Action research in operations management: methodological weaknesses and four improvement strategies

Abstract

This study examines the design, application, and reporting of action research (AR) in operations management (OM) to identify recurring methodological weaknesses and propose strategies to strengthen AR as a practice-oriented, theory-generating methodology. A systematic review of 142 empirical AR studies published in leading OM journals was conducted using a coding framework grounded in methodological literature, focusing on four AR design dimensions: AR cycle completeness, clarification of the unit of analysis, use of comparison logic, and use of triangulation. The review reveals recurrent methodological weaknesses: incomplete cycles, inadequate specification of the unit of analysis, limited application of comparison logic, and limited use of researcher triangulation. To address these weaknesses, the study proposes four improvement strategies: extended cycle tracking, unit stratification, multi-context comparison, and AR–case study integration. Together, these strategies configure a design space for enhancing the rigour, transparency, and contribution of AR.