Not sure of your purpose in asking the question in that they are very different. Experimental approaches are quantitative studies characterised by a single methodology that involves varying degrees of randomisation, control and manipulation of variables as cause and effect experiments. Action research is often classified as mixed methods, emancipatory and involves a number of approaches/methods over periods of time to enact organisational/community change. Perhaps the attached chapter may assist in terms of clarifying action research. A quick Google search should help you clarify experimental research design as something very different. The only real relationship between them is that action research could potentially (although it is not common) incorporate an experimental component in its overall process. I did write an article (also attached) that looked to compare action research and project management. In my mind, that is a more notable comparison to make.
The AR and Experimental Research are not mutually exclusive. Experimental research is called so because of specific quantitative design. The action research comes in a wide variety of "evaluative, investigative, and analytical research methods designed to diagnose problems or weaknesses—whether organizational, academic, or instructional" to come up with evidence to address the issue at hand. Wxperimental research is conducted with complete scientific rigor, whereas action research may not.
Interesting discussion. Experimental researches involve testing a certain hypothesis which can be done by manipulating certain variables. While action research employs mixed-methods (not necessarily manipulating variables) and cyclical research design that aims to develop possible solutions to problems which then improve one's practice or profession. To dig in deeper, I am recommending an article by Pertti Järvinen entitled, " On boundaries between field experiment, action research and design research". Link: http://www.uta.fi/sis/reports/index/R14_2012.pdf
My understanding is that there is no difference between the two, at least not when action research was introduced as a social science methodology. I don't think Kurt Lewin wanted to do anything different from what Frederick Taylor was doing. They were both concerned with industrial experiments, although they were differently motivated. Today, however, action research is often described as a mixed-method approach or a case study approach, or all sorts of complicated things, but in essence it appears to me to be a field experiment where the aim is to test an hypothesis about how to achieve a particular form of (social) change.
Ok. Thank you. So in other words, action research is more specific of an inquiry, while empirical research concerns more with general perspective of issues..
Well, that might be one way of putting it, but as I understand the original intent of the approach, action research was the same as field experiments (as opposed to laboratory experiments). Frederick Taylor and associates had been carried out engineering research on how to improve the efficency of various labour tasks, and Kurt Lewin wanted to do the same thing, although with additional intents of wanting to help the workers improve their self-esteem, ability to cooperate and so on. Still, action research was initially carried in the same way as with scientific management, collecting numerical data for the purpose of hypothesis testing, although the approach soon expanded into allowing for more flexible research designs based on circumstances and the nature of what was being researched.
Here is a book I wrote about action research a few years ago: