• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Health Services Research & Policy >Action research: a way of researching or a way of managing?
【24h】

Action research: a way of researching or a way of managing?

机译：行动研究：一种研究方式还是一种管理方式？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Scrutinising recent systematic reviews both on action research and on the management of change in organisations,nwe have made two observations which, we believe, clarify a rather amorphous literature. First, by comparing formalndescriptions of each, action research cannot be clearly distinguished from many other change methodologies. Thisnapplies particularly to total quality management (TQM). Both action research and TQM are cyclical activitiesninvolving examination of existing processes, change, monitoring the apparent effects of the change and furthernchange. Both emphasise active participation of stakeholders. The examples used to illustrate action research wouldnserve equally well as examples of TQM and vice versa. Second, the methods used in action research are neithernspeci. c to action research nor are they of any particular kind. It therefore follows that action research, in so far as itnpurports to describe a unique or discrete form of research rather than a change process, is a misnomer.nBased on these observations, we make two suggestions.Organisational change should be described in terms of thensteps actually taken to effect change rather than in ‘terms of art’ which, like the various brands of post-Freudiannpsychotherapy, obscure what they have in common rather than illuminate substantive differences. And the researchnembedded in any cyclical managerial process can have two broad (non-exclusive) aims: to help local servicenmanagers to take the next step or to assistmanagers in other places and in future years to make decisions. These cannbe described as limited (formative) and general (summative) aims. Whether, or to what extent, a research . nding isngeneralisable across place and time is a matter of judgement and turns on the form of the research and on itsncontext; it is completely independent of whether or not the research was carried out within a cycle of managerialnaction currently described by terms such as action research or TQM.
机译：通过仔细研究近期有关行动研究和组织变革管理的系统综述，我们得出了两个观察结果，我们认为这些观察结果澄清了一个相当不确定的文献。首先，通过比较每种形式的描述，不能将行动研究与许多其他变革方法清晰地区分开。这尤其适用于全面质量管理（TQM）。行动研究和全面质量管理都是周期性活动，涉及对现有流程的检查，变更，监视变更的明显影响和进一步变更。两者都强调利益相关者的积极参与。用于说明行动研究的示例与TQM的示例同样有用，反之亦然。其次，行动研究中使用的方法也不是专门的。 c进行行动研究，也不是任何特定种类的研究。因此，就行动研究而言，就其旨在描述独特或离散形式的研究形式而不是改变过程的研究而言，这是不正确的说法。基于这些观察，我们提出了两个建议。实际上是为了改变而不是按照“艺术术语”来进行改变，就像后弗洛伊德后期心理治疗的各种品牌一样，它们掩盖了它们的共同点，而不是阐明实质性的差异。并且，在任何周期性管理过程中进行的研究都可以有两个广泛的（非排他性的）目标：帮助本地服务管理人员采取下一步行动，或协助其他地方和未来的经理做出决策。这些不能被描述为有限（正式）和一般（总结）目标。是否或在何种程度上进行研究。在不同的时间和地点发现可否通用化是一个判断问题，它取决于研究的形式和上下文。它完全独立于研究是否在当前由行动研究或TQM等术语描述的管理行动周期内进行。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号