Action research: Its role in the university/business relationship

Systemic Practice and Action Research

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 437-447

  Haslett, Tim ^a   Molineux, John ^a   Olsen, Jane ^a   Sarah, Rod ^a   Stephens, John ^a   Tepe, Susanne ^a   Walker, Beverly ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Action Research; PhD supervision; Systems thinking; Theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036432135     PISSN: 1094429X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021067402543     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Argyris, C. (1992). Action science and intervention. In Vroom, V. H., and Deci, E. L. (eds.), Understanding Management and Motivation, 2nd edn., Penguin, London.
2. Argyris, C., and Schon, D. (1978). What is an Organization That it May Learn? Applications, George Braziller, New York.
3. Burnett, P. C. (1999). The supervision of doctoral dissertations using a collaborative cohort model. Counselor Education and Universities Supervision. 39, 46-52.
4. Cheekland, J., and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester.
5. Evans, T. (1995). Postgraduate research supervision in the emerging "open." Australian Universities Review, 38, 23-27.
6. Flood, R. L. (2001). The relationship of "systems thinking" to AR. In Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.), Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London, pp. 133-144.
7. Flood, R., and Jackson M. C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving, Wiley, Chichester.
8. Hall, B. (2001). I wish this were a poem of the practices of AR. In Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.), Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London, pp. 171-178.
9. Holland, J. (1995). Hidden Order, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
10. Krugman, M., and Andrews, S. V. (1991). Pervasive modes of thinking that affect our conduct of teaching, supervision, and research: Are we stuk in an old paradigm? Paper presented at the Annual Lily Conference on College Teaching., Oxford, OH, Nov. 11, 1991).
11. Laszlo, E. (1972a). The Systems View of the World, George Braziller, New York.
12. Laszlo, E. (ed.) (1972b.) The Relevance of General Systems Theory, George Braziller, New York.
13. Leder, G. C. (1995). Higher degree supervision: A question of balance. Astralian Universities Review, 38, 5-8.
14. Levin, M., and Greenwood, D. (2001). Pragmatic AR and the struggle to transfom universities into learning communities. In Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.), Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London, pp. 103-113.
15. Madsen, D. (1983). Successful Dissertatioras and Theses, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
16. Reason P., and Marshall, J. (2001). On working with graduate students. In Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.), Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London, pp. 413-419.
17. Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Aldeshot, England.
18. Senge, P., and Scharmer O. (2001). Community AR: Learning as a community of practitioners, consultants, and researchers. In Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.), Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London, pp. 238-249.
19. Senge, P. M. (1992). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Random House, Australia.
20. Stewark, I. (1989). Does God Play Dice, the New Mathematics of Chaos, Penguin, London.
21. Taylor, P. C., and Dawson, V. (1997). Critical research supervision? Deconstructing a disempowering myth! Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, Mar. 24-28, 1997.
22. Yeatman, A. (1995). Malking supervision relationships accountable: Graduate student logs. Australian Universities Review, 38, 9-11.