Supporting organizational learning: a comparative approach to evaluation in action research

Abstract

For well over a decade, the organizational context of nursing in the United Kingdom has been one of change and reform with a policy shift towards primary and community led health care. Such a major shift in policy provides nurses with an opportunity to re-think their approaches towards the individuals and communities they serve in order to promote self-care, recognize achievable health goals and provide family and community support. Although there is a growing appreciation of action research as an useful approach to this kind of development, it can be difficult to evaluate published studies because of the diverse nature of the literature. This paper will present and evaluate two case studies using a particular conceptual device (The Normative Information Model-based Systems Analysis and Design) in order to explore a possible alternative to the interpretative narrative or positivistic hypothesis-testing models used to report other kinds of nursing research and enlarge the debate about process evaluation.

Relationship centred outcomes focused on compassionate care for older people within in‐patient care settings

“…Meyer (2000) describes a positive aspect of this approach, being a research process and outcomes that are more meaningful to staff, based on practice and within their context. Livesey and Challender (2002) and Kemmis and McTaggart (1998) also highlight active group working in AR, by identifying that it is through the methodology of an AR approach that problems are identified and actions taken. Cockburn and Trentham (2002) and Meyer (2000) reinforce this by stating that all elements of AR should involve democratic collaboration, resulting in meaningful social change.…”

Project management and action research: two sides of the same coin?

“…This is particularly ironic when one considers the plethora of organisational AR studies employed by clinicians working in the health service sector (i.e. Hampshire, 2000; Meyer, 2000; Dopson et al , 2001; Cooper and Hewison, 2002; Livesey and Challender, 2002; Whitehead et al , 2003).…”