Difference Between Action Research and Normal Research: Meaning, Characteristics, Examples and Applications
1. Introduction
Research is a systematic process of collecting, analysing and interpreting information to answer questions, solve problems and generate knowledge. It is widely used in education, business, healthcare, engineering, public administration and social sciences. However, research can be conducted for different purposes. Some studies aim to understand a problem or generate new knowledge, while others aim to solve an immediate problem and improve existing practices.
Two important approaches are action research and normal research, also commonly referred to as conventional or traditional research. Although both approaches use systematic methods of investigation, they differ in their main objectives, the roles of researchers and participants, the research process and the way findings are applied.
Understanding these differences helps students, researchers, teachers, managers and organisations select an appropriate research approach for their studies.
2. What Is Action Research?
Action research is a systematic approach to investigation in which researchers identify a practical problem, implement an intervention, observe the results and use the findings to improve practice.
It combines research with action. Rather than only studying a situation, the researcher actively attempts to change or improve it.
Action research is commonly associated with educational improvement, organisational development, community participation, healthcare practice and professional learning.
For example, a secondary school teacher may discover that students perform poorly in mathematics. Instead of simply investigating the causes of poor performance, the teacher introduces group-based learning, observes students’ performance, analyses the results and adjusts the teaching approach where necessary.
This process may be repeated until a more effective teaching method is identified.
Characteristics of action research
- Problem-oriented: It begins with a specific practical problem that requires improvement.
- Action-focused: It involves implementing an intervention or change.
- Cyclical: It commonly follows repeated cycles of planning, action, observation and reflection.
- Participatory: Practitioners and affected stakeholders may participate in identifying problems and developing solutions.
- Reflective: Researchers critically examine what worked, what failed and why.
- Context-specific: Findings are often intended to improve practice in a particular school, organisation, community or workplace.
- Improvement-oriented: Its central aim is to improve practices, processes or outcomes.
3. What Is Normal Research?
Normal research, in this context, refers to conventional or traditional research conducted systematically to describe, explain, compare, test or predict phenomena. It may also be called basic, applied or conventional research, depending on its purpose.
Unlike action research, conventional research does not necessarily require the researcher to implement a practical intervention. The researcher may instead collect and analyse data to understand an issue, test a hypothesis, identify relationships between variables or evaluate an existing situation.
For example, a researcher may investigate the relationship between teaching methods and students’ academic performance in secondary schools. The researcher collects examination results, administers questionnaires or conducts interviews and analyses the data to determine whether particular teaching methods are associated with better performance.
The study may recommend improvements, but implementing those recommendations is not necessarily part of the research process.
Characteristics of normal research
- Knowledge-oriented: It seeks to develop understanding, test theories or answer research questions.
- Systematic: It follows established research procedures and methods.
- Question-driven: It begins with a research problem, question, objective or hypothesis.
- Methodologically structured: It may use quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods.
- Analytical: It seeks to describe phenomena, examine relationships or explain outcomes.
- Potentially generalisable: Depending on the design and sample, findings may apply beyond the immediate study setting.
- Not necessarily intervention-based: The researcher may study an existing situation without introducing a change.
It is important to note that normal research is not a single formal research design. It is a broad term for conventional research approaches, which include descriptive, correlational, experimental, explanatory and exploratory studies.
4. Major Differences Between Action Research and Normal Research
The following table summarises the principal differences between the two approaches.
| Basis of comparison | Action research | Normal research |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Main purpose | To solve a practical problem and improve practice. | To describe, explain, test or understand a phenomenon. |
| 2. Primary focus | Practical improvement and change. | Knowledge generation, explanation or testing. |
| 3. Starting point | An immediate problem in a particular setting. | A research problem, knowledge gap, question or hypothesis. |
| 4. Researcher’s role | Often acts as a researcher and practitioner or collaborator. | May act mainly as an investigator or analyst. |
| 5. Participant involvement | Often involves active participation by practitioners or stakeholders. | Participants may provide data without taking part in research decisions. |
| 6. Intervention | Usually includes an action or improvement intervention. | May or may not include an intervention. |
| 7. Research process | Commonly follows repeated cycles of planning, action, observation and reflection. | Often follows a structured sequence from problem formulation to analysis and reporting. |
| 8. Nature of findings | Emphasises improvements within the setting being studied. | May emphasise explanation, theory testing or broader conclusions. |
| 9. Generalisation | Often focuses on a particular context, although lessons may transfer elsewhere. | May aim for broader generalisation where the research design supports it. |
| 10. Evaluation of results | Examines whether an intervention improves the identified problem. | Evaluates findings against research questions, objectives or hypotheses. |
| 11. Flexibility | May be adjusted as each action-and-reflection cycle produces new insights. | Flexibility depends on the design; some studies follow fixed protocols, while others are iterative. |
| 12. Duration | May involve several cycles over weeks, months or longer. | May be completed over a defined period, depending on the design. |
| 13. Typical users | Teachers, practitioners, managers, healthcare workers and community organisations. | Students, academics, policymakers, consultants and other researchers. |
| 14. Example | A teacher tests a new reading strategy to improve pupils’ literacy. | A researcher examines factors associated with pupils’ literacy levels. |
5. Examples of Action Research and Normal Research
Example 1: Research in education
Action research: A primary school teacher notices that pupils perform poorly in English reading. The teacher introduces daily guided-reading sessions, monitors reading scores and gathers pupils’ feedback. After evaluating the results, the teacher adjusts the sessions and repeats the process.
Normal research: A researcher surveys several primary schools to determine the relationship between reading habits, teacher qualifications and pupils’ reading performance. The researcher analyses the data and reports the findings without necessarily introducing a teaching intervention.
The main difference is that action research involves attempting to improve reading performance, while the conventional study focuses on understanding the factors associated with reading performance.
Example 2: Research in business management
Action research: A supermarket experiences long queues at checkout counters. The manager works with employees to introduce a new customer-flow system, measures waiting times and adjusts the system based on the results.
Normal research: A researcher studies the factors contributing to long customer waiting times in supermarkets. Data are collected from customers and employees, and statistical analysis is used to identify the major causes.
The action research approach seeks to improve the checkout process directly, whereas the conventional research approach primarily investigates the problem.
Example 3: Research in healthcare
Action research: A health centre identifies low attendance at antenatal appointments. Health workers introduce a community reminder programme, monitor attendance and modify the programme based on feedback.
Normal research: A researcher investigates the relationship between distance to health facilities, household income and antenatal attendance among pregnant women.
The first study implements and evaluates an improvement strategy, while the second investigates factors associated with healthcare attendance.
Example 4: Research in civil engineering and construction
Action research: A construction manager identifies frequent delays in the delivery of building materials. The manager introduces a revised materials-tracking system, monitors delivery performance and refines the system based on the results.
Normal research: A researcher examines the factors contributing to construction project delays, such as procurement procedures, contractor capacity, funding and materials availability.
The action research study tests a practical solution at a construction site, while the conventional study investigates and explains the causes of project delays.
6. The Research Process in Action Research and Normal Research
6.1 Action research process
Action research commonly follows a repeating cycle consisting of four main stages.
Stage 1: Planning
The researcher identifies a problem, examines its causes and develops an intervention to address it.
Stage 2: Action
The researcher implements the proposed intervention in the selected setting.
Stage 3: Observation
The researcher collects information to assess what happens after the intervention. This may involve observations, questionnaires, interviews, performance records or measurements.
Stage 4: Reflection
The researcher analyses the evidence, evaluates the intervention and identifies necessary changes. The findings inform the next cycle of planning and action.
The process can be illustrated as follows:
Planning → Action → Observation → Reflection → Revised planning → Further action.
The process continues until the researcher achieves sufficient improvement or reaches a reasonable conclusion about the intervention.
6.2 Normal research process
Conventional research generally follows these stages, although the exact sequence varies according to the research design.
- Identify the research problem.
- Review relevant literature.
- Formulate research objectives, questions or hypotheses.
- Select the research design and methodology.
- Identify the target population and sample.
- Collect relevant data.
- Analyse and interpret the data.
- Draw conclusions and make recommendations.
- Prepare and disseminate the research report.
For example, a researcher investigating the effect of electricity interruptions on manufacturing performance may collect electricity outage records and company production data, analyse their relationship and report the results.
The researcher does not necessarily need to change the electricity supply system or introduce an intervention.
7. Similarities Between Action Research and Normal Research
Despite their differences, the two approaches share several important characteristics.
7.1 Both are systematic
Both approaches require organised procedures for identifying problems, collecting evidence and interpreting results.
7.2 Both use data
Action research and conventional research may use quantitative data, qualitative data or a combination of both.
Quantitative data may include test scores, production levels, sales figures and customer waiting times. Qualitative data may include interviews, observations, opinions and participants’ experiences.
7.3 Both require ethical conduct
Researchers must respect participants’ rights, obtain appropriate consent, protect confidential information and avoid fabricating or manipulating findings.
7.4 Both use literature reviews
Reviewing previous studies helps researchers understand existing knowledge, identify gaps and select appropriate research methods.
7.5 Both require analysis and reporting
Researchers must interpret the collected evidence, explain their conclusions and report their findings clearly.
7.6 Both can contribute to practical improvement
Conventional research can inform policies and interventions, while action research can generate insights that contribute to wider professional knowledge. The difference lies mainly in the immediate purpose and the role of action within the study.
8. Advantages and Disadvantages of Action Research
Advantages
- Direct problem-solving: It helps address real problems in workplaces, schools, communities and organisations.
- Practical relevance: Findings can be applied to improve existing practices.
- Stakeholder participation: Involving practitioners and affected groups can increase ownership of proposed changes.
- Continuous learning: Repeated cycles allow interventions to be improved as evidence emerges.
- Contextual understanding: Researchers gain detailed insight into the conditions surrounding a particular problem.
Disadvantages
- Limited generalisability: Findings from one setting may not apply directly to other settings.
- Potential researcher bias: A researcher who is also implementing an intervention may have expectations that influence interpretation.
- Time requirements: Repeated cycles of planning, action and reflection can take considerable time.
- Difficulty isolating effects: Changes in outcomes may be influenced by other factors besides the intervention.
- Resource constraints: Implementing and monitoring changes may require additional money, personnel and equipment.
9. Advantages and Disadvantages of Normal Research
Advantages
- Systematic knowledge development: It can improve understanding of social, economic, educational, scientific and organisational problems.
- Theory testing: It can test hypotheses and examine whether theoretical explanations are supported by evidence.
- Potential for generalisation: Appropriate sampling and research designs may support conclusions about wider populations.
- Methodological flexibility: Researchers can choose descriptive, correlational, experimental, qualitative or mixed-methods designs.
- Policy relevance: Findings can guide public policy, institutional decisions and future interventions.
Disadvantages
- May not solve the immediate problem: A study can identify causes without implementing a solution.
- Potentially high costs: Large samples, extensive fieldwork and specialised analysis can require significant resources.
- Access limitations: Researchers may struggle to obtain reliable data or access suitable participants.
- Risk of weak practical application: Findings may not be translated into action if practitioners and policymakers do not use them.
- Contextual limitations: Even well-designed studies may not apply equally to every population or setting.
These disadvantages are not inevitable. The strengths and limitations of conventional research depend on the quality of its design, methods and implementation.
10. When Should a Researcher Use Action Research or Normal Research?
The choice depends on the research problem, the intended outcome and the researcher’s role.
Action research is particularly appropriate when:
- A teacher wants to improve pupils’ academic performance.
- A manager wants to reduce operational inefficiencies.
- A health worker wants to improve service delivery.
- A construction manager wants to reduce project delays.
- A community organisation wants to improve participation in a development programme.
Conventional research is particularly appropriate when:
- A student wants to examine the relationship between two or more variables.
- An economist wants to investigate the effect of government expenditure on economic growth.
- A researcher wants to estimate the prevalence of a particular social problem.
- An organisation wants to understand factors affecting employee performance.
- An academic wants to test a theory or examine an existing phenomenon.
However, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. A researcher may first conduct a conventional study to identify the causes of a problem and then undertake action research to test a proposed solution.
For example, a study may initially establish that poor materials management is associated with construction delays. A subsequent action research project may introduce an improved inventory-control system and assess whether it reduces delays.
11. Conclusion
Action research and normal research are both important approaches to systematic investigation, but they differ in their immediate purposes and the way research is connected to practice.
Action research focuses on solving practical problems through cycles of planning, action, observation and reflection. It commonly involves practitioners and other stakeholders in developing and evaluating improvements.
Normal research, by contrast, is a broad category of conventional research that seeks to describe, explain, compare, test or understand phenomena. It may generate knowledge without requiring the researcher to implement a practical intervention.
Neither approach is universally superior. The most appropriate choice depends on the research objectives, the nature of the problem, the available resources and the intended use of the findings.
Ultimately, both approaches can contribute to knowledge and development. Action research is especially useful when the priority is to improve practice directly, while conventional research is particularly valuable when the priority is to investigate a question systematically and develop evidence-based conclusions.
