Leadership within action research: Surfacing the collective nature of leadership
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article shares specific leadership findings from the evaluative study of action research AR (ESAR). Few studies have examined the leadership dynamic within action research (AR), and fewer still across multiple projects. Leadership surfaced as a critical element in the ESAR as we sought to examine processes, outcomes and impacts of AR at a meta level. Evidence was collected from six AR case study projects via interviews, survey, goal attainment scaling and documentary analysis, followed by a survey issued to 195 projects internationally (174 responded), that is, all of the projects recruited and compiled in our ‘Directory’ at the beginning of the ESAR. The findings revealed that leadership was more collaborative than hierarchical though there was evidence that a single key person leading was pivotal to enhancing processes, outcomes and impacts of the AR projects. In this article, we offer new thinking about leadership elements that enhance AR as well as contribute to the growing conversation about shared, collective and relational approaches to leadership situated within AR systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it