Experimental action research as the preferred methodology in social, behavioral, health and human sciences

The aim of this editorial is to reveal that experimental action research (EAR) is more suitable than randomized controlled experimental trials (RCTs) for social sciences, nursing, midwifery application, behavioral, health and human sciences. In this editorial based on philosophy and methodological perspectives of Guba (1981), Lincoln & Guba (1985), Habermas (1987), Gunbayi & Sorm (2018), Whitehead & Schneider (2013), Gunbayi (2020a,b), Lewin (1946) and Marrow (1969), the positivist philosophy underlying RCTs is criticized, and it is claimed that action research is much more related contextually and appropriate in terms participants and ethics. This editorial is based on the analysis of mixed methods research, social paradigms, knowledge constitutive interests and EAR and supports the claims that EAR is much more suitable for the complexity of human centered disciplines