Progress Update: Turning a Doctoral Dissertation into Scholarly Contributions (22 July 2025)
1956 Erika Model 10 typewriter - my writing muse
= = = = = = = = = =
In my last blog entry (2 July), I shared a roadmap for my post-doctorate phase, paying particular attention to harvesting value from my recently published dissertation. The envisioned activities were:
adapting and sharing the results of the research with the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) [this is currently not started];
exploring peer reviewed publications and deciding what parts of the manuscript ought to be developed into journal articles [this has been partially completed]; and
deciding on the direction for the first series of blog entries [I'll be generous and say this is also partially completed].
This blog will update on my progress and share some of my thoughts on developing a journal article for publication.
Finding time to write and role of the blog
I value and am energised by the exchange of ideas, but fitting everything in requires a disciplined approach.
My general observation is that people often find the time to do the things that they deem truly important (e.g. completing graduate studies while working a busy, full-time job). I can affirm to the reader that ‘thinking and writing’ is something I value, but this aspiration requires specificity to get to the production factory of ink and the keys of the vintage manual typewriter.
I consider this blog as an inducement to complete more formal writing projects. Specifically, I have begun to reorient my lens from dissertation writing to the production of a manuscript for journal publication. In other words, I am in the process of making the transition from 'practitioner-researcher' to 'scholarly-contributor'. I hope that you'll remain with me for the journey.
From dissertation to journal article
I believe a journal article is more than a shrunken version of dissertation content, as these academic documents reflect different purposes, voice, and audiences. The purpose of a dissertation is to demonstrate skills, knowledge and rigour to fulfill very specific academic criteria as provided by one’s university. The resultant document tends to be more formal and expansive. The core audience for a dissertation is definitely your Committee and External Examiner, the university, and perhaps other emergent scholars in your field.
On the other hand, a journal article is a more focused contribution to scholarly dialogue. The tone will often be more assertive but also reflective and balanced. The author makes a claim and joins a larger conversation with other researchers and practitioners in their field of knowledge [or the Action Research community, in my case]. Scholars want to add to theoretical knowledge and/or improve professional practice. Depending on the expectations of the chosen journal, the scope of the article might be very selective and narrow in scope. In my case, I have reviewed several journals and currently intend to provide a manuscript to Action Research Journal (SAGE) for review, and with some good fortune, eventual publication. There is no guarantee that I will be picked up by this publication, but I’m satisfied that what I would like to share fits the scope of this journal. According to their guidance to authors:
Articles should be between 5,000 and 7,000 words inclusive.
The journal publishes quality articles on accounts of action research projects, explorations in the philosophy and methodology of action research, and considerations of the nature of quality in action research practice.
All papers submitted ought to link theory and practice, in whatever way the author deems appropriate. It is assumed that the author, in seeking to share their work more broadly will consider the issue of how their contribution builds upon and advances the theory and practice of action research. In most cases we prefer to see theoretical and practical insights intertwined.
Sage Journals (2025)
The journal article: Initial thoughts and framework
Here is a sketch of my initial thoughts for the article and its structure:
Provisional title
Challenged Collaboration: Reflections on an Action Research Project in the Canadian Military
Article Proposal
This article will offer a reflective analysis of an Action Research (AR) project conducted at National Defence Headquarters of the Canadian military. The author advances the term “hindered collaboration” to describe the stalled research resulting from the conflation of structural, cultural and epistemological tensions within the hierarchical environment of the study. The author’s military-insider status provides insights to advance AR theory and its application in the relatively understudied milieu of the military.
Utilising one of Ivankova’s (2015) Mixed Methods AR (MMAR) designs, the study employed both Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) and the Evaluative Study of AR (ESAR) as the basis to examine critically the evolving inquiry process (Piggot-Irvine et al., 2021a, 2021b). This article contributes to the AR discourse related to projects where the transformative aspirations of the researcher were challenged by “… ambiguities, mistakes, frustrations, tensions, conflicts and disappointments” (Bartels & Friedman, 2022, p. 99). As a career military officer, the author is an insider-researcher offering insights into the challenges of conducting AR in the mostly closed culture of the military. Emphasis is given to issues concerning power, positionality, and institutional structural bias.
This work is intended to support other scholar practitioners working in similar hierarchical environments such as defence, policing, or public service institutions.
I have developed a detailed structural breakdown with three to five bullets under each heading. The higher-level structure with associated word estimates are:
Introduction (600 - 800 words);
Framing the Literature (900 - 1100 words);
Methodological and Organisational Contexts (800 - 1000 words);
Stalling and its Consequences (1200 - 1400 words);
Reframing the Outcomes of the Research (900 - 1100 words);
Implications for AR in Hierarchical Contexts (900 - 1100 words);
Conclusion (300 - 400 words)
Conclusion
To conclude, I want to end with a public thank you to all who have signed up for this blog after my initial announcement of being awarded the DSocSci degree in a LinkedIn announcement on 2 July 2025 (LinkedIn post). The outpouring of public and private messages of congratulations and encouragement have been both motivating and humbling. Thank you everyone!
In sharing these reflections, I hope to provide insights into my journey as an Action Researcher and a practitioner-scholar. My current focus is on preparing contributions for academic journals, as well as contemplating collaboration more deeply as it relates to AR in hierarchical settings. I plan to share my next progress update sometime in August.
For those in the northern hemisphere, have a great summer!
Thank you for taking the time to read this blog. I look forward to your comments via the web form below [scroll down to the bottom of this page]. You can sign up to receive future news and blog posts, if you wish.
- John
= = = = =
References
Bartels, K. P. R., & Friedman, V. J. (2022). Shining light on the dark side of action research: Power, relationality and transformation [Editorial]. Action Research, 20(2), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221098033
Ivankova, N. V. (2015). Mixed methods applications in action research: From methods to community action. SAGE.
Piggot-Irvine, E., Ferkins, L., & Cady, P. (2021a). Goal Attainment Scaling in action research: Enhancing a systems thinking orientation. In E. Piggot-Irvine, L. Ferkins, W. Rowe, & S. Sankaran (Eds.), The Evaluative Study of Action Research: Rigorous findings on process and impact from around the world (pp. 89-106). Routledge.
Piggot-Irvine, E., Ferkins, L., Rowe, W., & Sankaran, S. (Eds.). (2022). The Evaluative Study of Action Research: Rigorous findings on process and impact from around the world. Routledge.
Piggot-Irvine, E., Rowe, W., & Ferkins, L. (2018). Monograph Series No. 7: Thumbs up for action research in case studies from the Evaluative Study of Action Research. Greenslopes, QLD, Australia: Action Learning, Action Research Association Ltd. https://www.alarassociation.org/sites/default/files/ALtd_Docs/Pubs/monographs/ALARA_Monograph7_Piggot-Irvine.pdf
Piggot-Irvine, E., Rowe, W., & Ferkins, L. (2021b). Thumbs up for action research in case studies from the Evaluative Study of Action Research. In E. Piggot-Irvine, L. Ferkins, W. Rowe, & S. Sankaran (Eds.), The Evaluative Study of Action Research: Rigorous findings on process and impact from around the world (pp. 129-154). Routledge.
Sage Journals - Action Research. (2025). Submission guidelines. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://journals.sagepub.com/author-instructions/ARJ
If something in this post resonated with you, or you would like to be notified when I publish new blog entries, please get in touch with me through the form below. I promise to never spam or share your personal information with anyone. — John