Action Research in Systems Engineering Doctoral Dissertations: Common Pitfalls and Guidance for Effective Use

Abstract

Action research (AR) has become an increasingly popular methodology in systems engineering doctoral dissertations, particularly in European academic contexts where industry‐embedded research is valued. Despite its appeal, many doctoral candidates misapply the method in ways that undermine the intellectual contribution of their work. Based on the author's experience serving on doctoral committees across multiple institutions, this article identifies five recurring and critical weaknesses in the application of action research within systems engineering dissertations: absence of a prior research protocol, failure to identify and mitigate threats to validity proactively, conflation of researcher participation with measurements of improvement, insufficient novelty assessment of the proposed work, and misalignment between action research outputs and the knowledge‐discovery imperative of doctoral research. For each weakness, concrete guidance and corrective practices are provided. The goal is to help doctoral students and their advisors make better use of this valuable but demanding methodology, and to ensure that systems engineering dissertations employing action research meet the highest standards of scholarly rigor.