ABSTRACT
Risks and challenges accompany Interventionist Research’s (IVR’s) potential, especially if researchers are not aware of them. The bad includes the fragmented nature of IVR, the time it takes to do IVR, and the multiple researcher qualities IVR needs to perform IVR effectively. The ugly is the stigma that IVR constitutes second-rate research, given its perceived association with consulting, which has raised questions over its legitimacy. With respect to how IVR should be undertaken, Eden and Huxham argue that a systematic exploration approach must be applied to action research, although they are not forthcoming about what this method should entail. Accounting and management scholars recognise that IVR demands multiple qualities in a researcher. Argyris refers extensively to the qualities needed to perform IVR effectively. Argyris states that researchers normally consider the act of intervening as consulting. Kaplan argues that innovation action research relies on scholars working with case organisations to develop a theory and then examine its potential to improve organisational performance.
