A Tri-Process Action Research Conceptual Model for Digital Marketing Adoption among Microenterprises

Existing action research (AR) conceptual models present generic cyclical frameworks that lack domain specificity, do not make the parallel knowledge-production process explicit, and fail to connect fieldwork cycles to thesis chapter development. These limitations reduce their utility as practical guides for doctoral researchers conducting AR in specialised domains. This paper presents the Tri-Process Action Research Conceptual Model, an adapted and extended framework developed for the empirical study of digital marketing adoption among microenterprises in Alor Setar, Kedah, Malaysia. The model integrates three simultaneously operating processes: (1) Proposal Writing, (2) Domain-Specific Fieldwork Cycles embedding digital marketing adoption and outcome nodes within the AR spiral, and (3) Thesis Writing, with each cycle directly mapped to specific thesis chapters. Adapted from Zuber-Skerritt and Fletcher (2007) and Coghlan (2019), the model introduces three novel features absent from existing AR frameworks: domain-embedded action nodes (replacing generic Act/Observe nodes with Digital Marketing Adoption and Digital Marketing Outcome constructs), explicit tri-process parallelism that supplants the single-process assumption of conventional AR models, and a progressive cycle-to-chapter knowledge mapping mechanism. The framework was operationalised across a 21-month doctoral study (October 2022 to July 2024) involving 21 microenterprises purposively sampled from the food and beverage, retail, and service sectors, with all field data analysed in NVivo 14 using reflexive thematic analysis. The paper articulates the theoretical basis of each innovation, demonstrates how the model was operationalised across a pilot study and three fieldwork cycles, and provides evidence of its effectiveness in coordinating the three parallel processes, sustaining methodological rigour, and generating five domain-specific theoretical propositions. The proposed model offers a replicable framework for doctoral and applied researchers conducting domain-specific AR in business, entrepreneurship, and digital transformation contexts.

action research; digital marketing adoption; microenterprises

1. Alford, P., & Page, S. J. (2015). Marketing technology for adoption by small business. The Service Industries Journal, 35(11–12), 655–669. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization. SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Erro-Garcés, A., & Alfaro-Tanco, J. A. (2020). Action research as a meta-methodology in the management field. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, Article 1609406920917489. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Feekery, A. (2024). The 7 C’s framework for participatory action research: Inducting novice participant-researchers. Educational Action Research, 32(3), 332–347. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Goh, L. H. (2016). A practical guide to writing your action research. Sasbadi Sdn Bhd. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2014). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hussin, H., Wang, J., Wang, Q., Hu, S., Zhou, J., & Jin, H. (2023). Supporting doctoral research developing conceptual framework. Journal of Human Capital Development (JHCD), 16(2), 69–82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. James, E. A., Slater, T., & Bucknam, A. (2012). Action research for business, nonprofit, and public administration: A tool for complex times. SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Jensen, I. B., & Dikilitas, K. (2025). A scoping review of action research in higher education: Implications for research-based teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(1), 84–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1992). Action research as a form of staff development in higher education. Higher Education, 23(3), 297–310. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 559–603). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Moreno-Poyato, A. R., Subias-Miquel, M., Tolosa-Merlos, D., Ventosa-Ruiz, A., Pérez-Toribio, A., El Abidi, K., Navarro-Maldonado, R., Suárez-Pérez, R., Valera-Fernández, R., & Romeu-Labayen, M. (2023). A systematic review on the use of action research methods in mental health nursing care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 79(1), 372–384. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Shani, A. B., & Coghlan, D. (2018). Conducting action research for business and management students. SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Shani, A. B., & Coghlan, D. (2019). Action research in business and management: A reflective review. Action Research, 19(3), 518–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750319852147 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Terho, K., Rintala, E., Engblom, J., & Salanterä, S. (2023). Action research on promoting hand hygiene practices in an intensive care unit. Nursing Open, 10(5), 3367–3377. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Wiklund-Engblom, A., Polo, F., Kullbäck, C., & Asplund, S. (2023). Defining and implementing a smart working environment for employee sustainability: Action research for organisational development and learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 35(8), 693–712. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Fletcher, M. (2007). The quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(4), 413–436. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Perry, C. (2002). Action research within organisations and university thesis writing. The Learning Organization, 9(4), 171–179. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Wood, L. (2019). Action learning and action research: Genres and approaches. Emerald Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Exploring the Successful Digital Transformation Execution Among Family-Owned Business in Kuala Lumpur
• Adapting To Transform: Digital Challenges and Strategies for Women-Entrepreneurs in Kuala Lumpur
• Convenience Motivation, Hedonic Motivation, and Information Quality as Drivers of Online Food Delivery Service Adoption in Malaysia
• Facebook Advertising Features and Their Influence on Consumer Purchase Decisions Among Residents of Barangay Apopong, General Santos City
• An Analysis of Image Segmentation Techniques for Image Processing Applications