The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Principles of canonical action research
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. Despite the growing prominence of canonical action research (CAR) in the information systems discipline, a paucity of methodological guidance continues to hamper those conducting and evaluating such studies. This article elicits a set of five principles and associated criteria to help assure both the rigor and the relevance of CAR in information systems. The first principle relates to the development of an agreement that facilitates collaboration between the action researcher and the client. The second principle is based upon a cyclical process model for action research that consists of five stages: diagnosis, planning, intervention, evaluation and reflection. Additional principles highlight the critical roles of theory, change through action, and the specification of learning in terms of implications for both research and practice. The five principles are illustrated through the analysis of one recently published CAR study.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1984) · Cited by 81,983
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 · Cited by 45,787
Case Study Research: Design and Methods
Chaiklin, H. (1991) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-199102000-00025 · Cited by 39,535
Hartley, J. (2004) · Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research · doi:10.4135/9781446280119.n26 · Cited by 15,461
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203720967 · Cited by 7,222
A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems1
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249410 · Cited by 5,263
The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014) · doi:10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2 · Cited by 4,207
Lewin, K. (1947) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872674700100103 · Cited by 3,493
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675100400101 · Cited by 3,379
Cited by
Privacy in the Digital Age: a Review of Information Privacy Research in Information Systems1
Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41409971 · Cited by 1,339
Selecting Empirical Methods for Software Engineering Research
Easterbrook, S., Singer, J., Storey, M.-A., & Damian, D. (2008) · Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_11 · Cited by 1,167
Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research
Goldkuhl, G. (2012) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.54 · Cited by 541
Ferneley, E. H., & Sobreperez, P. (2006) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000629 · Cited by 323
Context is king! Considering particularism in research design and reporting
Davison, R. M., & Martinsons, M. G. (2016) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2015.19 · Cited by 259
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Davison, R., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N.
- Venue
- Information Systems Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 65-86
- ISSN
- 1350-1917 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2575
- OpenAlex
- W2029751781
- Cited by
- 832
- References
- 69
- FWCI
- 96.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Principles of canonical action research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00162.x
- The paper
- Davison, R., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00162.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
