Explore the vast range of titles available.

This integrative review argues that professional development is accomplished within action research with its stepwise acting, reflecting, and revision not unlike praxis. Praxis, or the application of theory while practicing requires committed pedagogical action. I ask: Can praxis and action research be managed within professional development? Secondly, is there enough support within the literature to prove the supposition that AR can be praxis and vice versa? Findings suggest that within tertiary education, many teachers act as researchers of self, and practice, as there is an on-going need for professional development. Esta revisión integradora argumenta que el desarrollo profesional se logra dentro de la investigación-acción con su actuación, reflexión y revisión paso a paso no muy diferente de la praxis. La praxis, o la aplicación de la teoría durante la práctica, requiere una acción pedagógica comprometida. Pregunto: ¿Se puede gestionar la praxis y la investigación-acción dentro del desarrollo profesional? En segundo lugar, ¿hay suficiente apoyo dentro de la literatura para probar la suposición de que AR puede ser praxis y viceversa? Los hallazgos sugieren que dentro de la educación terciaria, muchos maestros actúan como investigadores de sí mismos y de la práctica, ya que existe una necesidad continua de desarrollo profesional.

PurposeOrganisations are confronted with the challenge of navigating various pressures arising from activities that shape environmental and social impacts, which stakeholders find significant. This research endeavours to ascertain a process facilitating the analysis and seamless integration of sustainability into corporate strategy. The goal is to establish an “integrated” ESG governance framework adept at effectively managing institutional pressures.Design/methodology/approachThis research employs an action research approach, focusing on a leading company within the sugar industry. The investigation delves into the relationship dynamics associated with business issues through a process that engages, either directly or indirectly, board members, top managers, as well as industrial and commercial customers, along with final consumers.FindingsThe formulation of a sustainability strategy serves as a guiding framework for the Board of Directors in effectively navigating tensions arising from environmental, social and economic pressures.Research limitations/implicationsThe research contributes to bridging the realms of business governance and institutional theory (viewed under a paradoxical lens). On a managerial level, the study introduces a structured process aimed at seamlessly integrating sustainability objectives into governance, aligning with international ESG guidelines (OECD, 2023; WEF, 2020).Originality/valueThe originality of this research lies in crafting a sustainability strategy by the BoD that takes into account the impact of governance and responds to the demands of strategic stakeholders.

The influence of complexity theory on action research scholarship and practice has been kaleidoscopic. Further integrating ideas derived from the complexity sciences could enrich this research tradition, but there are choices to be made about what to prioritise. We distinguish complexity-informed approaches that privilege control from those adopting radical open-endedness. The former often aligns with managerialist assumptions, which tend to deny the messiness and moral dimensions of living and working. In contrast, ‘neo-complexity’ aims to reemphasise the most intellectually, politically, and emotionally radical implications of complexity science: embracing unpredictability, plurality, and practice-based ethics. An example of an action research coalition of Ethiopia, Mursi and UK researchers allows us to describe what this means in practice. La influencia de la teoría de la complejidad en la investigación-acción académica y la práctica ha sido caleidoscópica. Una mayor integración de las ideas derivadas de las ciencias de la complejidad podría enriquecer esta tradición de investigación, pero es necesario tomar decisiones sobre qué priorizar. Distinguimos los enfoques basados en la complejidad que priorizan el control, de aquellos que adoptan una perspectiva radicalmente abierta. Los primeros a menudo se alinean con los supuestos gerencialistas, que tienden a negar el desorden y las dimensiones morales de la vida y el trabajo. En contraste, la “neocomplejidad” busca volver a enfatizar los elementos más radicales intelectual, política y emocionalmente de la ciencia de la complejidad: la adopción de la imprevisibilidad, la pluralidad y la ética práctica. Un ejemplo de una coalición de investigación-acción de investigadores de Etiopía, Mursi y el Reino Unido nos permite describir lo que esto significa en la práctica.

PurposeThis paper investigates how manufacturers can develop a learning-to-learn capability for enabling Industry 4.0 adoption.Design/methodology/approachThis research design is guided by our research question: How can manufacturers develop a learning-to-learn capability that enables Industry 4.0 adoption? The authors adopt action research to generate actionable knowledge from a two-year-long action learning intervention at the Danish rooftop window manufacturer VELUX.FindingsDrawing on emergent insights from the action learning intervention, it was found that a learning-to-learn capability based on lean was a core construct and enabler for manufacturers to adopt Industry 4.0 successfully. Institutionalizing an organizational learning scaffold encompassing the intertwined learning processes of systems Alpha, Beta and Gamma served as a significant way to develop a learning-to-learn capability for Industry 4.0 adoption (systematic problem-solving abilities, leaders as learning facilitators, presence of a supportive learning environment and Industry 4.0 knowledge). Moreover, group coaching is a practical action learning intervention for invoking system Gamma and developing leaders to become learning facilitators – an essential leadership role during Industry 4.0 adoption.Originality/valueThe study contributes to theory and practice by adopting action research and action learning to explore learning-to-learn as a core construct for enabling Industry 4.0 adoption and providing a set of conditions for developing a learning-to-learn capability. Furthermore, the study reveals that leaders are required to act as learning facilitators instead of relying on learning about and implementing Industry 4.0 best practices for enabling adoption.

Action research has long been treated as a marginal methodology in the social sciences, largely owing to its lack of fit with modern assumptions about the nature of scientific research. These assumptions, however, are specific to an empiricist paradigm. My aim in the present offering is to lay out the logic of an alternative paradigm, a process-based paradigm of knowledge, adequate to the practices of action research and its relatives. This logic touches on issues of pragmatic potential, ontology, epistemology, and ethics. Such a paradigm legitimates an enormously important form of knowledge, otherwise obscured by empiricist hegemony, and opens a generative link between action research and a vast array of inquiry and practice in the social sciences. I shall also propose that the forms of research favored by a process paradigm – and most fully realized in action research – are arguably more significant in their potentials than those available within empiricist tradition. In the contemporary context of rapid change and global peril, the potential contribution of such research is unparalleled. La investigación-acción se ha considerado durante mucho tiempo una metodología marginal en las ciencias sociales, en gran medida debido a su falta de adecuación a los supuestos modernos de la investigación científica. Sin embargo, estos supuestos son específicos del paradigma empirista. Mi objetivo en el presente trabajo es exponer la lógica de un paradigma alternativo, un paradigma de conocimiento basado en procesos, adecuado a las prácticas de la investigación-acción y sus afines. Esta lógica aborda cuestiones de potencial pragmático, ontología, epistemología y ética. Dicho paradigma legitima una forma de conocimiento enormemente importante, de otro modo eclipsada por la hegemonía empirista, y establece un vínculo generativo entre la investigación-acción y una amplia gama de indagaciones y prácticas en las ciencias sociales. También propondré que las formas de investigación favorecidas por un paradigma de procesos—y que se materializan plenamente en la investigación-acción—tienen posiblemente un potencial mayor que las disponibles en la tradición empirista. En el contexto contemporáneo de rápidos cambios y peligros globales, la contribución potencial de dicha investigación es incomparable.