. These beliefs and theories should be valued because they were meaningful aspects of knowledge constructed from teachers’ experiences. Developing meaning and knowledge in this way forms the basis of constructivist ideology, just as teachers often try to get their students to construct their own meanings and understandings when experiencing new ideas.  

Classroom Teachers Constructing their Own Knowledge

Most of you are probably at least minimally familiar with constructivism, or the process of constructing knowledge. However, what is constructivism precisely, for the purposes of action research? Many scholars have theorized constructivism and have identified two key attributes (Koshy, 2010; von Glasersfeld, 1987):

• Knowledge is not passively received, but actively developed through an individual’s cognition;
• Human cognition is adaptive and finds purpose in organizing the new experiences of the world, instead of settling for absolute or objective truth.

Considering these two attributes, constructivism is distinct from conventional knowledge formation because people can develop a theory of knowledge that orders and organizes the world based on their experiences, instead of an objective or neutral reality. When individuals construct knowledge, there are interactions between an individual and their environment where communication, negotiation and meaning-making are collectively developing knowledge. For most educators, constructivism may be a natural inclination of their pedagogy. Action researchers have a similar relationship to constructivism because they are actively engaged in a process of constructing knowledge. However, their constructions may be more formal and based on the data they collect in the research process. Action researchers also are engaged in the meaning making process, making interpretations from their data. These aspects of the action research process situate them in the constructivist ideology. Just like constructivist educators, action researchers’ constructions of knowledge will be affected by their individual and professional ideas and values, as well as the ecological context in which they work (Biesta & Tedder, 2006). The relations between constructivist inquiry and action research is important, as Lincoln (2001, p. 130) states:

much of the epistemological, ontological, and axiological belief systems are the same or similar, and methodologically, constructivists and action researchers work in similar ways, relying on qualitative methods in face-to-face work, while buttressing information, data and background with quantitative method work when necessary or useful.

While there are many links between action research and educators in the classroom, constructivism offers the most familiar and practical threads to bind the beliefs of educators and action researchers.  

Epistemology, Ontology, and Action Research

It is also important for educators to consider the philosophical stances related to action research to better situate it with their beliefs and reality. When researchers make decisions about the methodology they intend to use, they will consider their ontological and epistemological stances. It is vital that researchers clearly distinguish their philosophical stances and understand the implications of their stance in the research process, especially when collecting and analyzing their data. In what follows, we will discuss ontological and epistemological stances in relation to action research methodology.

Ontology, or the theory of being, is concerned with the claims or assumptions we make about ourselves within our social reality – what do we think exists, what does it look like, what entities are involved and how do these entities interact with each other (Blaikie, 2007). In relation to the discussion of constructivism, generally action researchers would consider their educational reality as socially constructed. Social construction of reality happens when individuals interact in a social system. Meaningful construction of concepts and representations of reality develop through an individual’s interpretations of others’ actions. These interpretations become agreed upon by members of a social system and become part of social fabric, reproduced as knowledge and beliefs to develop assumptions about reality. Researchers develop meaningful constructions based on their experiences and through communication. Educators as action researchers will be examining the socially constructed reality of schools. In the United States, many of our concepts, knowledge, and beliefs about schooling have been socially constructed over the last hundred years. For example, a group of teachers may look at why fewer female students enroll in upper-level science courses at their school. This question deals directly with the social construction of gender and specifically what careers females have been conditioned to pursue. We know this is a social construction in some school social systems because in other parts of the world, or even the United States, there are schools that have more females enrolled in upper level science courses than male students. Therefore, the educators conducting the research have to recognize the socially constructed reality of their school and consider this reality throughout the research process. Action researchers will use methods of data collection that support their ontological stance and clarify their theoretical stance throughout the research process.

Koshy (2010, p. 23-24) offers another example of addressing the ontological challenges in the classroom:

A teacher who was concerned with increasing her pupils’ motivation and enthusiasm for learning decided to introduce learning diaries which the children could take home. They were invited to record their reactions to the day’s lessons and what they had learnt. The teacher reported in her field diary that the learning diaries stimulated the children’s interest in her lessons, increased their capacity to learn, and generally improved their level of participation in lessons. The challenge for the teacher here is in the analysis and interpretation of the multiplicity of factors accompanying the use of diaries. The diaries were taken home so the entries may have been influenced by discussions with parents. Another possibility is that children felt the need to please their teacher. Another possible influence was that their increased motivation was as a result of the difference in style of teaching which included more discussions in the classroom based on the entries in the dairies.

Here you can see the challenge for the action researcher is working in a social context with multiple factors, values, and experiences that were outside of the teacher’s control. The teacher was only responsible for introducing the diaries as a new style of learning. The students’ engagement and interactions with this new style of learning were all based upon their socially constructed notions of learning inside and outside of the classroom. A researcher with a positivist ontological stance would not consider these factors, and instead might simply conclude that the dairies increased motivation and interest in the topic, as a result of introducing the diaries as a learning strategy.

Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, signifies a philosophical view of what counts as knowledge – it justifies what is possible to be known and what criteria distinguishes knowledge from beliefs (Blaikie, 1993). Positivist researchers, for example, consider knowledge to be certain and discovered through scientific processes. Action researchers collect data that is more subjective and examine personal experience, insights, and beliefs.

Action researchers utilize interpretation as a means for knowledge creation. Action researchers have many epistemologies to choose from as means of situating the types of knowledge they will generate by interpreting the data from their research. For example, Koro-Ljungberg et al., (2009) identified several common epistemologies in their article that examined epistemological awareness in qualitative educational research, such as: objectivism, subjectivism, constructionism, contextualism, social epistemology, feminist epistemology, idealism, naturalized epistemology, externalism, relativism, skepticism, and pluralism. All of these epistemological stances have implications for the research process, especially data collection and analysis. Please see the table on pages 689-90, linked below for a sketch of these potential implications:

Again, Koshy (2010, p. 24) provides an excellent example to illustrate the epistemological challenges within action research:

A teacher of 11-year-old children decided to carry out an action research project which involved a change in style in teaching mathematics. Instead of giving children mathematical tasks displaying the subject as abstract principles, she made links with other subjects which she believed would encourage children to see mathematics as a discipline that could improve their understanding of the environment and historic events. At the conclusion of the project, the teacher reported that applicable mathematics generated greater enthusiasm and understanding of the subject.

The educator/researcher engaged in action research-based inquiry to improve an aspect of her pedagogy. She generated knowledge that indicated she had improved her students’ understanding of mathematics by integrating it with other subjects – specifically in the social and ecological context of her classroom, school, and community. She valued constructivism and students generating their own understanding of mathematics based on related topics in other subjects. Action researchers working in a social context do not generate certain knowledge, but knowledge that emerges and can be observed and researched again, building upon their knowledge each time.

Researcher Positionality in Action Research

In this first chapter, we have discussed a lot about the role of experiences in sparking the research process in the classroom. Your experiences as an educator will shape how you approach action research in your classroom. Your experiences as a person in general will also shape how you create knowledge from your research process. In particular, your experiences will shape how you make meaning from your findings. It is important to be clear about your experiences when developing your methodology too. This is referred to as researcher positionality. Maher and Tetreault (1993, p. 118) define positionality as:

Gender, race, class, and other aspects of our identities are markers of relational positions rather than essential qualities. Knowledge is valid when it includes an acknowledgment of the knower’s specific position in any context, because changing contextual and relational factors are crucial for defining identities and our knowledge in any given situation.

By presenting your positionality in the research process, you are signifying the type of socially constructed, and other types of, knowledge you will be using to make sense of the data. As Maher and Tetreault explain, this increases the trustworthiness of your conclusions about the data. This would not be possible with a positivist ontology. We will discuss positionality more in chapter 6, but we wanted to connect it to the overall theoretical underpinnings of action research.

Advantages of Engaging in Action Research in the Classroom

In the following chapters, we will discuss how action research takes shape in your classroom, and we wanted to briefly summarize the key advantages to action research methodology over other types of research methodology. As Koshy (2010, p. 25) notes, action research provides useful methodology for school and classroom research because:

Advantages of Action Research for the Classroom

• research can be set within a specific context or situation;
• researchers can be participants – they don’t have to be distant and detached from the situation;
• it involves continuous evaluation and modifications can be made easily as the project progresses;
• there are opportunities for theory to emerge from the research rather than always follow a previously formulated theory;
• the study can lead to open-ended outcomes;
• through action research, a researcher can bring a story to life.

Action Research Copyright © by J. Spencer Clark; Suzanne Porath; Julie Thiele; and Morgan Jobe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Understanding Action Research Margaret Riel Last Edit April, 2024

Action research is not a single approach but rather represents a tension between a number of forces that lead to personal, professional, and social change. I think of action research as a process of deep inquiry into one's practices in service of moving towards an envisioned future aligned with values. Action research can be seen as a systematic, reflective study of one's actions and the effects of these actions in a workplace or organizational context. As such, it involves a deep inquiry into one's professional practice. However, it is also a collaborative process as it is done WITH people in a social context, and understanding the change means probing multiple understandings of complex social systems. And finally, as research, it implies a commitment to data sharing.

There is a range of modifiers that people use for action research and many different dimensions that can be highlighted in different ways to create what some have called a family of approaches to action research (Noffke and Somekh, 2009; McNiff, 2013; Rowell, Polush, Riel and Bruewer, 2015; Rowell, Riel & Polush, 2017, Action Research Tutorial 2 ). We use collaborative action research to highlight the different ways in which action research is a social process.

Action researchers examine their interactions and relationships in social settings seeking opportunities for improvement. As designers and stakeholders, they work with their colleagues to propose new courses of action that help their community improve work practices. As researchers, they seek evidence from multiple sources to help them analyze reactions to the action taken. They recognize their own view as subjective and seek to develop their understanding of the events from multiple perspectives. The action researcher uses data collected from interactions with others to characterize the forces in ways that can be shared with other practitioners. This leads to a reflective phase in which the action researchers formulate new plans for action during the next cycle.

Action research provides a path of learning from and through one's practice by working through a series of reflective stages that facilitate the development of progressive problem-solving (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). Over time, action researchers develop a deep understanding of the ways in which a variety of social and environmental forces interact to create complex patterns. Since these forces are dynamic, action research is a process of living one's theory into practice (McNiff & Whitehead, 2010) or taking a living and learning stance towards teaching (Clive Beck, 2017). This diagram illustrates the process of action research through time.

                                                              Figure 1: The iterative process of action research

The subject(s) of action research are the actions taken, the resulting change, and the transformation thinking, acting, and feeling by the persons enacting the change. While the design of action research may originate with an individual, the process of change is always social. Over time, the action researcher often extends the arena of change to a widening group of stakeholders. The goal is a deeper understanding of the factors of change that result in positive personal and professional change.

This form of research, then, is an iterative, cyclical process of reflecting on practice, taking an action, reflecting, and taking further action. Therefore, the research takes shape while it is being performed. Greater understanding from each cycle points to the way to improved practice (Riel and Rowell, 2016).

Action researchers differ in the weight that they put on different factors or dimensions of action research (for more discussion and examples, see Rowell, Riel and Polush, 2016). Each action researcher evolves his or her approach to doing action research as the conditions and support structures are unique. To understand how action research varies, I describe two points, A, and B, along six dimensions. When someone engages in action research, they (or others) make choices that place them at some point along the continuum for each dimension. Some will argue that side A, or B, or a perfect balance between them, is ideal, or even necessary, to call the process action research. Most will have very convincing arguments for why all action research should be done in the way they advocate. The dialogue is healthy and helps us each understand the value of the positions we take. By understanding the boundaries, we develop a deeper understanding of the process. (If you click on the continuum below, you can make your own choices and compare them with others. )

https://www.actionresearchtutorials.org/2-action-research-polls/

A. Practice - Emphasis on creating a transformative change in a social setting by taking purposeful action B. Inquiry  - Emphasis on rigorous methodology and methods for validating assumptions about what changed

A. Theory from Practice  - Using practices to generate theories beginning with values, needs, and human interaction B. Theory into Practice  - Using social science findings to inform patterns of change

A. Inside Expertise- Action researchers are empowered to locate problems of practice and develop methods to improve them B. Outside Expertise  - Action researchers form partnerships with outside experts to guide the process

A. Individual Process  - Action researchers select their own questions to investigate B. Group Process  - A group of action researchers select a common question or set of questions to investigate

A. Problem-Based Approach - Action Researchers locate problems and engage in progressive problem-solving in cycles B. Inquiry-Based Approach  - Action Researchers explore effective practices to better understand and perfect them through multiple cycles

A. Identity Change  - The primary outcome of action research is changing the way the action researcher thinks, acts, and feels B. Social Change  -The primary outcomes of action research is the shift in the social context where people collectively change how they act, think and feel

A. Shared Practices  - Action Researchers share what they have learned informally at their site B. Shared Knowledge- Action Researchers share their findings in more formal contexts

Authors and professors, as well as practitioners, often have very strong views about what are the essential (and nonessential) characteristics of action research. The movement to one or the other side of each continuum represents shifts in the action research approach.

I like to think of action research as a disposition of mind as well as a research approach. It is a commitment to cycles of collective inquiry with shared reflections on the outcomes leading to new ideas. Action research forms a path towards a professional "adaptive" expertise. Hatona and Ingaki (1986) set out a contrast between efficiency expertise and adaptive expertise. I have added innovative expertise and created this chart.

                   Figure 2: The path to expertise

The yellow path can also be applied to the activist who is singled minded without researching the outcomes and consequences of action, The blue panel might be the path of researchers who do not apply their theories to change contexts. The green combines inquiry and activism to engage in action research. When you balance these two different learning approaches, you follow the green path of action research, leading to adaptive expertise and the acquisition of a deeper understanding of yourself and others.

Goals of Action Research include:

The improvement of professional practice through continual learning and progressive problem-solving;

A deep understanding of practice and the development of a well-specified theory of action ;

An improvement in the community in which one's practice is embedded through participatory research.  

Action research involves a systematic process of examining the evidence. The results of this type of research are practical, relevant, and can inform theory. Action research is different from other forms of research as there is less concern for the universality of findings, and more value is placed on the relevance of the findings to the researcher and the local collaborators. Critical reflection is at the heart of action research. When this reflection is based on careful examination of evidence from multiple perspectives, it can provide an effective strategy for improving the organization's ways of working and the whole organizational climate. It can be the process through which an organization learns.

We conceptualize action research as having three outcomes—

               1)  Professional Transformation

               2)  Organizational Theory of Change

               3)  Scholarly Identity through Sharing Research

                              Figure 3: Outcomes of Action Research  (from Riel and Lepori, 2011)

1)  Professional Transformation

At the personal level, it is a systematic set of methods for interpreting and evaluating one’s actions with the goal of improving practice. Action research is often located in schools and done by teachers, but it can also be carried out in museums, medical organizations, corporations, churches, and clubs—any setting where people are engaged in collective, goal-directed activity. Equally important, not all teacher research is action research. Teachers can do ethnographic, evaluative, or experimental research that is NOT action research. The process of doing action research involves progressive problem solving, balancing efficiency with innovation thereby developing what has been called an “adaptive” form of expertise.

 2)  Organizational Theory of Change

At the organizational level, action research is about understanding the system of interactions that define a social context. Kurt Lewin proposed action research as a method of understanding social systems or organizational learning. He claimed that the best way to test understanding was to try to effect change. Action research goes beyond self-study because actions, outcomes, goals, and assumptions are located in complex social systems. The action researcher begins with a theory of action focused on the intentional introduction of change into a social system with assumptions about the outcomes. This theory testing requires careful attention to data, and skill in interpretation and analysis. Activity theory, social network theory, system theories, and tools of evaluation such as surveys, interviews, and focus groups can help the action researcher acquire a deep understanding of change in social contexts within organizations.

                                    Figure 4. Activity Theory Model based on the work of Engeström (2004)

It is often said that action research is done with, not on, people.  This raises the question about the roles of the other people who are part of the research process ?   In some cases, there will be a team of action researchers working together.  They might be studying the same action or similar actions.  For example, in one form of action research called lesson study, a teacher team collectively designs a change in the form of a lesson. All teachers study each teacher's implementation of the change--that is teach the lesson. Together evolve the lesson.   In another example, community-based action research, there are teams of people who are implementing and studying the change, but they might all have slightly different roles.   Some of them might be engaged in action research, and others might be doing something that might better be called active learning.   I adapted this figure from Mattias Elg & Per-Erik Ellström ( 2012)  to illustrate the overlapping cycles of participants and action researcher(s).  While the action researcher(s) might take the lead in the analysis of the evidence of change, everyone is fully engaged in the process of moving from problem to action to reflection on outcomes to evolve a theory of change to guide future actions. 

3)  S cholarly Identity through Sharing Research

At the scholarly level, the action researcher produces validated findings and assumes a responsibility to share these findings with those in their setting and with the larger research community. Many people acquire expertise in their workplace, but researchers value the process of building knowledge through ongoing dialogue about the nature of their findings. Engaging in this dialogue through writing or presenting at conferences is part of the process of action research.

Action Research and Learning Circles

            Figure 5: Learning Circle Model

Developing Action Research Questions: A Guide to Progressive Inquiry

The questions asked by action researchers guide their process. A good question will inspire one to look closely and collect evidence that will help find possible answers. What are good examples of action research questions? What are questions that are less likely to promote the process of deep sustained inquiry? The best question is the one that will inspire the researcher to look at their practice deeply and to engage in cycles of continuous learning from the everyday practice of their craft. These questions come from a desire to have practice align with values and beliefs. Exploring these questions helps the researcher to be progressively more effective in attaining their personal goals and developing professional expertise.

Good questions often arise from visions of improved practice and emerging theories about the change that will move the researcher closer to the ideal state of working practices. When stated in an if/then format, they can take the shape of a research hypothesis. If I [insert the action to be taken], how will it affect [describe one or more possible consequences of the action]? We will look at two examples, one from education and one from a business setting.

Development of Action Research Questions in an Educational Context

Suppose the researcher is worried about designing the learning context to meet the needs of students who are currently not doing well in the classroom. The general inquiry question might be:

How can I personalize instruction to match the diverse needs of my students?

This forms a good overall goal which can then lead to a number of possible cycles of action research, each with a separate question. A good cycle research question has two parts: the first part describes the action to be studied, and the second part focuses on the outcome that is anticipated.

Consider this question:

If I listen to students, will I have a better understanding of them?

This question suggests action and a possible outcome but is vague in both the description of the action and the possible outcome. It is not clear what is going to be done to increase attention to students and what evidence will help evaluate the action.

Now consider:

If I set up community circle time to listen to students, describe their learning experiences in my classroom (description of the action), in what ways, if any, will the information about their learning processes lead to changes in my teaching practices (description of the outcome that will be studied)?

Now it is clear what the researcher intends to do and what a possible outcome might be. In listening to students, the researcher might discover information that will lead directly to an experiment in instructional design or might refocus the overall goal to one that was not apparent when the researcher began the inquiry.

Development of Action Research Questions in a Corporate Context

The following is another example from a business setting where people in diverse offices are working in ways that would benefit from greater coordination.

The action researcher might identify the problem as one in which poor communication results in decisions being made without attending to the issue of how a decision affects the larger system. The researcher might see a role for technology in forging a solution to this problem, such as creating a database for storing and sharing documents. The overall research question might be:

How can the development of a common location for shared knowledge and the use of interactive communication tools increase the collaborative effectiveness of team-based decision-making in our different regions?

The next step is to define the communication tool to be used and how the researcher plans to measure the collaborative effectiveness of the distant teams.

Cycle questions that might evolve should be specific with respect to the actions taken and the outcomes that will be monitored:

If I create a wiki to share documents and increase coordination, to what extent will the teams use this means of storing information to coordinate their decision-making?

A second cycle question that might follow when it is clear that other teams failed to use the wiki as effectively as the researcher had hoped:

How will making all-day support available on instant messenger for questions about the use of the wiki affect the use of the wiki to organize group work?

Recognizing Weak Action Research Questions

Questions with known answers where the goal is to "prove" it to others .   For example, suppose a person has been holding family math night for years and sees an effect on parent participation. A weak question for action research would be: Will holding a family math night increase parent participation? This might be a useful evaluative research question where a controlled study could be set up to explore the connection. However, evaluative research is different from action research. Action research is an experiment in design and involves implementing an action to study its consequences.  

Questions that can be answered yes or no.   Generally, these are questions that will not encourage paying attention to the many nuances of the setting and social interactions. Although, like any guide, while some yes/no questions can provide direction, thinking about ways to transform the question into a different format is often helpful. For example, Will the introduction of project-based learning lead to more student engagement? The question might be reworked to, How will the introduction of project-based learning affect student engagement in my classroom? The first one, the researcher can answer the question with yes (an outcome that they might have expected). The second question guides them to look for the possible mechanism of project-based learning (maybe ownership, collaboration, or self-assessment) that has been found to be related to increased engagement.  

Questions that can be answered by reading the literature.   What does "a community of practice" mean? This might be a question that the researcher needs to answer, and can do so by reading more readily than by engaging in action research. A better formulation for action research might be: How will increasing the time for teacher collaboration in grade-level teams affect the development of a community of practice at our school?

Sharing your Action Research with Others:

One of the strongest acts of leadership can be writing—sharing knowledge and insights gained. Writing enables a contribution to the body of knowledge beyond the researcher. The final report serves the purpose of sharing the knowledge gained through action research with others in a community of practice. Action researchers will need to decide what to write and to whom to write.

A Written Report

The following is the recommended template for the Master of Arts in Learning Technologies thesis for Pepperdine students. However, an action research report may be organized in multiple ways.

INTRODUCTION:

The significance of the problem you are addressing. The reader needs to be invited to think about the problem at the widest level. This should answer the question—Why should I read this; why should I care about this study? This is not about the context but about the problem and how it is linked to your vision for a different future.

THE CONTEXT:

WORK/COMMUNITY CONTEXT (Action context)— Once you have posed a problem at a general level, you will need to provide the context of your work. There are two parts to this. One is the local context (this section,) and the other is the professional context (literature review). These can come in whatever order makes sense to you. In your local context, you may want to describe your membership/position in your community of practice, as well as how you have previously tried to address the problem described.

LITERATURE REVIEW (research context )— The literature is another way to set the context for your work. What previous work informs your understanding of the problem? What theories or predictions about outcomes come from past studies? How is what you plan to do similar or different from what others have tried?

THE RESEARCH:

RESEARCH QUESTION— The research question sets up your inquiry. The overall question is the overarching problem selected. The cycle questions are sub-questions that helped address this larger issue in different ways.

REPORT OF CYCLES OF RESEARCH— Action research takes place in cycles. Each cycle is a discrete experiment, taking action to study change. Your report needs to include a detailed report for each cycle as follows or a report of the cycles in a more summary format.

DESCRIPTION OF CYCLE ACTION: Description of what was planned and why this is an effective change. Might include some guesses about what will happen.

CYCLE RESEARCH QUESTION: A strong question describes the action and expected reactions. The first part of the question clearly states what you will do in very specific language. The second part shares your best guess at an outcome. (The reactions of others that you expect to result from your action.) Your action research is a design experiment. You are designing with an eye toward a deeper understanding of change.

DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED: Brief description of what took place. EVIDENCE USED TO EVALUATE THE ACTION: What evidence did you collect to tell you how others respond to your action? Where did you look for direct or indirect evidence of what happened? EVALUATION: How will you/did you evaluate the outcomes of your action?..... (Indicate your plans for your analysis in a paragraph or two). REFLECTION: Looking back on your action after collecting data, what thoughts come to mind? If you were to repeat the process, what would you change? What worked best for you? What most surprised you?

FINAL REFLECTION:

This is where you will take stock of your overall learning process during your action research. It might be helpful to think of a reflection as a set of connections between the past, present, and future. If this section is only a summary of events that happened, it is inadequate as a reflection. A reflection provides a deep understanding of why events occurred as they did, and how those outcomes helped you address your overarching question. At the conclusion of a good reflection, you should ideally know more than you did when you began. If you have not gained new insights about the problem and your problem-solving action, it is likely that you are only summarizing. Reflection is a powerful learning experience and an essential part of action research.

REFERENCES:

The references provide the context for your ideas. In many ways, the references indicate the community of researchers and writers that you are writing for. (See the  CCAR Tutorials  for detailed suggestions for each of these phases of action research.)

Publishing a Web Portfolio:

An important part of the action research process is sharing artifacts of the inquiry to enable the action researcher to continually reflect on practice so that peers may contribute to feedback and support. The Web Portfolio, then, becomes a place for both internal and external reflection.

A good action research portfolio, like a report, documents practices at each step of the inquiry. The accumulation of content provides critical mass for reflection and for recognizing the change of practice. There is no perfect template for an action research portfolio. One key idea, however, is to document each cycle and gather artifacts accordingly. That documentation process should utilize both descriptive and reflective writing.

The Center for Collaborative Action Research has collected action research portfolios that serve as effective models. The model portfolios are categorized into five groups: 

Classroom Action Research  

Youth Action Research  

Professional Development Action Research  

Community Participatory Action Research 

Organizational Action Research

In general, your web portfolio might include, but is not limited to, the following:

An overview of your problem at a general level and why you (and others) see this as an important challenge and some hints about what you did to solve it- this opening page should be engaging with photos, graphics, and possibly a video or audio intro from you

A description of the problem that you are researching with an action to be taken

A detailed description of the field of action (the action context)

A review of literature as part of a planning process (the research context)

The action research question(s)

The action research process is described briefly

Cycle Reports that document the activity across multiple efforts of change including

data collected

details of the analysis process

cycle reflections

Your final reflection considers what was learned across all of the cycles about yourself, your actions, your context, and the process.

References 

Collection of any artifacts, images, and videos, or research blogs that you wish to include

Professional bio

This overview was designed to provide a quick answer to the question What is action research?  Perhaps a more important question to ask is Why do action research?  There are lots of answers to this question that focus on the development of expertise, issues of social justice, and mobilization of native knowledge. I think that at the fundamental level, I would say that as humans, we are problem solvers. That is what gives us joy. Learning through ongoing problem-solving makes work a source of collaborative discovery. This inquiry and discovery can result in a very productive and successful career path, but in the end, it is its own reward. 

Beck, C., (2017) Informal action research: The nature and contributions of everyday classroom inquiry. In L. Rowell, C. Bruce, J. Shosh & M. Riel, (Eds). Palgrave Interactional Handbook of Action Research. Palgrave,ISBN 978-1-137-40523-4 (ebook) p37-48.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago and La Salle, IL: Open Court.

Engeström, Y. (2004). "New forms of learning in co-configuration work", Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 16 Iss: 1/2, pp.11 - 21

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York: Freeman.

McNiff, J. (2013). Action Research: Principals and Practice (Third Edition). New York: Routledge.

McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2010) You and your action research project. (3rd Edition). Abingdon: Routledge.

Riel, M. & Lepori, K. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of the Outcomes of Action Research. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association conference, April 2011, New Orleans.

Riel, M. & Rowell, L. (2017). Action research and the development of expertise: Rethinking teacher education. In L. Rowell, C. Bruce, J. Shosh & M. Riel, (Eds). Palgrave Interactional Handbook of Action Research. Palgrave, ISBN 978-1-137-40523-4 (ebook) 667-687.

Rowell, L. Polush, E. Riel, M, & Bruewer, A. (2015) Action researchers’ perspectives about the distinguishing characteristics of action research: a Delphi and learning circles mixed-methods study. Access online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09650792.2014.990987#.VPlW0IH-Oxw

Rowell, L., Riel, M., Polush, E. (2017). Defining action research: Situating diverse practices within varying frames of inquiry, science, and action. In L. Rowell, C. Bruce, J. Shosh & M. Riel, (Eds). Palgrave Interactional Handbook of Action Research. Palgrave: ISBN 978-1-137-40523-4 (ebook), 85-102.

Visit the CCAR Tutorials for more information and activities on how to be an action researcher. They are provided free of charge and can be used in courses or by individuals learning on their own. There is also a Facebook group for any questions while doing the tutorial activities. 

Center for Collaborative Action Research |  © Created 2006 Edited 2024

Action research is conducted in the workplace with others. It is a collaborative process. But, also, the doing of action research is more effective when action researchers can benefit from the help of a community of action researchers. The Center for Collaborative Action Research is part of a process of developing the community of action researchers for each cadre. In our program, action researchers carry out their work in  learning circles —a structure for organizing group interaction. Combining this  collaborative structure with the action research process  is an effective way to provide high levels of support for action researchers as they design their action and engage in the process of studying the outcomes.

Action Research

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 21 September 2024
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Chen Long 2 &
• Zhang Kan 2  

Action research is a research method within experimental social psychology. It primarily focuses on the impact of certain actions on organizational systems. The concept and operational procedures for action research were proposed by Kurt Lewin in 1946. Lewin believed that studying real and complex social events in a laboratory setting had significant limitations and was not easily achievable. He suggested that quasi-experimental research should be conducted on processes of change in real-life situations to deepen the understanding of the dynamics of social event changes.

Categorization

Action research can be categorized into three approaches: diagnostic research, participatory research, and experimental research. (1) Diagnostic research: This approach primarily focuses on studying the action itself. It may involve preliminary research to explore how a particular action might be applied in practice and its potential effects. It can also describe the action process itself. Diagnostic...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Further Reading

Aamodt MG (2012) Industrial/organizational psychology: an applied approach. Nelson Education, Melbourne

Google Scholar  

Lu S-Z (2006) Management psychology. Zhejiang Education Publishing House, Hangzhou

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Beijing, China

Chen Long & Zhang Kan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhang Kan .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Encyclopedia of China Publishing House

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Long, C., Kan, Z. (2024). Action Research. In: The ECPH Encyclopedia of Psychology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6000-2_1287-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6000-2_1287-1

Received : 24 August 2024

Accepted : 26 August 2024

Published : 21 September 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-99-6000-2

Online ISBN : 978-981-99-6000-2

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Action Research

Action research can be defined as “an approach in which the action researcher and a client collaborate in the diagnosis of the problem and in the development of a solution based on the diagnosis” [1] . In other words, one of the main characteristic traits of action research relates to collaboration between researcher and member of organisation in order to solve organizational problems.

Action study assumes social world to be constantly changing, both, researcher and research being one part of that change. [2] Generally, action researches can be divided into three categories: positivist, interpretive and critical.

Positivist approach to action research , also known as ‘classical action research’ perceives research as a social experiment. Accordingly, action research is accepted as a method to test hypotheses in a real world environment.

Interpretive action research , also known as ‘contemporary action research’ perceives business reality as socially constructed and focuses on specifications of local and organisational factors when conducting the action research.

Critical action research is a specific type of action research that adopts critical approach towards business processes and aims for improvements.

The following features of action research need to be taken into account when considering its suitability for any given study:

• It is applied in order to improve specific practices.  Action research is based on action, evaluation and critical analysis of practices based on collected data in order to introduce improvements in relevant practices.
• This type of research is facilitated by participation and collaboration of number of individuals with a common purpose
• Such a research focuses on specific situations and their context

Advantages of Action Research

• High level of practical relevance of the business research;
• Can be used with quantitative, as well as, qualitative data;
• Possibility to gain in-depth knowledge about the problem.

Disadvantages of Action Research

• Difficulties in distinguishing between action and research and ensure the application of both;
• Delays in completion of action research due to a wide range of reasons are not rare occurrences
• Lack of repeatability and rigour

It is important to make a clear distinction between action research and consulting. Specifically, action research is greater than consulting in a way that action research includes both action and research, whereas business activities of consulting are limited action without the research.

Action Research Spiral

Action study is a participatory study consisting of spiral of following self-reflective cycles:

• Planning in order to initiate change
• Implementing the change (acting) and observing the process of implementation and consequences
• Reflecting on processes of change and re-planning
• Acting and observing

Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) do acknowledge that individual stages specified in Action Research Spiral model may overlap, and initial plan developed for the research may become obselete in short duration of time due to a range of factors.

The main advantage of Action Research Spiral model relates to the opportunity of analysing the phenomenon in a greater depth each time, consequently resulting in grater level of understanding of the problem.

Disadvantages of Action Research Spiral model include its assumption each process takes long time to be completed which may not always be the case.

My e-book,  The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance  offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline.

References 

[1] Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2011) “Business Research Methods” 3 rd  edition, Oxford University Press

[2] Collis, J. & Hussey, R. (2003) “Business Research. A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Graduate Students” 2nd edition, Palgrave Macmillan

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research Research Tools and Apps

Action Research: What it is, Stages & Examples

The best way to get things accomplished is to do it yourself. This statement is utilized in corporations, community projects, and national governments. These organizations are relying on action research to cope with their continuously changing and unstable environments as they function in a more interdependent world.

In practical educational contexts, this involves using systematic inquiry and reflective practice to address real-world challenges, improve teaching and learning, enhance student engagement, and drive positive changes within the educational system.

This post outlines the definition of action research, its stages, and some examples.

Content Index

What is action research?

Stages of action research, the steps to conducting action research, examples of action research, advantages and disadvantages of action research.

Action research is a strategy that tries to find realistic solutions to organizations’ difficulties and issues. It is similar to applied research.

Action research refers basically learning by doing. First, a problem is identified, then some actions are taken to address it, then how well the efforts worked are measured, and if the results are not satisfactory, the steps are applied again.

It can be put into three different groups:

• Positivist: This type of research is also called “classical action research.” It considers research a social experiment. This research is used to test theories in the actual world.
• Interpretive: This kind of research is called “contemporary action research.” It thinks that business reality is socially made, and when doing this research, it focuses on the details of local and organizational factors.
• Critical: This action research cycle takes a critical reflection approach to corporate systems and tries to enhance them.

All research is about learning new things. Collaborative action research contributes knowledge based on investigations in particular and frequently useful circumstances. It starts with identifying a problem. After that, the research process is followed by the below stages:

Stage 1: Plan

For an action research project to go well, the researcher needs to plan it well. After coming up with an educational research topic or question after a research study, the first step is to develop an action plan to guide the research process. The research design aims to address the study’s question. The research strategy outlines what to undertake, when, and how.

Stage 2: Act

The next step is implementing the plan and gathering data. At this point, the researcher must select how to collect and organize research data . The researcher also needs to examine all tools and equipment before collecting data to ensure they are relevant, valid, and comprehensive.

Stage 3: Observe

Data observation is vital to any investigation. The action researcher needs to review the project’s goals and expectations before data observation. This is the final step before drawing conclusions and taking action.

Different kinds of graphs, charts, and networks can be used to represent the data. It assists in making judgments or progressing to the next stage of observing.

Stage 4: Reflect

This step involves applying a prospective solution and observing the results. It’s essential to see if the possible solution found through research can really solve the problem being studied.

The researcher must explore alternative ideas when the action research project’s solutions fail to solve the problem.

Action research is a systematic approach researchers, educators, and practitioners use to identify and address problems or challenges within a specific context. It involves a cyclical process of planning, implementing, reflecting, and adjusting actions based on the data collected. Here are the general steps involved in conducting an action research process:

Identify the action research question or problem

Clearly define the issue or problem you want to address through your research. It should be specific, actionable, and relevant to your working context.

Review existing knowledge

Conduct a literature review to understand what research has already been done on the topic. This will help you gain insights, identify gaps, and inform your research design.

Plan the research

Develop a research plan outlining your study’s objectives, methods, data collection tools, and timeline. Determine the scope of your research and the participants or stakeholders involved.

Collect data

Implement your research plan by collecting relevant data. This can involve various methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, document analysis, or focus groups. Ensure that your data collection methods align with your research objectives and allow you to gather the necessary information.

Analyze the data

Once you have collected the data, analyze it using appropriate qualitative or quantitative techniques. Look for patterns, themes, or trends in the data that can help you understand the problem better.

Reflect on the findings

Reflect on the analyzed data and interpret the results in the context of your research question. Consider the implications and possible solutions that emerge from the data analysis. This reflection phase is crucial for generating insights and understanding the underlying factors contributing to the problem.

Develop an action plan

Based on your analysis and reflection, develop an action plan that outlines the steps you will take to address the identified problem. The plan should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART goals). Consider involving relevant stakeholders in planning to ensure their buy-in and support.

Implement the action plan

Put your action plan into practice by implementing the identified strategies or interventions. This may involve making changes to existing practices, introducing new approaches, or testing alternative solutions. Document the implementation process and any modifications made along the way.

Evaluate and monitor progress

Continuously monitor and evaluate the impact of your actions. Collect additional data, assess the effectiveness of the interventions, and measure progress towards your goals. This evaluation will help you determine if your actions have the desired effects and inform any necessary adjustments.

Reflect and iterate

Reflect on the outcomes of your actions and the evaluation results. Consider what worked well, what did not, and why. Use this information to refine your approach, make necessary adjustments, and plan for the next cycle of action research if needed.

Remember that participatory action research is an iterative process, and multiple cycles may be required to achieve significant improvements or solutions to the identified problem. Each cycle builds on the insights gained from the previous one, fostering continuous learning and improvement.

Explore Insightfully Contextual Inquiry in Qualitative Research

Here are two real-life examples of action research.

Action research initiatives are frequently situation-specific. Still, other researchers can adapt the techniques. The example is from a researcher’s (Franklin, 1994) report about a project encouraging nature tourism in the Caribbean.

In 1991, this was launched to study how nature tourism may be implemented on the four Windward Islands in the Caribbean: St. Lucia, Grenada, Dominica, and St. Vincent.

For environmental protection, a government-led action study determined that the consultation process needs to involve numerous stakeholders, including commercial enterprises.

First, two researchers undertook the study and held search conferences on each island. The search conferences resulted in suggestions and action plans for local community nature tourism sub-projects.

Several islands formed advisory groups and launched national awareness and community projects. Regional project meetings were held to discuss experiences, self-evaluations, and strategies. Creating a documentary about a local initiative helped build community. And the study was a success, leading to a number of changes in the area.

Lau and Hayward (1997) employed action research to analyze Internet-based collaborative work groups.

Over two years, the researchers facilitated three action research problem -solving cycles with 15 teachers, project personnel, and 25 health practitioners from diverse areas. The goal was to see how Internet-based communications might affect their virtual workgroup.

First, expectations were defined, technology was provided, and a bespoke workgroup system was developed. Participants suggested shorter, more dispersed training sessions with project-specific instructions.

The second phase saw the system’s complete deployment. The final cycle witnessed system stability and virtual group formation. The key lesson was that the learning curve was poorly misjudged, with frustrations only marginally met by phone-based technical help. According to the researchers, the absence of high-quality online material about community healthcare was harmful.

Role clarity, connection building, knowledge sharing, resource assistance, and experiential learning are vital for virtual group growth. More study is required on how group support systems might assist groups in engaging with their external environment and boost group members’ learning. 

Action research has both good and bad points.

• It is very flexible, so researchers can change their analyses to fit their needs and make individual changes.
• It offers a quick and easy way to solve problems that have been going on for a long time instead of complicated, long-term solutions based on complex facts.
• If It is done right, it can be very powerful because it can lead to social change and give people the tools to make that change in ways that are important to their communities.

Disadvantages

• These studies have a hard time being generalized and are hard to repeat because they are so flexible. Because the researcher has the power to draw conclusions, they are often not thought to be theoretically sound.
• Setting up an action study in an ethical way can be hard. People may feel like they have to take part or take part in a certain way.
• It is prone to research errors like selection bias , social desirability bias, and other cognitive biases.

LEARN ABOUT: Self-Selection Bias

This post discusses how action research generates knowledge, its steps, and real-life examples. It is very applicable to the field of research and has a high level of relevance. We can only state that the purpose of this research is to comprehend an issue and find a solution to it.

At QuestionPro, we give researchers tools for collecting data, like our survey software, and a library of insights for any long-term study. Go to the Insight Hub if you want to see a demo or learn more about it.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ’s)

Action research is a systematic approach to inquiry that involves identifying a problem or challenge in a practical context, implementing interventions or changes, collecting and analyzing data, and using the findings to inform decision-making and drive positive change.

Action research can be conducted by various individuals or groups, including teachers, administrators, researchers, and educational practitioners. It is often carried out by those directly involved in the educational setting where the research takes place.

The steps of action research typically include identifying a problem, reviewing relevant literature, designing interventions or changes, collecting and analyzing data, reflecting on findings, and implementing improvements based on the results.

MORE LIKE THIS

SWOT Analysis: What It Is And How To Do It?

Sep 27, 2024

Alchemer vs SurveyMonkey: Which Survey Tool Is Best for You

Sep 26, 2024

SurveySparrow vs SurveyMonkey: Choosing the Right Survey Tool

User Behavior Analytics: What it is, Importance, Uses & Tools

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

Published on 27 January 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on 21 April 2023.

Table of contents

Types of action research, action research models, examples of action research, action research vs. traditional research, advantages and disadvantages of action research, frequently asked questions about action research.

There are 2 common types of action research: participatory action research and practical action research.

• Participatory action research emphasises that participants should be members of the community being studied, empowering those directly affected by outcomes of said research. In this method, participants are effectively co-researchers, with their lived experiences considered formative to the research process.
• Practical action research focuses more on how research is conducted and is designed to address and solve specific issues.

Both types of action research are more focused on increasing the capacity and ability of future practitioners than contributing to a theoretical body of knowledge.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Action research is often reflected in 3 action research models: operational (sometimes called technical), collaboration, and critical reflection.

• Operational (or technical) action research is usually visualised like a spiral following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”
• Collaboration action research is more community-based, focused on building a network of similar individuals (e.g., college professors in a given geographic area) and compiling learnings from iterated feedback cycles.
• Critical reflection action research serves to contextualise systemic processes that are already ongoing (e.g., working retroactively to analyse existing school systems by questioning why certain practices were put into place and developed the way they did).

Action research is often used in fields like education because of its iterative and flexible style.

After the information was collected, the students were asked where they thought ramps or other accessibility measures would be best utilised, and the suggestions were sent to school administrators. Example: Practical action research Science teachers at your city’s high school have been witnessing a year-over-year decline in standardised test scores in chemistry. In seeking the source of this issue, they studied how concepts are taught in depth, focusing on the methods, tools, and approaches used by each teacher.

Action research differs sharply from other types of research in that it seeks to produce actionable processes over the course of the research rather than contributing to existing knowledge or drawing conclusions from datasets. In this way, action research is formative , not summative , and is conducted in an ongoing, iterative way.

As such, action research is different in purpose, context, and significance and is a good fit for those seeking to implement systemic change.

Action research comes with advantages and disadvantages.

• Action research is highly adaptable , allowing researchers to mould their analysis to their individual needs and implement practical individual-level changes.
• Action research provides an immediate and actionable path forward for solving entrenched issues, rather than suggesting complicated, longer-term solutions rooted in complex data.
• Done correctly, action research can be very empowering , informing social change and allowing participants to effect that change in ways meaningful to their communities.

Disadvantages

• Due to their flexibility, action research studies are plagued by very limited generalisability  and are very difficult to replicate . They are often not considered theoretically rigorous due to the power the researcher holds in drawing conclusions.
• Action research can be complicated to structure in an ethical manner . Participants may feel pressured to participate or to participate in a certain way.
• Action research is at high risk for research biases such as selection bias , social desirability bias , or other types of cognitive biases .

Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.

Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.

Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.

A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”

Sources for this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

George, T. (2023, April 21). What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 27 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/action-research-cycle/

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th edition). Routledge.

Naughton, G. M. (2001).  Action research (1st edition). Routledge.

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, primary research | definition, types, & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, what is an observational study | guide & examples.

the encyclopaedia of pedagogy and informal education

What is action research and how do we do it?

In this article, we explore the development of some different traditions of action research and provide an introductory guide to the literature., contents : what is action research ·  origins · the decline and rediscovery of action research · undertaking action research · conclusion · further reading · how to cite this article . see, also: research for practice ..

In the literature, discussion of action research tends to fall into two distinctive camps. The British tradition – especially that linked to education – tends to view action research as research-oriented toward the enhancement of direct practice. For example, Carr and Kemmis provide a classic definition:

Action research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out (Carr and Kemmis 1986: 162).

Many people are drawn to this understanding of action research because it is firmly located in the realm of the practitioner – it is tied to self-reflection. As a way of working it is very close to the notion of reflective practice coined by Donald Schön (1983).

The second tradition, perhaps more widely approached within the social welfare field – and most certainly the broader understanding in the USA is of action research as ‘the systematic collection of information that is designed to bring about social change’ (Bogdan and Biklen 1992: 223). Bogdan and Biklen continue by saying that its practitioners marshal evidence or data to expose unjust practices or environmental dangers and recommend actions for change. In many respects, for them, it is linked into traditions of citizen’s action and community organizing. The practitioner is actively involved in the cause for which the research is conducted. For others, it is such commitment is a necessary part of being a practitioner or member of a community of practice. Thus, various projects designed to enhance practice within youth work, for example, such as the detached work reported on by Goetschius and Tash (1967) could be talked of as action research.

Kurt Lewin is generally credited as the person who coined the term ‘action research’:

The research needed for social practice can best be characterized as research for social management or social engineering. It is a type of action-research, a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action, and research leading to social action. Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice (Lewin 1946, reproduced in Lewin 1948: 202-3)

His approach involves a spiral of steps, ‘each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of the action’ ( ibid. : 206). The basic cycle involves the following:

This is how Lewin describes the initial cycle:

The first step then is to examine the idea carefully in the light of the means available. Frequently more fact-finding about the situation is required. If this first period of planning is successful, two items emerge: namely, “an overall plan” of how to reach the objective and secondly, a decision in regard to the first step of action. Usually this planning has also somewhat modified the original idea. ( ibid. : 205)

The next step is ‘composed of a circle of planning, executing, and reconnaissance or fact-finding for the purpose of evaluating the results of the second step, and preparing the rational basis for planning the third step, and for perhaps modifying again the overall plan’ ( ibid. : 206). What we can see here is an approach to research that is oriented to problem-solving in social and organizational settings, and that has a form that parallels Dewey’s conception of learning from experience.

The approach, as presented, does take a fairly sequential form – and it is open to a literal interpretation. Following it can lead to practice that is ‘correct’ rather than ‘good’ – as we will see. It can also be argued that the model itself places insufficient emphasis on analysis at key points. Elliott (1991: 70), for example, believed that the basic model allows those who use it to assume that the ‘general idea’ can be fixed in advance, ‘that “reconnaissance” is merely fact-finding, and that “implementation” is a fairly straightforward process’. As might be expected there was some questioning as to whether this was ‘real’ research. There were questions around action research’s partisan nature – the fact that it served particular causes.

The decline and rediscovery of action research

Action research did suffer a decline in favour during the 1960s because of its association with radical political activism (Stringer 2007: 9). There were, and are, questions concerning its rigour, and the training of those undertaking it. However, as Bogdan and Biklen (1992: 223) point out, research is a frame of mind – ‘a perspective that people take toward objects and activities’. Once we have satisfied ourselves that the collection of information is systematic and that any interpretations made have a proper regard for satisfying truth claims, then much of the critique aimed at action research disappears. In some of Lewin’s earlier work on action research (e.g. Lewin and Grabbe 1945), there was a tension between providing a rational basis for change through research, and the recognition that individuals are constrained in their ability to change by their cultural and social perceptions, and the systems of which they are a part. Having ‘correct knowledge’ does not of itself lead to change, attention also needs to be paid to the ‘matrix of cultural and psychic forces’ through which the subject is constituted (Winter 1987: 48).

Subsequently, action research has gained a significant foothold both within the realm of community-based, and participatory action research; and as a form of practice-oriented to the improvement of educative encounters (e.g. Carr and Kemmis 1986).

Exhibit 1: Stringer on community-based action research

A fundamental premise of community-based action research is that it commences with an interest in the problems of a group, a community, or an organization. Its purpose is to assist people in extending their understanding of their situation and thus resolving problems that confront them….

Community-based action research is always enacted through an explicit set of social values. In modern, democratic social contexts, it is seen as a process of inquiry that has the following characteristics:

• It is democratic , enabling the participation of all people.

• It is equitable , acknowledging people’s equality of worth.

• It is liberating , providing freedom from oppressive, debilitating conditions.

• It is life enhancing , enabling the expression of people’s full human potential.

(Stringer 1999: 9-10)

Undertaking action research

As Thomas (2017: 154) put it, the central aim is change, ‘and the emphasis is on problem-solving in whatever way is appropriate’. It can be seen as a conversation rather more than a technique (McNiff et. al. ). It is about people ‘thinking for themselves and making their own choices, asking themselves what they should do and accepting the consequences of their own actions’ (Thomas 2009: 113).

The action research process works through three basic phases:

Look -building a picture and gathering information. When evaluating we define and describe the problem to be investigated and the context in which it is set. We also describe what all the participants (educators, group members, managers etc.) have been doing.

Think – interpreting and explaining. When evaluating we analyse and interpret the situation. We reflect on what participants have been doing. We look at areas of success and any deficiencies, issues or problems.

Act – resolving issues and problems. In evaluation we judge the worth, effectiveness, appropriateness, and outcomes of those activities. We act to formulate solutions to any problems. (Stringer 1999: 18; 43-44;160)

The use of action research to deepen and develop classroom practice has grown into a strong tradition of practice (one of the first examples being the work of Stephen Corey in 1949). For some, there is an insistence that action research must be collaborative and entail groupwork.

Action research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of those practices and the situations in which the practices are carried out… The approach is only action research when it is collaborative, though it is important to realise that action research of the group is achieved through the critically examined action of individual group members. (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988: 5-6)

Just why it must be collective is open to some question and debate (Webb 1996), but there is an important point here concerning the commitments and orientations of those involved in action research.

One of the legacies Kurt Lewin left us is the ‘action research spiral’ – and with it there is the danger that action research becomes little more than a procedure. It is a mistake, according to McTaggart (1996: 248) to think that following the action research spiral constitutes ‘doing action research’. He continues, ‘Action research is not a ‘method’ or a ‘procedure’ for research but a series of commitments to observe and problematize through practice a series of principles for conducting social enquiry’. It is his argument that Lewin has been misunderstood or, rather, misused. When set in historical context, while Lewin does talk about action research as a method, he is stressing a contrast between this form of interpretative practice and more traditional empirical-analytic research. The notion of a spiral may be a useful teaching device – but it is all too easy to slip into using it as the template for practice (McTaggart 1996: 249).

Further reading

This select, annotated bibliography has been designed to give a flavour of the possibilities of action research and includes some useful guides to practice. As ever, if you have suggestions about areas or specific texts for inclusion, I’d like to hear from you.

Explorations of action research

Atweh, B., Kemmis, S. and Weeks, P. (eds.) (1998) Action Research in Practice: Partnership for Social Justice in Education, London: Routledge. Presents a collection of stories from action research projects in schools and a university. The book begins with theme chapters discussing action research, social justice and partnerships in research. The case study chapters cover topics such as: school environment – how to make a school a healthier place to be; parents – how to involve them more in decision-making; students as action researchers; gender – how to promote gender equity in schools; writing up action research projects.

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical. Education, knowledge and action research , Lewes: Falmer. Influential book that provides a good account of ‘action research’ in education. Chapters on teachers, researchers and curriculum; the natural scientific view of educational theory and practice; the interpretative view of educational theory and practice; theory and practice – redefining the problem; a critical approach to theory and practice; towards a critical educational science; action research as critical education science; educational research, educational reform and the role of the profession.

Carson, T. R. and Sumara, D. J. (ed.) (1997) Action Research as a Living Practice , New York: Peter Lang. 140 pages. Book draws on a wide range of sources to develop an understanding of action research. Explores action research as a lived practice, ‘that asks the researcher to not only investigate the subject at hand but, as well, to provide some account of the way in which the investigation both shapes and is shaped by the investigator.

Dadds, M. (1995) Passionate Enquiry and School Development. A story about action research , London: Falmer. 192 + ix pages. Examines three action research studies undertaken by a teacher and how they related to work in school – how she did the research, the problems she experienced, her feelings, the impact on her feelings and ideas, and some of the outcomes. In his introduction, John Elliot comments that the book is ‘the most readable, thoughtful, and detailed study of the potential of action-research in professional education that I have read’.

Ghaye, T. and Wakefield, P. (eds.) CARN Critical Conversations. Book one: the role of the self in action , Bournemouth: Hyde Publications. 146 + xiii pages. Collection of five pieces from the Classroom Action Research Network. Chapters on: dialectical forms; graduate medical education – research’s outer limits; democratic education; managing action research; writing up.

McNiff, J. (1993) Teaching as Learning: An Action Research Approach , London: Routledge. Argues that educational knowledge is created by individual teachers as they attempt to express their own values in their professional lives. Sets out familiar action research model: identifying a problem, devising, implementing and evaluating a solution and modifying practice. Includes advice on how working in this way can aid the professional development of action researcher and practitioner.

Quigley, B. A. and Kuhne, G. W. (eds.) (1997) Creating Practical Knowledge Through Action Research, San Fransisco: Jossey Bass. Guide to action research that outlines the action research process, provides a project planner, and presents examples to show how action research can yield improvements in six different settings, including a hospital, a university and a literacy education program.

Plummer, G. and Edwards, G. (eds.) CARN Critical Conversations. Book two: dimensions of action research – people, practice and power , Bournemouth: Hyde Publications. 142 + xvii pages. Collection of five pieces from the Classroom Action Research Network. Chapters on: exchanging letters and collaborative research; diary writing; personal and professional learning – on teaching and self-knowledge; anti-racist approaches; psychodynamic group theory in action research.

Whyte, W. F. (ed.) (1991) Participatory Action Research , Newbury Park: Sage. 247 pages. Chapters explore the development of participatory action research and its relation with action science and examine its usages in various agricultural and industrial settings

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (ed.) (1996) New Directions in Action Research , London; Falmer Press. 266 + xii pages. A useful collection that explores principles and procedures for critical action research; problems and suggested solutions; and postmodernism and critical action research.

Action research guides

Coghlan, D. and Brannick, D. (2000) Doing Action Research in your own Organization, London: Sage. 128 pages. Popular introduction. Part one covers the basics of action research including the action research cycle, the role of the ‘insider’ action researcher and the complexities of undertaking action research within your own organisation. Part two looks at the implementation of the action research project (including managing internal politics and the ethics and politics of action research). New edition due late 2004.

Elliot, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change , Buckingham: Open University Press. 163 + x pages Collection of various articles written by Elliot in which he develops his own particular interpretation of action research as a form of teacher professional development. In some ways close to a form of ‘reflective practice’. Chapter 6, ‘A practical guide to action research’ – builds a staged model on Lewin’s work and on developments by writers such as Kemmis.

Johnson, A. P. (2007) A short guide to action research 3e. Allyn and Bacon. Popular step by step guide for master’s work.

Macintyre, C. (2002) The Art of the Action Research in the Classroom , London: David Fulton. 138 pages. Includes sections on action research, the role of literature, formulating a research question, gathering data, analysing data and writing a dissertation. Useful and readable guide for students.

McNiff, J., Whitehead, J., Lomax, P. (2003) You and Your Action Research Project , London: Routledge. Practical guidance on doing an action research project.Takes the practitioner-researcher through the various stages of a project. Each section of the book is supported by case studies

Stringer, E. T. (2007) Action Research: A handbook for practitioners 3e , Newbury Park, ca.: Sage. 304 pages. Sets community-based action research in context and develops a model. Chapters on information gathering, interpretation, resolving issues; legitimacy etc. See, also Stringer’s (2003) Action Research in Education , Prentice-Hall.

Winter, R. (1989) Learning From Experience. Principles and practice in action research , Lewes: Falmer Press. 200 + 10 pages. Introduces the idea of action research; the basic process; theoretical issues; and provides six principles for the conduct of action research. Includes examples of action research. Further chapters on from principles to practice; the learner’s experience; and research topics and personal interests.

Action research in informal education

Usher, R., Bryant, I. and Johnston, R. (1997) Adult Education and the Postmodern Challenge. Learning beyond the limits , London: Routledge. 248 + xvi pages. Has some interesting chapters that relate to action research: on reflective practice; changing paradigms and traditions of research; new approaches to research; writing and learning about research.

Other references

Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. K. (1992) Qualitative Research For Education , Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Goetschius, G. and Tash, J. (1967) Working with the Unattached , London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

McTaggart, R. (1996) ‘Issues for participatory action researchers’ in O. Zuber-Skerritt (ed.) New Directions in Action Research , London: Falmer Press.

McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. (2003) You and Your Action Research Project 2e. London: Routledge.

Thomas, G. (2017). How to do your Research Project. A guide for students in education and applied social sciences . 3e. London: Sage.

Acknowledgements : spiral by Michèle C. | flickr ccbyncnd2 licence

How to cite this article : Smith, M. K. (1996; 2001, 2007, 2017) What is action research and how do we do it?’, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education. [ https://infed.org/mobi/action-research/ . Retrieved: insert date] .

© Mark K. Smith 1996; 2001, 2007, 2017

Created by the Great Schools Partnership , the GLOSSARY OF EDUCATION REFORM is a comprehensive online resource that describes widely used school-improvement terms, concepts, and strategies for journalists, parents, and community members. | Learn more »

Action Research

In schools, action research refers to a wide variety of evaluative, investigative, and analytical research methods designed to diagnose problems or weaknesses—whether organizational, academic, or instructional—and help educators develop practical solutions to address them quickly and efficiently. Action research may also be applied to programs or educational techniques that are not necessarily experiencing any problems, but that educators simply want to learn more about and improve. The general goal is to create a simple, practical, repeatable process of iterative learning, evaluation, and improvement that leads to increasingly better results for schools, teachers, or programs.

Action research may also be called a cycle of action or cycle of inquiry , since it typically follows a predefined process that is repeated over time. A simple illustrative example:

• Identify a problem to be studied
• Collect data on the problem
• Organize, analyze, and interpret the data
• Develop a plan to address the problem
• Implement the plan
• Evaluate the results of the actions taken
• Identify a new problem
• Repeat the process

Unlike more formal research studies, such as those conducted by universities and published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, action research is typically conducted by the educators working in the district or school being studied—the participants—rather than by independent, impartial observers from outside organizations. Less formal, prescriptive, or theory-driven research methods are typically used when conducting action research, since the goal is to address practical problems in a specific school or classroom, rather than produce independently validated and reproducible findings that others, outside of the context being studied, can use to guide their future actions or inform the design of their academic programs. That said, while action research is typically focused on solving a specific problem (high rates of student absenteeism, for example) or answer a specific question (Why are so many of our ninth graders failing math?), action research can also make meaningful contributions to the larger body of knowledge and understanding in the field of education, particularly within a relatively closed system such as school, district, or network of connected organizations.

The term “action research” was coined in the 1940s by Kurt Lewin, a German-American social psychologist who is widely considered to be the founder of his field. The basic principles of action research that were described by Lewin are still in use to this day.

Educators typically conduct action research as an extension of a particular school-improvement plan, project, or goal—i.e., action research is nearly always a school-reform strategy. The object of action research could be almost anything related to educational performance or improvement, from the effectiveness of certain teaching strategies and lesson designs to the influence that family background has on student performance to the results achieved by a particular academic support strategy or learning program—to list just a small sampling.

For related discussions, see action plan , capacity , continuous improvement , evidence-based , and professional development .

Alphabetical Search

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 12 September 2024

Between two worlds: the scientist’s dilemma in climate activism

• Samuel Finnerty   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6617-3866 1 ,
• Jared Piazza 1 &
• Mark Levine 1  

npj Climate Action volume  3 , Article number:  77 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

231 Accesses

22 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Environmental impact

Environmental activism presents an ideological dilemma for environmentally concerned scientists, who must balance traditional scientific values of objectivity and impartiality with the urgency of the climate and ecological crisis. This paper presents a critical discursive analysis of interviews with 27 scientists from 11 countries. It details the linguistic repertoires scientists draw on and the subject positions adopted to manage this dilemma. We observed that scientists employ two strategies to reconcile their professional identities with their activism: redefining the scientist identity, and reframing the work that scientists do. The subject positions adopted broadly serve to legitimize action, such as arguing that activism as a scientist is objective and rational, or that being a scientist conveys a moral duty to advocate for scientific information. By analyzing how scientists negotiate conflicting identities and values, this research offers valuable insights into fostering informed decision-making and action in addressing urgent environmental challenges.

Similar content being viewed by others

Scientists’ identities shape engagement with environmental activism

How australian environmental non-governmental organisations frame and enact climate justice, the swedish initiative and the 1972 stockholm conference: the decisive role of science diplomacy in the emergence of global environmental governance, introduction.

Climate change and biodiversity loss are major planetary threats 1 , 2 . Despite a well-established scientific consensus 3 , 4 , 5 , policy action remains limited 5 , 6 , 7 . At the same time, scientists are increasingly engaging in environmental social movements, aiming to translate scientific knowledge to effect change 8 , 9 , 10 . However, engaging in activism presents a dilemma for scientists. Traditionally, the scientific community promotes impartiality and objectivity while discouraging activism 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 . In contrast, others argue that the scientific community must act to raise the alarm and not simply produce research 9 , 17 , 18 . This tension can be thought of as an ideological dilemma 19 for environmentally concerned scientists, who grapple with the question of whether to remain apolitical or to advocate for change. This paper explores the nuanced ways in which environmentally concerned scientists navigate this tension, examining the linguistic repertoires they employ and the subject positions they adopt to manage this dilemma.

The worldwide ‘March for Science’ in 2017 served as a catalyzing moment for scientist-activism, rallying scientists to defend research and evidence-based policymaking 20 . In the context of climate change, this movement has seen scientists engage in diverse forms of activism, from blocking fossil fuel infrastructure 21 to strategically leaking the IPCC report 22 . Not limited to earth system scientists 23 , groups like Scientists for Extinction Rebellion 24 and Scientist Rebellion 25 have emerged, uniting natural and social scientists, underscoring the interdisciplinarity of environmental activism. Scientific societies, such as the American Psychological Association, also recognize the importance of scientists’ advocacy in altering the climate trajectory 26 . These developments demonstrate scientists’ departure from traditional roles, actively redefining what it means to be a scientist in the context of environmental challenges.

A note on terms. Advocacy is defined as the “act of persuading or arguing in support of a specific cause, policy, idea or set of values” 27 . Activism, as a distinct form of advocacy, is “the use of direct and noticeable action to achieve a result, usually a political or social one” 28 . In this paper, we primarily use the term activism, as an active form of advocacy 29 , reflecting the public actions taken by scientists and the framing used in the preceding survey 30 and present interview research. We use advocacy where it appears in literature or by interviewees. The verb ‘advocate’ describes the act of supporting a cause, and when used without qualification below, it generally refers to activism. Furthermore, some scientists strategically choose the term advocacy over activism, as discussed in the results. Of course, these terms are often used interchangeably, reflecting conceptual overlap 29 .

The scientist identity, traditionally characterized by objectivity and impartiality, is at a crossroads due to the scientific consensus on, and pressing global impacts of, climate change 5 . Critics challenge the long-held separation of science and advocacy which was believed to protect scientific integrity by minimizing political influence 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 31 . They argue that strict detachment is morally and intellectually untenable 9 , 18 , 32 . Moreover, scholars have long questioned the dichotomy between science and advocacy, recognizing the intersections between science and social, cultural, and political dimensions 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 .

Despite growing recognition of the legitimacy of scientist advocacy within public discourse 37 and academia 37 , 38 , 39 , actual engagement lags behind willingness 38 , 39 . Large-scale surveys have identified various factors influencing scientists’ participation, including efficacy, workload, and institutional constraints 38 , 39 . Additionally, perceptions of scientific norms and their compatibility with activism contribute to the tension some scientists feel between political engagement and maintaining credibility 40 , 41 . Central to this are identity processes 42 , with environmental activist identity key to shaping participation in environmental social movements 43 , 44 , 45 . However, this politicized social identity 46 , 47 , 48 contrasts with the supposedly apolitical scientist identity constructed in the wider discourse. Our research has identified that the perceived inter-identity fit 45 between science and activism is a critical factor for how engaged scientists are 30 . Specifically, scientists who have reconciled the values of science with activism, and perceive a moral duty to act, are more likely to engage in activism 30 . Differing constructions of scientific identity can either support or hinder action 30 , emphasizing the importance of understanding how scientists construct their identities and position themselves within the wider discourse.

Ideological dilemmas arise when conflicting views on a subject create opposing imperatives, leading to tension and contradiction that individuals must manage through complex negotiation and reconciliation. These dilemmas, rooted in everyday sense-making, have been explored across diverse topics, including political ideology 19 , race 19 , 49 , 50 , gender 51 , 52 , moral norms 53 , and populist national 54 and environmental discourse 55 . However, the dilemmatic nature of scientists’ engagement with environmental issues remains underexplored. The tension between traditional scientific norms and perceived moral imperatives for environmental activism presents a unique dilemma for environmentally concerned scientists. How scientists respond to this dilemma may be reflected in the language they use. When scientists choose their words, they engage in rhetorical thinking, consciously or unconsciously, that positions themselves in relation to the wider discourse 56 . The choice of metaphors, framing, and persuasive strategies becomes pivotal in navigating these ideological tensions.

In this study, we examine the nuanced ways environmentally concerned scientists manage this dilemma through interpretive linguistic repertoires and subject positions. Linguistic repertoires are culturally shared ways of talking about and understanding the world, which subjects may draw on and adapt in conversation in context-specific ways 57 . Subject positions refer to relational, social locations, that individuals may construct for themselves or others, drawing on these repertoires to position themselves in relation to the wider discourse 57 , 58 . By analyzing how scientists employ these discursive strategies, we aim to catalog their management of the dilemma and gain insight into the argumentative functions of their talk 56 , 59 , providing insight into the strategies employed to reconcile conflicting identities and values.

Our analysis revealed two repertoires that scientists utilize for managing the dilemma of engagement (see Table 1 ). The first, ‘Reconceptualizing Scientist Identity’, addresses the perceived conflict between scientific objectivity, impartiality, and the moral imperative of activism, by reconfiguring the scientist identity. The subject positions adopted adapt or challenge traditional scientific norms, arguing for a nuanced understanding of scientists’ roles in pushing for societal change. The second, ‘Reframing the Work that Scientists Do’, offers alternative perspectives on engagement, distinguishing advocacy from activism, and redefining research as activism. Together, these linguistic repertoires highlight the multifaceted ways in which scientists negotiate their identities and actions within the discourse of environmental activism.

The scientist’s dilemma in the context of the climate crisis

Before we explore these repertoires, it is important to establish how interviewees construct the nature of their dilemma and why they see the traditional role of science and scientists as being insufficient:

Extract 1 Respondent 5, Female, Doctoral Student, Sustainability Social Scientist The traditional linear perspective would be that we take the information, and we give it to people[…] to make better policies or technologies[…]. I very much do believe in the value of producing knowledge […] but I also think it is limited[…] because it is not[…] resulting in the changes that we really need to see[…]. I think a lot of us are at this point now where we are thinking well okay, we are doing all this really interesting research[…] but is that translating into the situation overall getting better? And I guess the answer is no[…], on its own the research isn’t making that happen and I guess that is where the activism comes in.

In this account, the production of knowledge is not enough. Science may produce the knowledge base for dealing with the climate crisis – but that knowledge has not been translated into “better policies or technologies”. Consequently, other actions are required. This is developed in Extract 2:

Extract 2 Respondent 1, Male, Doctoral Student, Environmental Monitoring So, the traditional sense of what scientists I think do is that they tinker about with the world, find out how it works, and […] tell people about it. The telling people about it part is newer […]. [But] I don’t think the job description of a scientist involves making change. Traditionally that goes through the policymaker. Right, so scientists find something out, they write about it and dangle it in front of policymakers […], that might be regarded as activism, the dangling bit […] [But] People who go people into academia are not incentivized to make their findings, make their conclusions become actions[…], I think that scientists need to be ushered more towards making their conclusions acted upon.

Here it is the failure of policy makers to deliver on their perceived responsibility for using scientific knowledge for change that is at the heart of the scientists’ dilemma. Scientists are traditionally focused on knowledge discovery and informing policy makers—but if those charged with action are not delivering, then scientists need to ensure their knowledge is acted upon.

At the same time, while many scientists are drawn to activism due to the perceived limitations of policymakers’ actions, there is a recognition that activism should not overshadow their science:

Extract 3 Respondent 6, Female, PhD, Biologist So, I’m back in that corner of doubt about whether the science I’m doing is the right thing to be doing […]. But it also keeps me sane because I love my job, and maybe doing both […] science and activism helps both of those things […]. I couldn’t do what I’m doing at work if I wasn’t doing the activism, because I would be so distracted by the state of the world that I wouldn’t be able to pick up a pen. Yeah, I think they can be complimentary. Being an active scientist is complimentary to activism, it helps people take you more seriously […]. It shouldn’t be the truth, but I think it is, and we all have that influence […]. And if there are no activist scientists in this lab, I’m calling myself it now, then no one’s ever going to think, “Oh, I can do that.” So, I’m here, and I’m out.

These perspectives highlight the dilemma that engaged scientists must negotiate as they strive to effect meaningful change while preserving their core identity. Below, we present the strategies scientists employ within each of these repertoires to manage this tension.

Reconceptualizing scientist identity

This repertoire entails a reconceptualization of the scientist identity, aimed at harmonizing scientific norms with activism. This process involves several strategic maneuvers: firstly, utilizing scientist identity content by framing activism as objective and rational to align it with scientific values; secondly, critiquing traditional notions of the objective researcher to counter accusations of compromised integrity; and finally, imbuing the scientist identity with a moral imperative to actively disseminate scientific information through activism.

Activism is objective and rational

This subject position frames activism as objective and rational, aligning with scientific norms:

Extract 4 Respondent 6, Female, PhD, Biologist I think that people who are not acting on information that science has generated are not being good scientists, they’re not being objective, because what is scientific information for? […] It’s to be acted upon and turned into something useful. And we’re following science by doing the activism that we’re doing.

This framing legitimizes action as objective and a natural extension of scientific inquiry. In fact, activism is proposed as a requirement of good science. Moreover, the interviewee counters criticisms of her activism distracting her from her scientific responsibilities:

Extract 5 Respondent 6, Female, PhD, Biologist My boss, when he was giving me a dressing down the other week, was saying, “You’re distracted,” and I couldn’t really deny that occasionally I am distracted, but I tried to say like, “Why aren’t you distracted?” No, I’m not distracted by activism, I’m actually distracted by the state of the world and the anxiety and the fear that that provokes, the activism helps with that. I said this a bit more gently but, “Who’s not behaving rationally here?”

She defends her activism as a rational response to the climate crisis, countering critiques of activism and her alleged distraction from science. The interviewee also touches upon the power dynamics within scientific institutions, hinting at the challenges faced by scientists who step into activism. The reference to a “dressing down” by a superior reveals the tension between individual agency and institutional norms, highlighting the need for scientists to navigate these power structures as they engage in activism.

There is no objective researcher

A second way scientist identity is reconceptualized to fit with activism is through challenging the notion of the possibility of objectivity – given that scientific writing is a form of persuasion.

Extract 6 Respondent 15, Male, Professor, Physics I think as soon as you are out there writing publicly, then you are doing a form of advocacy, even if you don’t realize you are. So, I don’t think it is possible for anyone to be truly objective in how they present anything, so I think any form of public engagement is a form of activism […]. Maybe it is very difficult not to let it influence your scholarship, but as long as you are open about that, then I don’t particularly see a problem. I think the truly objective researcher probably doesn’t actually exist—nothing we do is truly objective […]. Anyone who is engaging publicly should at least think about how it influences their scholarship, but I don’t see any reason why you should suddenly go oh I am being so active in the public sphere I should stop being a scholar.

This position challenges the notion of complete objectivity and advocates for a culture of transparency in scientific communication. It recognizes the difficulty of maintaining impartiality but emphasizes the importance of being open about the influences that shape research. The professor’s view is that engaging with the public is not antithetical to scholarly pursuits; on the contrary, it encourages a deeper consideration of the interconnectedness of public engagement and academic scholarship. A similar perspective is echoed by another participant, who emphasizes the inherent motivation underlying research:

Extract 7 Respondent 16, Female, Senior Lecturer, Psychology I think you see this tension between, you know, our training as scientists, which is like, “Oh, you’re a neutral, you just study the processes, you study the mechanisms,” but that’s really not true[…] you study so that people can be better and survive[…]. It’s always with an interest, you know. So, if people say there’s a conflict of interest, if you have kind of outcome hopes, basically, of course there is.

This participant underscores the motivational underpinnings of research, suggesting that scientific pursuits are intrinsically linked to the goal of improving society. These perspectives present an alternative view of the scientist, one that embraces the inherent values guiding their work and, in so doing seeks to legitimize scientist-activism. While this perspective may empower scientists to engage publicly, some argue that it may increase polarization:

Extract 8 Respondent 3, Male, Master’s Graduate, Sustainability Social Science I do recognize that science loses trust of those social groups that have kind of already lost it and then you push further into polarization by being scientists and being activists, and that I guess really requires us to interrogate what knowledge is and why we feel confident to act on the knowledge we have and why we feel confident the other side as wrong. So, I do recognize that there’s something there that makes reconciliation a little bit difficult.

This perspective raises critical questions about the implications of blurring the boundaries between science and activism. It presents both an opportunity and a challenge. In one sense, it challenges the status quo and liberates scientists to be activists. In another, it may undermine public trust in science, which may be influenced by perceptions of objectivity and impartiality.

Activism is a scientist’s moral duty

This subject position asserts that activism transcends mere choice – it’s a moral imperative incumbent upon scientists as truth-tellers:

Extract 9, Respondent 23, Female, Meteorologist. “As scientists, we need to show people the truth[…] Well, I feel like it’s the morally–morally to me it’s the right thing to do.”

This retired meteorologist’s conviction sets the stage for a broader discussion on the moral responsibilities of scientists. Her perspective underscores the ethical dimension of science, where activism is seen as an extension of the scientist’s commitment to truth. Building on this is the view that a scientist’s duty arises from their expertise in rendering complex information accessible to the public:

Extract 10 Respondent 24, Male, Postdoctoral Researcher, Biologist Scientists should take the first step[…] we are generally more aware of how to interpret the literature[…] distill it into layman language and, you know, raise awareness. We are trained for it, so we have the tools, so we should take the first step[…] and we also have the moral responsibility to do that because […] we have to stick up for science, and climate change is all about, you know, pushing people to listen to the science.

For some respondents, their status as scientists with particular knowledge and expertise places a moral obligation on them to sound the alarm:

Extract 11 Respondent 22, Male, PhD, Ecologist I’m not just any scientist, I’m an earth scientist. I specifically know about what’s happening to the planet and[…] my knowledge compels me to act[…]. I think it also gives me a particular responsibility[…] to be visibly doing something because[…] I worry that there might be people out there thinking “well, if it was really that bad then the scientists would be freaking out. But the scientists aren’t freaking out, so clearly, they can’t even believe their own words.” So, I think it’s important that we act like it’s an emergency[…]. If I was to tell you now in this interview that I can smell smoke coming up the stairs and I think my house is on fire, but then I just carried on giving the interview, you, of course, would not believe me when I say my house is on fire[…]. I think it’s important that scientists are visibly freaking out.

This ecologist’s viewpoint adds depth to the discussion, suggesting that the visibility of scientists’ concerns is crucial in validating the urgency of environmental crises. Other non-earth systems scientists share similar sentiments that scientists have a duty to be activists:

Extract 12 Respondent 16, Female, Senior Lecturer, Psychology I felt a sense of personal urgency and insight and bewilderment at the fact that we don’t act on this[…]. Given my professional privilege, I have the space to follow up on this[…]. I find it […] a moral imperative to educate ourselves and instigate action as much as we possibly can within our spheres of influence[…]. So, it’s that personal, moral, and also scholarly sense that all came together[…]. I just feel a strong sense of responsibility […] to do the right thing.

This extract articulates a holistic view, where personal ethics, professional privilege, and scholarly responsibility converge to form a strong sense of moral duty. Her words encapsulate the collective sentiment that activism is not just a choice for scientists but an ethical obligation. This position demonstrates how the scientist identity motivates some to extend their role as communicators to include activism, and then use moral arguments to justify it. While not all scientists personally experience activism as dilemmatic, many strategically employ rhetorical strategies to navigate tensions by emphasizing their duty to communicate urgent scientific findings and respond to critiques that argue against scientist-activism.

Reframing the work that scientists do

The second repertoire, “Reframing the Work that Scientists Do,” presents alternative perspectives on how scientists may engage in ways that manage the dilemma. This repertoire includes strategic maneuvers such as reframing research and teaching activities as a form of activism to effect change in ways more compatible with most scientists’ daily work. Others strategically frame their advocacy for environmental causes in ways that circumvent perceived risks or constraints associated with stereotypical activism, such as public protests or civil disobedience.

Research and teaching as an activist choice

This position offers a strategic approach for scientists to enact change through their research and teaching activities, while also addressing concerns about personal and professional risks associated with more confrontational forms of activism. As exemplified by a doctoral candidate below, this perspective highlights the deliberate decision to research environmental issues as an activist choice:

Extract 13 Respondent 4, Female, Doctoral Student, Psychology The choice for me to focus on environmental issues in my work I think is also a very like activist choice because I kind of make sure that my career is contributing to the good stuff and not the stuff that’s destroying the earth.

This sentiment underscores the potential of research as a vehicle for change, bridging the gap between academia and activism. Similarly, a Senior Lecturer below emphasizes the impact of their educational initiatives in fostering activism among students:

Extract 14 Respondent 21, Male, Senior Lecturer, Economics The actions I’m involved in—writing and publishing[…], I think things become cultural through social cues[…], I run a unit, […] I take them through 13 weeks of degrowth literature, and then I look at the structures that hold developed world lifestyles in place. […] I’m just making a documentary with students about their learning experience at the moment, and I’m hoping that little documentary would be a good form of activism.

The senior lecturer’s initiatives demonstrate how teaching can mobilize the next generation, equipping them with the knowledge and skills necessary to address environmental challenges. His work maintains his professional identity while fulfilling his moral duty to contribute to societal change. While the previous extracts illustrate activism through research and education, the following extract presents a unique case where an academic not only engages in activism through civil disobedience but also integrates this experience into his teaching:

Extract 15 Respondent 25, Male, Senior Lecturer, Global Health Up until recently I guess I was a climate activist. […] So, I think at the time it really informed my academic profile. I was able to draw on lived experiences and… bringing that into my work, and I think it changes the perception of the academic from a student perspective; they do actually see that an academic is doing something in the real world in real-time, it’s not just the fact that they are writing about stuff and publishing stuff they are actually physically doing something. […] I would be giving public talks and lectures on the topic from an activist perspective, really drawing on my research.

Taken together, these extracts capture how adopting this position allows scientists to advocate for change in a manner that aligns with their profession. However, transfiguring research and teaching as activism requires a conscious effort to bridge the gap:

Extract 16 Respondent 4, Female, Doctoral Student, Psychology I think academia and activism are definitely compatible. I do think they are different things, though. Too many academics just assume that their work alone is enough to kind of reach people, and it’s not. Academia is, in large part, inaccessible to a lot of people […]. I think it takes personal work to make it compatible.

This doctoral student’s insight emphasizes that while academia and activism can be harmonized, it necessitates intentional work to make academic research accessible and impactful beyond the ivory tower. It’s a call to action for academics to actively engage in making their work understandable and relevant to the broader public, thereby fulfilling the potential of their activist endeavors.

Strategic environmental advocacy

The subject position of “Strategic Environmental Advocacy” illustrates how scientists strategically employ advocacy and activism terminology to promote environmental causes in ways that fit with their identities as scientists. This stance is shaped by two key considerations: first, the recognition that embracing an activist identity often entails significant involvement in activities like public protests, which may not align with scientists’ preferred modes of engagement; and second, an awareness of the stigma sometimes associated with the activist label. Scientists adopting this stance strategically present their environmental efforts primarily through the lens of advocacy, employing methods such as public communication and outreach to effectively influence change, allowing them to contribute to change while preserving their professional identity, and autonomy, and sidestepping the negative associations linked to activism:

Extract 17 Respondent 15, Male, Professor, Physics In a way—I am not great at being the classical activist right—going out in the street and campaigning, but I think as soon as you are out there writing publicly, then you are doing a form of advocacy […] I do think that even just writing publicly or speaking publicly is a form of activism, even if it is fairly mainstream activism, rather than slightly more […] what is the right word […] slightly more extreme, I don’t know, I don’t want to use extreme in a pejorative sense, but you know what I mean.

Initially, he distinguishes his actions as advocacy to separate himself from more traditional forms of activism, such as street protests, which may not align with his preferred methods or professional identity as a scientist. However, he then expands his definition of activism to include activities like public speaking and writing, illustrating a nuanced evolution in how he conceptualizes and applies these terms. This shift underscores ongoing debates within scientific circles about the scope and methods of effective environmental advocacy, highlighting the evolving roles and perceptions of scientists in promoting change. In Extract 18, the doctoral student strategically distinguishes between different forms of advocacy—informal advocacy versus formal outreach—to position his environmental efforts within the academic sphere:

Extract 18 Respondent 12, Male, Doctoral Student, Biology I’ve signed, you know, petitions, things like that. I’m trying to do as much outreach as I possibly can[…]. Like when we were making the members of the general public play board games and […] they would talk to the parents about[…] biofuels, about climate change and ability, and how[…] dire the situation was. It’s not official advocacy. It’s just I’m trying to reach the people. I didn’t do much formal advocacy, but I have joined a few marches and signed a few things. But[…] I considered most of the advocacy I do is in the periphery of my work, using my work[…] to credibilize myself and to reach the right people.

By labeling his public outreach efforts as informal advocacy, he circumvents the potential stigma associated with activism, while leveraging his academic credibility to effectively communicate and influence public discourse on climate change. Taken together, this subject position underscores scientists’ deliberate and strategic approach to advocating for environmental issues while preserving their professional integrity, autonomy, and credibility.

The authors’ dilemma

Of course, we are not above such considerations ourselves. The researcher is not ‘a fly on the wall’ 60 . To enhance the credibility and depth of our analysis we reflected on our own positionality as researchers throughout the process 61 , 62 . As environmentally concerned psychologists, we grapple with questions about our commitments and actions. Within our team, there is no consensus on which actions are most effective or appropriate, nor how to reconcile these with our academic roles. This diversity among us mirrors the varied perspectives of our interviewees, helping us to understand the ideological dilemmas faced by scientists. For example, some of us engage in direct actions on environmental and other issues, including protests, and are comfortable with describing these actions as activism. Others align with the Strategic Environmental Advocacy position by refraining from such actions and carefully using terminology to distinguish advocacy efforts, such as public talks and blogging, from activism.

This research highlights the repertoires scientists draw on to manage the dilemma between their professional identity as scientists and activism. We observed that scientists employ two strategies to reconcile their professional identities with their activism: redefining the scientist identity and reframing the work of scientists (see Table 1 ). Scientists adopt varied subject positions in relation to these repertoires to manage the inter-identity fit 45 between science and activism, accommodating engagement. The following discussion details the nuanced subject positions scientists adopt and their implications for scientist-activism.

Identity construction is context dependent and fluid 63 , 64 , and can be used for particular functions argumentative functions 56 , 65 , 66 . The three subject positions adopted in relation to the reconceptualizing scientist identity repertoire broadly function to construct the scientist identity to legitimize action. Activism is Objective and Rational involves using scientist identity content, specifically scientific values of objectivity and rationality, to frame scientist-activism as a logical response to legitimize activism. Some scientists visibly invoke their identity through symbols like white lab-coats and peer-reviewed papers 8 , lending epistemic authority to social movements while staking a place for scientists. There is no Objective Researcher critiques the notion of a truly objective detached researcher to humanize scientists and justify activism. It argues against accusations that scientist-activists are compromised, provided they are open about their motivations. It reflects critiques of the separation of science from society and how science is inherently bound up with the social, cultural, and political 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 . Moreover, some adopt the Activism is a Scientist’s Moral Duty position to argue science is a moral enterprise aimed at producing knowledge of benefit to society and that science as an institution can give moral leadership 67 . This is reflected in the third subject position which emphasizes the moral duty of scientists to not only produce information but to advocate for it. This represents an evolution in the idea of the scientist as communicator with activism considered an extension of this role 68 . This position, reflected in various perspectives 9 , 18 , 32 , not only serves to legitimize scientist-activism by centering moral values in the scientist identity, but to compel other scientists to act. These positions represent broader challenges in the wider discourse to evolve traditional depictions of the scientist 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 31 to take a more active role 9 , 18 , 32 . Additionally, these positions provide further support for previous research that found that scientist identity construction may be used to legitimize or delegitimize activism 30 .

The two subject positions adopted using the Reframing the Action repertoire broadly functioned to adapt actions taken to suit individual capacities, identities, and preferences. This allowed scientists to align their activism with their unique skills, self-perceptions, and personal inclinations. Firstly, scientists adopting a Research as an Activist Choice position reframed their research and teaching through an activist lens aimed to integrate their scientific expertise with their advocacy efforts. By contextualizing their research and teaching within the broader socio-political landscape, these scientists sought to amplify the relevance and impact of their work while doing so in ways that still closely aligned with the scientist identity. They embraced the activist label to some extent but did so in ways that were less contentious than stereotypical protest, thus requiring less identity reconstruction to accommodate the underlying dilemma. Secondly, scientists adopting the Strategic Environmental Advocacy position strategically use the terms “advocacy” and “activism” aim to differentiate their engagement in environmental issues from the more contentious connotations associated with activism. This strategic positioning involves flexible use of terminology, allowing scientists to leverage their credibility and expertise while advocating for change within institutional and policy frameworks. By positioning themselves as advocates or as milder activists compared to others, these scientists seek to bridge the gap between scientific research and policy action, while distancing themselves from more contentious types of political action. This careful framing permits them to maintain their professional integrity and public trust, thereby enhancing their influence in policy discussions. For example, some perspectives suggest scientists should support rather than participate directly in activism, acting as information providers to activist groups 69 . Scientists for future (S4F) International exemplifies this position, supporting the global climate movement by providing facts and materials based on reliable scientific data to stakeholders. This position allows scientists to fulfill their roles as advocates for evidence-based policies while maintaining a perceived neutrality associated with the scientist identity.

These efforts to reimagine identity and reframe action reflect the dilemma within the discourse and a wider concern among environmentally concerned scientists about how advocacy might impact credibility 40 , 41 , 70 . Mixed sentiment on whether scientists should engage, and if so, whether they should use the scientist identity or not 70 , reflects the varied subject positions scientists adopted in our interviews. Although our previous research did not find credibility concerns to be a statistically significant barrier to engagement 30 , they remain a concern for scientists 30 , 39 . However, this apprehension and the work undertaken to manage the dilemma may be disproportionate, given that a majority of scientists and researchers and the public support increased scientist advocacy 38 , 39 , 71 . This discrepancy suggests pluralistic ignorance where scientists privately support action but perceive other scientists as unsupportive 30 . The moderate to high public trust in scientists among the public globally (67 country study, N  = 71, 417) further underscores the potential for scientists to advocate for evidence-based policies without compromising their credibility 71 .

This study provides important insights into how environmentally concerned scientists manage the ideological dilemma of balancing scientific norms with the urgency of the environmental crisis. By detailing the discursive strategies scientists adopt to manage conflicting identities and values, this research enriches understanding of this dynamic while offering a means for scientists to reflect on and identify pathways to environmental actions that align with their individual and disciplinary perspectives.

Future research would benefit from longitudinal studies that examine how scientists’ identities and framing of engagement strategies evolve over time, especially considering evidence suggesting that scientist identity content affects the political actions scientists take 30 , and politicization involves identity content change 72 . Expanding the research beyond a primarily Western or WEIRD (White, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic) 73 , 74 sample by incorporating additional voices from the Global South and other underrepresented regions would enrich understanding. Scientists from other cultural and socio-political contexts may perceive and engage in scientist-activism differently, potentially adopting distinct subject positions.

While managing ideological dilemmas is a key factor, it is not alone in impacting scientist activism (see Supplementary Information Note One and research on scientist activism for more detail 39 ). Future research should explore how these factors, such as community and interpersonal bonds, and moral values, influence sustained engagement and high-risk actions alongside ideological beliefs.

Our team’s diverse perspectives on environmental activism reflect the broader ideological dilemmas faced by scientists, enriching our analysis and representation of participants’ viewpoints. Recognizing our motivations and actions, we emphasize the importance of ongoing reflexivity in research. Future work should continue to explore researchers’ positions, fostering nuanced conversations within the scientific community about climate crisis responses. This dialog can enhance our ability to develop comprehensive strategies that integrate scientific expertise with societal needs.

This study was preregistered. Interview data are not publicly available as this would render the participants identifiable. However, those interested may contact the authors to discuss the analysis. Additionally, the survey from which the interview sample was drawn, including its pre-registration, measures, manipulations, and exclusions, as well as data, analysis code, and materials, are available for download here. The study received ethical approval from the University of Lancaster Faculty of Science and Technology (Ref: FST-2022-0617-RECR-3). Participants provided written informed consent prior to commencing the study. Participants received no compensation.

Data collection and recruitment

Natural and social scientists were recruited to the study via an advert included in a survey on scientist activism engagement. An invitation to be interviewed was included at the end of the survey. Seventy-seven participants, out of a final sample of 329, responded to the advert.

Participants were recruited to the survey via opportunity sampling on Twitter and via various scientific societies and were not paid for participation. Recruitment aimed for diversity among natural and social scientists concerned about climate change and who participated or not in climate-related advocacy and activism. Survey responses were collected between February 2022 and October 2022. Interviews were conducted from June 2022 through December 2022. Twitter was, at the time, a hub for scientific communication and connecting scientists 75 , and so served as a suitable platform for recruiting scientists. Since its takeover and subsequent change to X many scientists have now left the site 76 , though this occurred after data collection had ceased. Academic societies and environment centers were also targeted, including the Center for Climate and Social Transformations at Cardiff, the Lund Sustainability Institute, and the Lancaster Environment Center.

We specifically targeted scientists and social scientists concerned about climate change, whether engaged in activism or not. This focus was crucial for examining activism attitudes and behaviors within the scientific community. Although it excluded unconcerned or indifferent scientists, it aligned with understanding motivations and barriers to activism among those aware of and concerned by the issues. Additionally, both natural and social scientists were recruited to reflect the diverse representation seen in movements like Scientists for Extinction Rebellion and Scientist Rebellion, ensuring a comprehensive view of scientific activism on climate change and representing a wide range of scientific perspectives on environmental activism.

To ensure that a wide range of viewpoints, experiences, and contexts were captured the following selection strategy was adopted to choose interviewees. In the survey, we included a climate advocacy/activism behavior frequency scale. We calculated descriptive information about advocacy/activism frequency. We divided participants into low, average, and high engagement categories of activism. Fourteen did not engage in any higher risk/higher responsibility activist behaviors (see Supplement for a breakdown of activism behaviors). We aimed to interview 8 - 10 of them (approximately a third of the final interview sample), and a similar number from average and high activism subsets. Participants were chosen at random from each subset using a random number generator. If a participant opted not to be interviewed, another participant was randomly selected from these subsets until data collection ceased.

We aimed to conduct a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 30, interviews of approximately one hour in length. This was within the resources of the team and ensured a high likelihood of saturation being reached. Saturation, broadly, as noted by Saunders and colleagues, can be conceptualized as having been reached on “the basis of the data that have been collected or analyzed hitherto, further data collection and/or analysis are unnecessary.” 77 Saturation may be reached when there is enough information to replicate the study, the ability to obtain new information has been attained, and further coding is no longer feasible 78 . However, a variety of approaches exist in terms of both conceptualization and application 77 . Given these different approaches, and to assure the quality and rigor of our research, we applied the following strategy. Saturation, at the level of data collection, often refers to the number of interviews required until no new information emerges 77 . Applying an ‘informational redundancy’ approach 79 , 80 , 81 , we determined whether additional interviews were required once the minimum was reached. In contrast to grounded theory approaches, this is a data saturation approach rather than a theoretical saturation approach 77 . Two additional interviews were conducted to be certain that the interview content did not differ substantially from the previous entries.

Twenty-seven natural and social scientists were interviewed (59% Male, M age  = 40.19 years, SD = 12.93, range = 24–77). Members of direct-action groups identified more as activists, felt more strongly that science and activism were more compatible, were older, and engaged much more frequently in activism. Nine (33.33%) were members of direct-action groups that used the scientist identity as part of their actions, such as Scientists for Extinction Rebellion and Scientist Rebellion (usually denoted by wearing a lab coat). Of those, just 2 (7.4%) were from social science backgrounds. See Table 2 for full sample description.

Interview procedure

Semi-structured interviews were conducted online via Microsoft Teams by the first author. The interviews aimed to investigate scientists’ views of the climate and ecological crisis, their own actions, and activism. A semi-structured interview schedule, which included topic lists and open-ended questions, was used to guide each interview (see Table 3 ). The interview schedule served as a topic guide rather than a prescriptive set of questions, allowing for flexibility and adaptation to each interviewee. The opening question was used to orient each interviewee, and questions were adapted as required to broadly ensure that the topics were covered.

The development of this schedule was informed by the research question, the prior survey research, systematically collected fieldnotes with scientist-activists, and the literature on scientific environmental advocacy. Data was prepared manually by transcribing the interviews verbatim. To protect anonymity, identifiable information such as names and specific locations were removed from the transcript. Interviews ranged from 36 to 118 min (Mean = 63.41 min, SD = 20.50 min).

The first author did not disclose his own activism unless specifically asked about it, aiming to minimize potential bias in the interview process and ensure that participants felt comfortable expressing their genuine thoughts and opinions about activism. Where applicable, disclosure did stimulate insightful conversations about the role of activism in research. For further context on reflexivity and researcher positionality, see credibility strategies below.

We drew on critical discursive psychology (CDP) concepts and principles, which underscore that individuals are both products of and active agents in shaping wider discourse 57 , 59 . CDP provides a framework for examining how language constructs social identities, negotiates power relations, and challenges or reproduces dominant ideologies 58 , 82 . CDP emphasizes the dynamic interplay between discourse and social practices, highlighting the role of language in shaping individual subjectivities and social realities.

We focused on scientist talk to explore how scientists draw on different linguistic repertoires to navigate ideological dilemmas 19 and articulate their social identities 66 . CDP posits that thinking and subject accounts are often rhetorical 56 , therefore analysis of talk may reveal how subjects use language to manage dilemmas and position themselves wider discourse e.g., to persuade or convince themselves or others that scientists can be activists.

CDP necessitates attention to both linguistic repertoires 58 , culturally shared ways of talking about and understanding the world, and subject positions, the relational, social locations, that individuals may construct for themselves or others by drawing on these repertoires to position themselves in relation to the wider discourse 57 , 58 . Specifically, we were interested in how the speakers utilized repertoires concerning science and the climate and ecological crisis and how they claimed subject positions, particularly those incorporating the scientist identity, to manage the dilemma.

All analysis was completed by the authors following standardized steps for discourse analysis 59 . Analysis started with several rounds of reading and coding the transcripts This included multiple rounds of reading and coding transcripts, focusing on how scientists spoke about scientist and activist identities, their actions on environmental issues, moral values, and interpersonal relationships. We observed diverse perspectives on scientist activism, including varying conceptions of what it means to be a scientist and the actions scientists may take. To further this analysis, we applied an ideological dilemmas 19 reading of the talk and attended to the interpretative repertoires and subject positions used to manage the central dilemma. The final stage involved elaboration of the discursive functions 59 of each subject position for negotiating the central dilemma, such as legitimizing scientist advocacy.

Note . Although our pre-registration initially outlined the use of thematic analysis, as we began analyzing the data, it became evident that a discourse analysis approach would be more suitable for our research questions and objectives. The early stages of data analysis involved tagging and coding text, a process common to both thematic and discourse analysis methodologies. As we progressed with the analysis, it became increasingly apparent that the nature of the data, characterized by rich debates within the scientific community, necessitated a shift in analytical approach. Given the complexities of the discussions and the theoretical framework guiding our research, particularly focusing on ideological dilemmas and critical discursive perspectives, we determined that a discourse analysis methodology would better serve our research aims. Therefore, we proceeded with a discourse analysis approach to gain deeper insights into how scientists navigate ideological dilemmas and articulate their identities within the discourse surrounding environmental activism.

In presenting supporting quotes, we aimed to capture the richness and diversity of participants’ perspectives on scientist advocacy in environmental discourse. While we strived to include a range of voices, it’s important to note that some participants may be represented more prominently than others. This deliberate selection reflects our focus on providing comprehensive insights into the nuanced subject positions observed in the discourse. Our approach prioritized the depth and relevance of participants’ contributions while ensuring a balanced representation of the overall findings.

Finally, the analysis presented in the paper concerns how scientists manage the outlined dilemma. However, when it came to what motivates scientists to stay committed long-term, and especially when considering whether to engage in high stakes action e.g., civil disobedience, other factors were more important (see Supplementary Information Note 1 ).

Credibility strategies employed

We employed several credibility strategies to bolster the trustworthiness and validity of our findings. Triangulation with other data sources was used to validate and enrich our interpretations. This involved cross-referencing information gathered from interviews with data extracted from diverse sources such as social media and media accounts. By doing so, we aimed not only to corroborate the insights gleaned from our primary sources but also to gain a deeper understanding of how the events discussed during the interviews were covered by external sources. This rigorous triangulation process allowed us to verify the accuracy of the information provided by participants and provided valuable insights into the unfolding of events as reported by media and other sources.

Member checking was employed at various stages to check interpretation with interviewees. For example, the lead author presented the findings and interpretations to both involved and non-involved scientists, soliciting their feedback and validation. This process ensured the accuracy and relevance of our interpretations while also addressing any potential biases or misunderstandings.

Reflexivity was a fundamental aspect of our approach to credibility. We acknowledged the researcher’s subjectivity and potential influence on the data collection and analysis process. By practicing reflexivity, we aimed to maintain transparency and integrity in our research, recognizing and mitigating any personal biases that may have impacted our interpretations.

Reflexivity statement

Our research team consists of individuals with diverse perspectives on environmental engagement. While our motivations and actions vary, all of us share a dedication to advancing environmental awareness and understanding. As the lead researcher of this study, I acknowledge my personal stake in the environmental issues explored. I am deeply concerned about environmental challenges and recognize the overwhelming scientific consensus on the urgent need for ambitious action to address climate change and related crises. This recognition, shared by the co-authors, coupled with our interest in this phenomenon from a psychological perspective, collectively motivated our investigation into how scientists navigate ideological dilemmas surrounding environmental advocacy.

Throughout the study, we recognized the potential influence of our personal perspectives on the research process. We approached this challenge by acknowledging our motivations and actions while striving to maintain methodological rigor and impartiality. Our reflexivity extended to methodological decisions, including triangulating data from multiple sources (including empirical research, diverse perspectives in the literature, and media coverage of scientist actions) and accurately representing the diverse viewpoints of interviewees without imposing our own biases or preconceptions onto their views.

It is important to recognize that, despite our efforts to maintain objectivity, our motivation to conduct this research stems from a belief in its necessity. Understanding how scientists navigate these ideological dilemmas is crucial for fostering informed discussions within the scientific community about responses to the climate crisis. By elucidating the diverse perspectives and strategies scientists employ in engaging with environmental issues, this research aims to enrich our collective understanding of effective approaches to addressing climate challenges. Such insights can facilitate a more nuanced dialog among scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders, ultimately enhancing our ability to develop comprehensive and adaptive strategies that draw on scientific expertise while respecting individual and disciplinary perspectives. Our commitment to rigorous methodology, including triangulation with multiple data sources and reflexivity, underscores our dedication to producing credible and valuable research outcomes.

Data availability

Interview data are not publicly available as this would render the participants identifiable. However, those interested may contact the authors to discuss the analysis. Anonymized survey data 83 used to select the interviewees are available in the Open Science Framework repository: https://osf.io/w8qje/ .

Code availability

All computer code 84 generated for analyses used to describe the sample and perform statistical tests are available in the Open Science Framework repository: https://osf.io/wvb7m/?view_only=5e4ed30bfed749448e2c41af3b3a66ea .

IPBES. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Brondizio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S. & Ngo, H. T.). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673 (2019).

IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844 (2022).

Myers, K. F., Doran, P. T., Cook, J., Kotcher, J. E. & Myers, T. A. Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 , 104030 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Lynas, M., Houlton, B. Z. & Perry, S. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 , 114005 (2021).

IPCC. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [(eds Core Writing Team, Lee, H. & Romero, J.). https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647 (2023).

United Nations Environment Programme. Emissions Gap Report 2023: Broken Record—Temperatures Hit New Highs, yet World Fails to Cut Emissions (Again). https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/43922 (2023).

SEI, Climate Analytics, E3G, IISD & UNEP. The Production Gap: Phasing down or Phasing up? Top Fossil Fuel Producers Plan Even More Extraction despite Climate Promises. https://doi.org/10.51414/sei2023.050 (2023).

Gayle, D. XR scientists glue hands to business department in London climate protest. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/13/xr-scientists-glue-hands-to-business-department-in-london-climate-protest?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_Ob882thlsRhHkgnhCuUjaDApBri4qv4MnTrXCaAS1koMnwyV3vFDqZ91k_00-7I7HaWZy (2022).

Capstick, S. et al. Civil disobedience by scientists helps press for urgent climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 12 , 773–774 (2022).

Tormos-Aponte, F. & Frickel, S. Scientists are becoming more politically engaged: here’s what that means beyond the 2020 elections. Sci. Am. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-are-becoming-more-politically-engaged/ (2020).

Betz, G. In defence of the value free ideal. Eur. J. Philos. Sci. 3 , 207–220 (2013).

Nielsen, L. A. Science and advocacy are different—and we need to keep them that way. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 6 , 39–47 (2001).

Castree, N. An alternative to civil disobedience for concerned scientists. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 , 1499–1499 (2019).

Lackey, R. T. Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conserv. Biol. 21 , 12–17 (2007).

Nelson, M. P. & Vucetich, J. A. On advocacy by environmental scientists: what, whether, why, and how. Conserv. Biol. 23 , 1090–1101 (2009).

Sedlak, D. Crossing the imaginary line. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 , 9803–9804 (2016).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Gardner, C. & Wordley, C. Scientists must act on our own warnings to humanity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 , 1271–1272 (2019).

Gardner, C., Thierry, A., Rowlandson, W. & Steinberger, J. From publications to public actions: the role of universities in facilitating academic advocacy and activism in the climate and ecological emergency. Front. Sustain. 2:679019 , 82–87 (2021).

Google Scholar  

Billig, M. et al. Ideological Dilemmas: A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking . 180 (Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, US, 1988).

Reardon, S. et al. What happened at March for Science events around the world. Nature 544 , 404–405 (2017).

Oza, A. Scientists skip COP28 to demand climate action at home. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03829-2 (2023).

Scientist Rebellion. Leaked IPCC Report. Sci. Rebellion http://scientistrebellion.org/about-us/leaked-ipcc-report/ (2021).

Valero, M. V. Outcry as scientists sanctioned for climate protest. Nature 614 , 604–605 (2023).

S4XR. People. Scientists for Extinction Rebellion https://www.scientistsforxr.earth/people (2023).

SR. About Us—Scientist Rebellion. https://scientistrebellion.org/about-us/ (2023).

American Psychological Association, APA Task Force on Climate Change. Addressing the climate crisis: an action plan for psychologists, Report of the APA Task Force on Climate Change. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-crisis-action-plan.pdf (2022).

Pezzullo, P. C. & Cox, J. R. Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere . (SAGE Publications, Incorporated, 2022).

Cambridge Dictionary. Activism. Cambridge English Dictionary.

Johnston, J. & Gulliver, Robyn. ‘Activism and Advocacy’ in Public Interest Communication . (University of Queensland Press, Queensland, Australia, 2022).

Finnerty, S., Piazza, J. & Levine, M. Scientists’ identities shape engagement with environmental activism. Nat. Commun. Earth Environ. 5 , 240 (2024).

Merton, R. K. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations . (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973).

Rodgers, B. The climate emergency demands scientists take action and here’s how. Nat. Rev. Phys. 5 , 549–550 (2023).

Latour, B. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society . (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987).

Haraway, D. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem. Stud. 14 , 575–599 (1988).

Oreskes, N. What is the social responsibility of climate scientists? Daedalus 149 , 33–45 (2020).

Isopp, B. Scientists who become activists: are they crossing a line? J. Sci. Commun. 14 , C03 (2015).

Cologna, V., Knutti, R., Oreskes, N. & Siegrist, M. Majority of German citizens, US citizens and climate scientists support policy advocacy by climate researchers and expect greater political engagement. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 , 024011 (2021).

Latter, B., Demski, C. & Capstick, S. Wanting to be part of change but feeling overworked and disempowered: researchers’ perceptions of climate action in UK universities. PLOS Clim. 3 , e0000322 (2024).

Dablander, F. et al. Climate change engagement of scientists. Nat. Clim. Chang. 1–7 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02091-2 .

Oppenheimer, M. et al. Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for Environmental Policy . (University of Chicago Press, 2019).

Gundersen, T. Value-free yet policy-relevant? The normative views of climate scientists and their bearing on philosophy. Perspect. Sci. 28 , 89–118 (2020).

Klandermans, P. G. Identity politics and politicized identities: identity processes and the dynamics of protest. Polit. Psychol. 35 , 1–22 (2014).

Mackay, C. M. L., Schmitt, M. T., Lutz, A. E. & Mendel, J. Recent developments in the social identity approach to the psychology of climate change. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 42 , 95–101 (2021).

Mackay, C. M. L. et al. Connection to nature and environmental activism: politicized environmental identity mediates a relationship between identification with nature and observed environmental activist behaviour. Curr. Res. Ecol. Soc. Psychol. 2 , 100009 (2021).

Turner-Zwinkels, F., Postmes, T. & Zomeren, M.van Achieving harmony among different social identities within the self-concept: the consequences of internalising a group-based philosophy of life. PLoS ONE 10 , e0137879 (2015)..

van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T. & Spears, R. Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychol. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504 (2008).

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The social psychology of intergroup relations (eds. Austin, W. & Worchel, S.) 33–47 (Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Monterey, CA, 1979).

Reicher, S., Spears, R. & Haslam, S. A. The social identity approach in social psychology. Sage Identities Handb. 2010 , 45–62 (2010).

Iatridis, T. & Kadianaki, I. Constructions of difference in lay talk about diversity: Ideological dilemmas, antiracism and implications for identity. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 62 , 1271–1284 (2023).

Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism . (Routledge, London, 2000). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203993712 .

Venäläinen, S. “What about men?”: ideological dilemmas in online discussions about intimate partner violence committed by women. Fem. Psychol. 30 , 469–488 (2020).

Kelan, E. Gender as an Ideological Dilemma. in Performing Gender at Work (ed Kelan, E.) 145–181 (Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244498_6 .

Dixon, J., Levine, M. & McAuley, R. Locating impropriety: street drinking, moral order, and the ideological dilemma of public space. Polit. Psychol. 27 , 187–206 (2006).

Pettersson, K. Ideological dilemmas of female populist radical right politicians. Eur. J. Women’s Stud. 24 , 7–22 (2017).

Tormis, H., Pettersson, K. & Sakki, I. ‘Like we definitely have to go greener, but…’: Analysing affective-discursive practices in populist environmental discourse. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12733 (2024).

Billig, M. Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology . (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).

Edley, N. Analysing masculinity: interpretative repertoires, subject positions and ideological dilemmas. in Discourse as data: a guide to analysis (eds Wetherell, M. & Yates, S.) 189–228 (Sage and the Open University, London, 2001).

Wetherell, M. Positioning and interpretative repertoires: conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse Soc. 9 , 387–412 (1998).

Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour . 216 (Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, US, 1987).

Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures . (Basic Books, 1973).

Olmos-Vega, F. M., Stalmeijer, R. E., Varpio, L. & Kahlke, R. A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149. Med. Teach. 45 , 241–251 (2023).

Berger, R. Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qual. Res. 15 , 219–234 (2015).

Edwards, D. The relevant thing about her: social identity categories in use. In Identities in Talk (eds Antaki, C. & Widdicombe, S.) (SAGE Publications Ltd, London, 1998).

McKinlay, A. & Dunnett, A. How gun-owners accomplish being deadly average. in Identities in Talk (eds Antaki, C. & Widdicombe, S.) (SAGE Publications Ltd, London, 1998).

Antaki, C. & Widdicombe, S. Identity as an achievement and as a tool. in Identities in Talk (eds Antaki, C. & Widdicombe, S.) (SAGE Publications Ltd, London, 1998).

Antaki, C., Condor, S. & Levine, M. Social identities in talk: speakers’ own orientations. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 35 , 473–492 (1996).

Collins, H. & Evans, R. Why Democracies Need Science . (Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, 2017).

Guenther, L., Joubert, M. & Weingart, P. Science communication is on the rise—and that’s good for democracy. The Conversation http://theconversation.com/science-communication-is-on-the-rise-and-thats-good-for-democracy-62842 (2016).

Scientists for Future. About. Scientists 4 Future https://scientists4future.org/ .

van Eck, C. W. The next generation of climate scientists as science communicators. Public Underst. Sci. 32 , 969–984 (2023).

Cologna, V. et al. Trust in scientists and their role in society across 67 countries. OSF Preprint https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6ay7s (2024).

Turner-Zwinkels, F., van Zomeren, M. & Postmes, T. Politicization during the 2012 U.S. presidential elections. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull . https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215569494 (2015).

Muthukrishna, M. et al. Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) psychology: measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Psychol. Sci. 31 , 678–701 (2020).

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33 , 61–83 (2010). discussion 83–135.

Stokel-Walker, C. Twitter changed science—what happens now it’s in turmoil? Nature 613 , 19–21 (2022).

Vidal Valero, M. Thousands of scientists are cutting back on Twitter, seeding angst and uncertainty. Nature 620 , 482–484 (2023).

Saunders, B. et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual. Quant. 52 , 1893–1907 (2018).

Fusch, P. & Ness, L. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qual. Rep. 20 , 1408–1416 (2015). 2015.

Sandelowski, M. Theoretical saturation. SAGE Encycl. Qual. Res. Methods 2 , 875–876 (2008).

Francis, J. J. et al. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol. Health 25 , 1229–1245 (2010).

Guest, G., Bunce, A. & Johnson, L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18 , 59–82 (2006).

Tileagă, C. & Stokoe, E. Discursive Psychology: Classic and Contemporary Issues . (Routledge, London, 2015). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315863054 .

Finnerty, S., Piazza, J. & Levine, M. Scientists’ engagement in environmental activism dataset. OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W8QJE (2024).

Finnerty, S. Scientists’ Engagement in Environmental Activism Analysis Code. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/C5TZA (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We extend our gratitude to the academics who shared their insights and personal experiences on academic activism, contributing to the depth and relevance of our study. This project was supported by a doctoral studentship from the Faculty of Science and Technology at Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Samuel Finnerty, Jared Piazza & Mark Levine

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

S.F. designed the study, collected the data, and carried out both the quantitative and qualitative analyses with input from J.P. and M.L. S.F. wrote the paper with contributions from all co-authors. All authors read and approved the final paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel Finnerty .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Finnerty, S., Piazza, J. & Levine, M. Between two worlds: the scientist’s dilemma in climate activism. npj Clim. Action 3 , 77 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-024-00161-x

Download citation

Received : 19 April 2024

Accepted : 02 September 2024

Published : 12 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-024-00161-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

• Open access
• Published: 28 September 2024

Learning experiences from an online QI fellowship programme during COVID-19 – a qualitative study

• Richard A. Powell   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4968-3714 1 , 2 ,
• Kandazi Sisya   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4908-9838 3 ,
• Vimal Sriram   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2139-8591 4 , 5 &
• Rowan Myron   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1518-2276 3  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  1144 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

During the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, multiple aspects of everyday human existence were disrupted. In contrast, almost all levels of educational learning continued, albeit with modifications, including adaptation to virtual—or online—classroom experiences. This pedagogic transition also occurred in the National Institute of Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration Northwest London’s (NIHR ARC NWL) Improvement Leader Fellowship, an annual programme focusing on quality improvement (QI). This qualitative study aimed to understand how these changes impacted the Fellows’ learning experience.

We explored the experiences of two cohorts of programme Fellows ( n  = 18, 2020–2021 and n  = 15, 2021–2022) with focus groups, analysed under a constructivist qualitative research paradigm.

The two primary and four sub-themes that emerged were: Online QI learning experience (benefits and challenges) and Implementing online QI learning (facilitators and barriers). While benefits had three further sub-themes (i.e., digital flexibility, connection between learners, and respite from impact of COVID-19), challenges had four (i.e., lack of interaction, technological challenges and digital exclusion, human dimension, and digital fatigue). While the facilitators had three sub-themes (i.e., mutual and programmatic support, online resource access, and personal resilience), barriers had one (i.e., preventing implementation and lack of protected time).

Despite challenges to in-person ways of working, online learning generally worked for action-orientated QI learning, but changes are needed to ensure the effectiveness of future use of virtual learning for QI. Understanding the challenges of the translation of learning into action is crucial for implementation learning, gaining insight into how improvement Fellows navigated this translation when learning remotely and implementing directly in their workplace is key to understanding the evolving nature of implementation over the pandemic years and beyond.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

During the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United Kingdom (UK), multiple aspects of everyday human existence (e.g., work practices, sporting events, leisure activities) were suspended or disrupted to varying degrees between March 2020 and April 2022 [ 1 ]. In contrast, almost all levels of educational learning continued, albeit with modifications to the method of provision, including adaptation to virtual—or online—classroom experiences.

Virtual learning is “education being delivered in an online environment through the use of the internet for teaching and learning” [ 2 ]. A key feature is its lack of dependency on students’ co-location to learn and interact with educators and fellow students. The pandemic was not the first-time online learning was used. Indeed, it has been employed as a method of educational delivery in healthcare education for decades [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ], with its benefits in enhancing student experience well documented [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Prior to the onset of the pandemic, however, the use of online learning had been inconsistent, possibly due to educators’ concerns regarding the additional burden of technology, including the lack of required technical support and resources [ 11 ]. The unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19 crisis resulted in the rapid transition to, and use of, online learning in healthcare education [ 12 , 13 , 14 ], often with minimal preparation.

This pedagogic transition also occurred in the National Institute of Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration Northwest London’s (NIHR ARC NWL) Improvement Leader Fellowship, impacting two cohorts of Fellows.

Initiated in 2010, the Fellowship is an annual programme, normally based around one day of face-to-face learning and three days of work-based learning per month, that focuses on quality improvement (QI). It is shaped by collaborative learning theory [ 15 ], where social interaction and multiple perspectives play an active role in fostering deeper thinking and learning [ 16 ]. Using a spiral curriculum—i.e., cyclical learning, increasing depth on each iteration, and learning by building on prior knowledge—Fellows learn in taught sessions then apply their learning to their QI projects within health and care settings.

This applied and action-focused pedagogy presented its own unique challenge when learning moved online. The Fellowship programme adopted online learning as a necessity (due to social distancing restrictions) imposed by the pandemic, with both educators and students forced to readjust, recalibrate, and innovate to accommodate online QI education [ 17 ]. Online learning was just one of the consequences of the pandemic; learners, many of whom were clinicians, were also under severe pressure during this time. With the spread of the pandemic, National Health Service (NHS) staff reported increased work-related stress and feeling a sense of responsibility to protect others, which negatively affected their mental health and wellbeing [ 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Recent research has highlighted the impact of COVID-19 on medical education and the advantages of using technology to facilitate such education [ 21 ]. Lessons learned from virtual training [ 22 ] highlight the positives of virtual education and how it can facilitate application of knowledge. Given the rapid change in healthcare education delivery following the pandemic’s onset, gaps exist in our understanding of how these online pedagogic changes impacted healthcare professionals’ learning experience. More particularly, how this affected the implementation of action-focused learning, such as the Fellowship. This study therefore aims to address this knowledge gap by exploring the experiences of online learning among participants on the NIHR ARC NWL Improvement Leader Fellowship in the context of QI education and learning.

Philosophical position

This research took a relativist ontological position, with a constructivist epistemological position, theorising that ‘truth’ is not absolute but is created by each individual and influenced by the context of that individual [ 23 ]. Hence, the research sought to understand how each participant constructed their experience of online learning and the application of that learning during the Fellowship. We followed recommendations from Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) in structuring this manuscript (Additional file 1).

Participants

We explored the experiences of two cohorts ( n  = 18, 2020-21 cohort and n  = 15, 2021-22 cohort) of NIHR ARC NWL programme Fellows. The first cohort received QI education between May 2020 and April 2021; the onset of COVID-19, and the associated governmental public health restrictions (e.g., social distancing, work from home orders), meant Fellows were required to learn almost exclusively online, with occasional meetings held in a hybrid format towards the end of the Fellowship. The second cohort received QI education between July 2021 and April 2022; by the summer of 2021, public health restrictions were easing, and the Fellowship was mostly delivered in-person, but Fellows could attend meetings online if they needed to isolate (as a result of an infection or to protect a vulnerable person). However, with the increase in COVID-19 cases and hospital admissions in Autumn/Winter 2021, the Fellowship was moved entirely online in January 2022 until March of that year, when it returned to a hybrid format (Fig. 1 ).

Timeline showing changes to NIHR ARC NWL Improvement Leader Fellowship for cohort 2020-21 and 2021-22

All purposively sampled Fellows were notified of the planned focus group [ 24 ] discussions in advance in an emailed information consent sheet, but their purpose was reiterated both verbally on a face-to-face basis on the day and in writing by the course leader (RM) before data collection started. RM, VS and KS had a pre-existing relationship with the Fellows as course staff members; RP was introduced to the second cohort, with his background, research experience and interest in undertaking the research explained. No Fellows withdrew from the study; there were a small number (1 in 2022) that could not attend on the day for practical reasons. All participants were offered the opportunity to ask any questions before providing their informed written consent.

Research team, reflexivity and integrity

The focus groups were conducted by RP, a male employed at the time of the study as an Evaluation and Project Manager, who has two health-related Masters degrees and extensive experience of writing on and conducting qualitative research and by a colleague with experience in qualitative research and discussion group facilitation who was not involved in the completion of the study. As this study involved qualitative data collection, analysis and interpretation, we considered the authors’ assumptions and preconceptions regarding the phenomenon of interest (i.e., a QI educational programme delivered online). The authors come from different professional backgrounds (occupational therapist, psychologist, social scientist) with varying levels of experience in education and QI; this helped minimise any potential influence of individual researcher’s conceptions and preconceptions regarding the phenomenon of interest. This research process was conducted in collaboration with all the authors who acknowledge they have clinical and non-clinical backgrounds and levels of expertise in teaching, using digital education methods and QI. Additionally, the data collection and analysis were conducted by members of the research team who have declared no conflict of interest. As a result, the research is not affected by external influences. The use of standard approaches to data collection, analysis and interpretation as well as author reflexivity minimised the impact of the research team’s preconceptions [ 25 ]. Reflexivity and integrity were maintained throughout this research study [ 26 ].

Data collection and management

Four approximately one-hour, focus groups were held by facilitators in an academic setting, with field notes made immediately after. The focus group discussion guide was developed for this study (available in supplementary files). Active participation of all group members was ensured by a pre-discussion outlining of the rules governing interactions (e.g., being respectful of others, including opportunities for speaking) and an inclusive engagement approach that actively sought opinions from less vocal participants. Discussions were recorded using Zoom software, from which transcribed documents were automatically generated. Both cohorts followed the same study discussion guide, which was adapted in the course of discussions for question order and supplementary queries as needed. Key areas covered by the guide were participants’ learning experiences, their use of this learning within health and social care settings—and any facilitators and barriers—how this could be improved, differences, and potential future differences, to how they work, including with colleagues, and the impact of COVID-19 on their learning experience - its challenges and benefits - and project implementation. Data saturation is usually used in qualitative research to ascertain sample size, however there are differences as to when and how this is achieved. Evidence from a review of saturation in focus groups [ 27 ] suggests that 90% of saturation can be reached by conducting 4–5 focus groups. After four focus groups we did not perceive that additional new ideas would add further useful insights for this research study.

Data analysis

The verbatim transcripts produced by the Zoom platform were manually checked for errors by KS and corrected. We employed the template analysis approach to thematic content analysis [ 28 ]. An initial coding template was developed manually by RP, employing marker pens to highlight and code textual segments relevant to the study aim. Specifically, we aimed to understand the impact of restrictions imposed as a result of COVID-19 on the learning experience as perceived by participants. We used provisional a priori codes derived deductively from the focus group guide anticipated to be especially relevant to the analysis and augmented them inductively from the transcripts. These codes were arranged hierarchically, using broad umbrella themes followed by narrower sub-themes. This coding tree was subsequently independently and critically reviewed by KS against the transcripts. Following the addition of a small number of new variables and the recoding and regrouping of some initial codes, a consensus was achieved. Exemplar quotes were then selected to illustrate the thematic findings, and a final report of themes and sub-themes generated.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval (reference number: EERP 1920-082a) was granted by the Imperial College London (IC) Research Ethics Committee. Written informed consent to participate was obtained from all participants in the study.

The focus groups included 18 (2020-21 cohort) and 15 Fellows (2021-22 cohort), comprised of clinical practitioners (see Table 1 ).

Analysis of data showed two primary and four sub-themes: Online QI learning experience (benefits and challenges) and Implementing online QI learning (facilitators and barriers). While the benefits under the online QI learning theme had three further strands (i.e., digital flexibility, connection between learners, and respite from impact of COVID-19), the challenges had four further strands (i.e., lack of interaction, technological challenges and digital exclusion, human dimension, and digital fatigue). While the facilitators under the implementing online QI learning had three further strands (i.e., mutual and programmatic support, online resource access, and personal resilience), the barriers had one further strand (i.e., preventing implementation and lack of protected time) (see Fig. 2 ). The following section elaborates upon these findings. Additional illustrative quotes are provided in Table 2 .

Themes and sub-themes identified through thematic analysis

Online QI learning experience

Participants identified benefits from the online learning for QI including ability to better manage their time and decrease the need to travel to a learning venue.

Digital flexibility

Whilst acknowledging the potential downside associated with digital learning, participants recognised and valued the flexibility the medium afforded them.

There are pros and cons … it’s easy to dial in … it’s convenient , it’s quite helpful. You know , on a personal level , husband working away , kids being picked up and dropped off. It makes that element of things way less stressful. (Group 1: 2020-21)

For one participant, this flexibility was replicated in delivery of healthcare to patients online as part of their QI project.

COVID has revolutionised the face validity of digital health. Because before … I mean , in my practice , you know , before if I’d have said I can do this assessment over Zoom or whatever , people would have been like , ‘Ooo , that can’t be as good. Now , everybody’s like , ‘Oh , no problem’…’ (Group 2: 2020-21) .

Connection between learners

Participants noted that the connection tying them together was critical as co-learners—partly to alleviate anxieties—and this was not broken by the challenge of online learning, partially by breaking up discussions into smaller interactive groups.

So, as long as we keep connected , I think virtual or not , it’s not the distance , it’s the communication that brings us together , isn’t it? It’s not the distance. We can be in different places and different countries now , isn’t it? And we still link and connect. Sharing experiences , I think is the main thing. (Group 1: 2020-21)

Respite from impact of COVID-19

The continuation of the Fellowship online additionally offered participants respite from the vagaries of the pandemic and provided a stable framework that maintained a focus on their studies.

… it was nice to dial into the specific sessions. People could have a bit of a break from everything else that was going on and that actually , a bit of a light at the end of the tunnel moment. (Group 1: 2020-21)

This opportunity to continue learning online or in a hybrid format provided continuity and assurance of meeting at regular intervals.

Learning-wise was probably the discipline of having regular times to meet and reflect on … one of the biggest benefits for me was in having those moments … in the diary to come together and then being … put on the spot and asked , you know , ‘what have you learnt since last time?‘ , ‘what have you done differently?‘. Actually , forced me to reflect on that , which that was very helpful for me. (Group 2: 2020-21)

Lack of interaction

This sub-theme relates to the challenges raised by online environments. One aspect of the learning process missed by Fellows was the intimacy of personal encounters, as well as ‘being present’, especially in the context of QI learning, which was usually delivered through in-person interactive elements.

I have really valued coming in today and having it face-to-face. On Zoom , it’s just not a conversation. It’s one person talk[ing] and then you don’t get people feeding into you. You can see some nods , but you don’t get the … you know , the validation or , yes , kind of conversation. (Group 2: 2020-21)

Online interactions also were seen as being ‘unnatural,’ in the sense that they removed the spontaneity of exchanges:

If you’re on Zoom and everyone’s muting and unmuting , it becomes really difficult to have sort of like a natural discussion about things … you get so much more , that just comes out [of] something spontaneous that someone comes up with. (Group 1: 2021-22)

Additionally, it was the nature of the interaction between Fellows that was noticeably absent; the ‘softer’, less formal interactions that facilitate interpersonal connections between learners.

To the conversation we spoke about earlier , the softer skills , it’s the coffee breaks , the corridor conversations , the informal stuff that you have that actually really makes connections , makes relationships work and not having that over a screen just makes that 100 times more difficult , I think. (Group 1: 2020-21)

This lack of informal interaction was potentially less problematic for those working in clinical care positions who, attending work in, for example, hospital settings, were “ able to have those corridor conversations and … speak to people , my colleagues , in person ” (Group 1: 2020-21) .

Additional to making connections, participants spoke of the value of collaborative learning.

Really , I think if I’m honest with myself , you get much more out of it being in the room. You’re more attentive. You take more away. It’s easier to have small group discussions. It’s easier to do the group work. So yeah , I suppose ultimately less convenient , but definitely better if you are here. And I think it’s better than if it’s just all offline. (Group 2: 2021-22)

Technological challenges & digital exclusion

Some participants noted the technical challenges to learning that can exist using digital platforms. Those can both be from the learners’ perspectives, but also from the facilitator’s viewpoint:

And then you’ve got somebody who has internet connection issues , you know. Not everyone is sort of up to speed with all this Zoom , Teams and going in and then. You know , even until today I can’t do a sort of like background drop thing. (Group 1: 2021-22)

This was also true for hybrid sessions (in-person learning session with some participants joining online)

90% of the time , you can’t hear if you’re on virtual and it’s going on in person , you don’t know what’s happened on that day. You can’t hear people that are facilitating , and you can’t hear people in the room. (Group 2: 2021-22)

For others, it was less the technological challenges of digital learning as it was about digital exclusion, especially for some Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives, both for learning and as users of the NHS.

Regarding COVID , you know , the digital - I’m all for that but it has got its disadvantages from PPI perspective actually. Many people don’t have connections , cannot afford [it] … now where possible , [the] NHS [is] pushing for the digital appointments and things like that , and I think that is going to be a sort of sad case because already local authorities [regional organisations] and everywhere assuming you … have digital access. (Group 2: 2020-21)

Human dimension

This sub-theme relates to the many human aspects of learning in an online environment. Participants lauded this human aspect of their interactions that virtual learning could not provide to a comparable extent.

I just don’t think that we should allow technology to replace human connection because we are social beings … I’d rather , you know , not attend at all if I couldn’t come because for me , the Zoom was very difficult … I don’t think we should allow technology to take over all our lives. That’s totally disastrous. (Group 1: 2021-22)

Digital fatigue

Another negative linked with online learning was the associated tiredness, which can result in distraction and disengagement.

I think sometimes when I’m on online it’s a lot easier to get distracted , or lose concentration or just switch off … sometimes I feel a like I just zone out after a while , because I’ve sat there and I’m looking at the screen and not trying to take it all in. (Group 1: 2021-22)

Implementing QI learning

This theme refers to the implementation of learning for the fellows in their QI projects in the workplace. We consider the facilitators and factors that support or inhibit implementation, which was part of the curriculum for QI learning.

Facilitators

Mutual and programmatic support.

In some ways, peer support was viewed as beneficial to alleviate the sense of ‘helplessness’ initially caused by the pandemic and further support was derived from the programme itself.

Yes , so I’ve had quite a difficult experience… because I’ve experienced so many systemic delays… However , the Fellowship has reassured me a great deal that this is quite common and , and that there’s a lot of learning in the delays. And I also think I’ve retained quite a lot of the learning around PDSA [Plan , Do , Study , Act] cycles and things like that. And I’m quite confident that I’d be able to apply now I’ve got through the barriers. (Group 2: 2021-22)

Online resource access

The transfer of the Fellowship programme’s educational materials to bespoke online platforms, including an e-learning platform (QI4U) and cohort-specific website, was seen as very helpful.

I found the QI4U really helpful and going back to that after a little off time as well was really good. (Group 2: 2020-21)

Personal resilience

Individual Fellows discussed the role of their personal resilience in moving forward from the pandemic, and how this contributed to the implementation of online QI learning.

There is always going to be barriers in an improvement project , there is always going to be challenges … exactly how we still keep moving forward and have the kind of expectations. I think the expectation in our group is , ‘COVID’s got in the way , oh we’ve all struggled , it’s been a really difficult time’. As it completely has , but how you start to move that narrative forward- that’s where our team will be able to start to get that ball rolling. (Group 2: 2020-21)

Preventing implementation and lack of protected time

In addition to affecting classroom learning, COVID-19 affected Fellows’ QI projects as well. Project progress was tethered to their QI learning and implementing in practice what they were learning as part of the ‘spiral curriculum’. The pandemic forced staff to redeploy from their usual roles to address the urgent needs of patients, so their QI projects and ambitions suffered, even if some of the lessons learned through the Fellowship programme could be applied to their new positions.

So , my original project was in a compassion focused-therapy programme for patients , but I went into employee health and was doing stakeholder mapping , was doing process mapping , was drawing a lot for the stuff that I’ve learned [from the course] into that environment but not necessarily knowing that I was doing it. (Group 2: 2020-21)

One of the common complaints among Fellows was that during the pandemic, they did not have access to protected time for their QI projects, with their line managers not allowing them to dedicate time to action their learning, which (if they had protected time) would have resulted in additional implementation-based learning.

We had to do all of that through COVID where actually my , my schedule increased three times during COVID. I was asked to work three times more … and on top of that , you know , the Fellowship and on top of that , not having protected time for research. (Group 1: 2021-22)

Recent literature has highlighted the benefits of online learning in healthcare education, including increased accessibility and reach, greater flexibility in delivery, and financial and time savings [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. However, online learning has also faced challenges. Examples include technical problems, such as healthcare educators’ and learners’ familiarity and competence with tools and access to digital infrastructure, the unknown impact on student outcomes as educators experience difficulties maintaining students’ engagement and lack of speaker continuity, and its socio-emotional impact, such as loss of social connections, collaborative learning, and poor student wellbeing [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ]. The recent findings on the impact of COVID-19 on medical education and the advantages of using technology to facilitate such education gives a key indicator of how healthcare educators can move forward in utilising the positive aspects of virtual education, whilst working to mitigate some of the disadvantages identified in this study [ 21 , 22 , 36 ].

This study of online QI learning found participants place value on face-to-face interaction due to the richness of learning in person. However, there is also a clear indication that where face-to-face learning is not possible, there are key ways in which online education can provide an enriched space for collaborative learning. This study’s participants highlighted problems in the transition from face-to-face to virtual learning, particularly for QI learning, which is traditionally taught in person, is discussion based and ‘hands-on’. Especially problematic were technological aspects (e.g., poor audio), the lack of interaction, technological challenges and digital exclusion, the human dimension of the learning experience and digital fatigue. Some of these challenges exacerbated existing challenges to full-time staff finding, for example, the ringfenced time to learn and then implement their QI projects.

However, there were positives arising from virtual learning that were also reported by participants. These included the digital flexibility, the connection between learners and respite from the impact of COVID-19 on other professional and personal aspects of their life. These are equally important to note given in the post-pandemic landscape, there is a possibility that healthcare educators, like clinical healthcare providers, may adopt some of the innovations initiated during the height of the pandemic, including a hybrid approach to training [ 30 , 32 ].

In terms of implementation and collaboration, participants described a difference between their online learning experience and the impact of COVID-19 on their learning. There was awareness of a relief in coming together, a ‘light at the end of the tunnel’, which the regular ‘headspace’ of the learning days appeared to provide. Additionally, this particular type of learning was seen as collaborative, with group discussions often actively focussed on a common problem (e.g., action learning sets) [ 37 ]. The active process of solving a problem together possibly relieved some of the helplessness reported by many during COVID-19 lockdowns [ 38 ]. The ability to actively apply what they learned, not only in the day, but to take that learning back into practice was also seen as valuable. A positive aspect of the Fellowship is that despite learning moving to an online platform, Fellows were still able to implement change in their healthcare settings and described an ability to connect with each other that added to their experience. The pedagogy of the Fellowship (i.e., collaborative learning theory and social constructivism) [ 14 , 35 ] is designed to support implementation and action from learning. It is also designed to foster collaboration across inter-disciplinary and indeed professional boundaries [ 16 ], and some of this collaboration can and indeed did happen even in the absence of physical face-to-face meetings and, where possible, through hybrid meetings [ 39 ].

To help others designing and implementing learning programmes for QI, we also share information that could have supported learners. The Fellowship programme itself implemented some of the QI methodology to make changes and adapt during the course of the programme to facilitate and better integrate online learning. Online learner feedback enabled the faculty to implement quick and cost-effective solutions. To overcome difficulties encountered during hybrid sessions as pointed out by participants, an addition of a lapel mic ensured audio could be clearly heard online and, in the room, a portable webcam ensured visual engagement regardless of venue. The programme also funded access to a laptop for a patient fellow who was digitally excluded. Solutions do not always have to be large and expensive [ 37 ]. Communicating this to fellows through modelling of good behaviour and resolving ‘problems’ within the learning environment in an agile and quick manner encouraged fellows to transfer and apply similar techniques within their own workplace.

Lastly, it is important to note the study’s strengths and limitations.

This is one of a few studies qualitatively examining the pedagogic experiences of adult learners during the COVID-19 pandemic and to our knowledge the first study that specifically reports on QI learning delivered through online and hybrid formats. It provides useful insights into the use of online learning, highlighting positive and negative aspects that can help inform flexible and improved models of hybrid learning that are responsive to the needs of individual learners. However, due to the self-selected nature of the sample, participants’ experiences may not be representative of those of the Fellowship learning community during the same time period. Additionally, given the exploratory nature of this study, it did not enable comparison in experience between the two learner cohorts. In this regard, it is important to note that differential delivery modes of learning between the two cohorts may mean that participants had different experiences that impact the study.

The onset of COVID-19 posed multiple challenges to traditional in-person ways of working. Forcing learning to a largely online experience, created difficulties and challenges that occasionally exacerbated existing problems to QI learning. However, despite those, online learning generally worked for action-orientated QI learning, but changes need to be effected to ensure the effectiveness of future use of virtual learning platforms is optimised. For example, healthcare educators may pedagogically, intentionally include more interaction in online learning to facilitate collaboration and demonstrate how learning can be applied. Facilitators need to be aware of and pay attention to the particular challenges that can continue to support QI education through online and hybrid opportunities.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available under the consent provisions of GDPR and the sensitive nature of the data provided. Anonymized quotation data is available in this paper in line with the consent provisions and further anonymized example quotations in the data set are made available in Table  2 . The authors are willing to be contacted to explore reasonable requests for data sharing within the consent provisions at [email protected].

Abbreviations

Applied Research Collaboration Northwest London

Coronavirus disease 2019

Imperial College London

National Health Service

National Institute of Health and Care Research

Plan, Do, Study, Act

Patient and Public Involvement

Quality improvement

United Kingdom

Sriram V, Jenkinson C, Peters M. Impact of COVID-19 restrictions on carers of persons with dementia in the UK: a qualitative study. Age Ageing. 2021;50:1876–85.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Singh V, Thurman A. How many ways can we define Online Learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of Online Learning (1988–2018). Am J Distance Educ. 2019;33:289–306.

Article   Google Scholar  

Benson EP. Online learning: a means to enhance Professional Development. Crit Care Nurse. 2004;24:60–3.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Carroll C, Booth A, Papaioannou D, Sutton A, Wong R. UK Health-care professionals’ experience of on-line learning techniques: a systematic review of qualitative data. J Continuing Educ Health Professions. 2009;29:235–41.

Dhawan S. Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. 2020;49:5–22.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018 .

Walsh K. Online Educational Tools to improve the knowledge of primary care professionals in infectious diseases. Educ Health. 2008;21:64.

Google Scholar  

Moule P. E-learning for healthcare students: developing the communities of practice framework. J Adv Nurs. 2006;54:370–80.

Moule P, Ward R, Lockyer L. Nursing and healthcare students’ experiences and use of e-learning in higher education. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66:2785–95.

Pullen DL. An evaluative case study of online learning for healthcare professionals. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2006;37:225–32.

Reeves S, Fletcher S, Mcloughlin C, Yim A, Patel KD. Interprofessional online learning for primary healthcare: findings from a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e016872.

Blake H. Staff perceptions of e-learning for teaching delivery in healthcare. Learn Health Social Care. 2009;8:223–34.

Dost S, Hossain A, Shehab M, Abdelwahed A, Al-Nusair L. Perceptions of medical students towards online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national cross-sectional survey of 2721 UK medical students. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e042378.

Chatziralli I, Ventura CV, Touhami S, Reynolds R, Nassisi M, Weinberg T, et al. Transforming ophthalmic education into virtual learning during COVID-19 pandemic: a global perspective. Eye 2020. 2020;35:5.

Mintz J, Wahood W, Meghani S, Rajput V. Emergency Transition to virtual education during COVID-19: lessons and opportunities for Experiential Learning and Practice socialization. MedEdPublish. 2020;9:144.

Laal M, Laal M. Collaborative learning: what is it? Procedia - Social Behav Sci. 2012;31:491–5.

Myron R, French C, Sullivan P, Sathyamoorthy G, Barlow J, Pomeroy L. Professionals learning together with patients: an exploratory study of a collaborative learning Fellowship programme for healthcare improvement. J Interprof Care. 2018;32:257–65.

Govindarajan V, Srivastava A. What the Shift to virtual learning could Mean for the future of higher Ed. Boston: Harvard Business Rev.; 2020.

Gemine R, Davies GR, Tarrant S, Davies RM, James M, Lewis K. Factors associated with work-related burnout in NHS staff during COVID-19: a cross-sectional mixed methods study. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e042591.

While AE, Clark LL. Management of work stress and burnout among community nurses arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. 2021;26:384–9.  https://doi.org/10.12968/bjcn2021268384 .

Newman KL, Jeve Y, Majumder P. Experiences and emotional strain of NHS frontline workers during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2022;68:783–90.

Gardanova Z, Belaia O, Zuevskaya S, Turkadze K, Strielkowski W. Lessons for Medical and Health Education Learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare. 2023;11:1921.

Galoyan T, Kysh L, Lulejian A, Dickhoner J, Sikder A, Lee M, et al. Lessons learned from organizing and evaluating international virtual training for healthcare professionals. Int J Med Educ. 2022;13:88–9.

Haslanger S. Ontology and Social Construction. Philosophical Top. 1995;23:95–125.

Powell RA, Single HM. Focus Groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 1996;8:499–504.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dodgson JE. Reflexivity in Qualitative Research. 2019;35:220–2.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334419830990 .

Flemming K, Noyes J. Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Where Are We at? 2021;20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921993276 .

Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Weber MB. What Influences Saturation? Estimating Sample Sizes in Focus Group Research. 2019;29:1483–96.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318821692 .

King N. Doing Template Analysis. Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges. 2017. p. 426–50.

Ahmady S, Shahbazi S, Heidari M. Transition to virtual learning during the Coronavirus Disease–2019 Crisis in Iran: Opportunity or Challenge? Disaster Med Pub Health Prep. 2020;14:e11–2.

Al-Azzam N, Elsalem L, Gombedza F. A cross-sectional study to determine factors affecting dental and medical students’ preference for virtual learning during the COVID-19 outbreak. Heliyon. 2020;6(12):e05704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05704 .

Caldwell KE, Hess A, Wise PE, Awad MM. Maintaining Effective Senior Resident-Led Intern Education through virtual curricular transition. J Surg Educ. 2021;78:e112–20.

Almarzooq ZI, Lopes M, Kochar A. Virtual learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a disruptive technology in Graduate Medical Education. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:2635–8.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dutton WH. To Be or Not to Be Virtual - That is Not the Question. 2020.

Durfee SM, Goldenson RP, Gill RR, Rincon SP, Flower E, Avery LL. Medical Student Education Roadblock due to COVID-19: virtual Radiology Core Clerkship to the rescue. Acad Radiol. 2020;27:1461–6.

Krystalli P. Undergraduate students’ perceptions of virtual teaching. Eur J Social Sci Educ Res Articles. 2020;7:121.

Fitzgerald DA, Scott KM, Ryan MS. Blended and e-learning in pediatric education: harnessing lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur J Pediatr. 2022;181:447–52.

Zuber-Skerritt O. The concept of action learning. Learn Organ. 2002;9:114–24.

Khan AS, Baloch BA, Shahzad F, Tahir MS. Feelings of loneliness, learned helplessness and depression during COVID-19 forced lockdown in Pakistan. J Prof Appl Psychol. 2020;1:62–9.

Adedoyin OB, Soykan E. Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interact Learn Environ. 2023;31:863–75.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Fellows who participated in the group discussions.

This study is supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration Northwest London; there is no award number. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funding body played no part in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in the writing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, England

Richard A. Powell

Ethnicity and Health Unit, Imperial College London, London, England

Collaborative Learning and Capacity Building Theme, Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Northwest London, Imperial College London, London, England

Kandazi Sisya & Rowan Myron

Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, England

Vimal Sriram

Director of Allied Health Professionals, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, England

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RM, VS and KS conceived and designed the work; RP and KS acquired, analysed and interpreted the data; RP and KS drafted the manuscript and RM and VS substantively revised it. All authors have approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rowan Myron .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval (reference number: EERP 1920-082a) was granted by the Imperial College London (IC) Research Ethics Committee. Informed consent to participate was obtained from all participants in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable, there are no images or other personal clinical details of participants that compromise anonymity.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1.

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Powell, R.A., Sisya, K., Sriram, V. et al. Learning experiences from an online QI fellowship programme during COVID-19 – a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 1144 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11590-z

Download citation

Received : 26 February 2024

Accepted : 16 September 2024

Published : 28 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11590-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Quality Improvement
• Fellowships and scholarships
• Problem-based Learning/Active learning
• Distance Education
• Communication

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]