PurposeIn the following 'Note from the Field', I respond to an invitation from students in the world of organizational studies, to share my perspective on what constitutes a good action research project/paper. As action researchers privilege the context of practice over disembodied theory, I will introduce examples of action research -after some initial definition and framing. DefinitionAction research is an orientation to knowledge creation that arises in a context of practice and requires researchers to work with practitioners. Unlike conventional social science, its purpose is not primarily or solely to understand social arrangements, but also to effect desired change as a path to generating knowledge and empowering stakeholders. We may therefore say that action research represents a transformative orientation to knowledge creation in that action researchers seek to take knowledge production beyond the gate-keeping of professional knowledge makers.Action researchers do not readily separate understanding and action, rather we argue that only through action is legitimate understanding possible; theory without practice is not theory but speculation. Our activist wing Action ResearchVolume 8(1): 93-109

No abstract

What kind of learning is required to bring us towards a more sustainable future? We argue that when behaviourally and technically complex issues intertwine, a collaborative social learning process that engages diverse actors in deep systems change is necessary. The learning required includes but overtakes debate, bringing organisations, individuals and communities into cycles of experiential, cumulative, ad hoc and opportunistic, yet systematic, learning. Current conceptualisations and approaches to learning have not been framed with the requisite level of integrated complexity given our sustainability challenges. This article introduces the action research approach of 'learning history in an open system' in the service of such learning. Updating the heretofore single-project focussed learning history, we present recent methodological developments for its use in open systems that support a joining up of projects and sites of endeavour to support deeper and accumulating systems' learning. We explore the links to learning literature drawing on developments in aesthetics and arts-based action research to suggest our approach is one useful way of responding to the more general challenge of scale that concerns action researchers.

We propose a conceptual model to better understand core capacities that equip some executives to be effective catalysts of organizational performance over time. Drawing on constructivist theory of ego development, we suggest that the combined effects of self differentiation/complexity and self-integration are individual level predictors of being an effective catalyst. We assert that capacity for meaning making at the individual level is a prerequisite for the type of sense giving that coordinates stakeholder actions. From coordinated action outstanding leadership performance becomes possible. We link our contribution with leadership theory on the importance of vision and complexity. We offer measures and propositions to support empirical testing. We also address directions and implications for further research with emphasis on how executives may develop these capacities.

No abstract