follows and so it stands to reason that the interests of the human subjects[3] involved would be respected with care throughout the process. Indeed, AR is, or should be, far from the evils that IRBs are supposed to combat. These authors, in the true spirit of AR, involved the institutional stakeholders (Chair and members of the IRB) at Cornell University and the University of Cincinnati in a dialogue to come to a common understanding of AR and of how the committee would review AR projects: "Subsequently, IRB reviews of AR projects have been both [sic] thorough, fair-minded, and thoughtful". We recommend a similar educational AR process be used in institutions where IRBs apply conventional positivist research ethics and find it difficult to review AR projects. We can work with our IRBs to ensure that review processes are developed that reflect the values underlying the theory and practice of action research. Brydon-Miller and Greenwood (2006 , p. 126) remind us that there are two aspects of AR: action and research. They suggest that the actions or interventions developed with participants in AR do not constitute research and should not require IRB approval. "What does require review is the process of taking this action and transforming it into research for presentation or publication". And so, "we should develop strategies for incorporating the development of IRB proposals and consent forms into the action research process itself". Values are the cornerstones of ethics. Zuber-Skerritt (2005 , pp. 53-4) has identified seven core values and