Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
An action research project is usually restricted to improving one workgroup's practices within one organisation. However, after that project is done, some academics or consultants may want to try to generalise the findings from that one particular project to several other situations. The aim of this paper is to identify the two scientific paradigms appropriate for each of these two purposes, and to identify the criteria that could be used to judge how well each purpose is achieved. Essentially, it argues that the critical theory paradigm underlies the action research project of a workgroup within one organisation, and the realism paradigm underlies the generalisation from those findings to other situations. Criteria from the two paradigms can be used to evaluate the validity and reliability of these two processes. An example of how this has been done in practice, is provided.
Thompson et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: