Action research in operations management: methodological weaknesses and four improvement strategies
系统回顾142篇运营管理领域的行动研究论文，发现其存在周期不完整、分析单元不明确等常见方法论弱点，并提出四种改进策略以增强该方法的严谨性和理论贡献。
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.