1
Action Research in the Informatics Field:
Comparing Different Traditions
Trial Lecture by
Finn Olav Bjørnson
Trondheim, 14. November 2007
2
Outline
•
•
•
•
What is the problem?
What is Action Research?
Classifications of Action Research
Traditions of Action Research
– Iterative
– Reflective
– Linear
• Action Research as part of larger research projects
3
What’s the problem?
•
Research quality can be described by four aspects:
1.
2.
3.
4.
•
•
Originality
Rigor
Scientific relevance
Practical relevance
A basic and difficult problem is the balance between
theoretic quality (1-3) and practical use (4)
Scientific Rigor vs. Practical Relevance
4
Outline
•
•
•
•
What is the problem?
What is Action Research?
Classifications of Action Research
Traditions of Action Research
– Iterative
– Reflective
– Linear
• Action Research as part of larger research projects
5
Different forms of research
qualitative
Grounded theory
Field studies
Case studies
Action Research
Philosophical
discussion
analytical
empirical
Mathematical
proof
Experiment
Survey
quantitative
6
Origins of Action Research
• Kurt Lewin
– Credited with developing the method at the Research Center for
Group Dynamics (university of Michigan)
– Studied social psychology within the framework of field theory
– Sought a general theory of how social change could be facilitated.
• Tavistock Clinic
– Developed a similar method independently
– Dealt with psychological and social disorders caused by battlefields
and prisoner-of-war camps
7
What is Action Research?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Example: The Tavistock Clinic
Dealt with psychological and social disorders caused by battlefields and
prisoner-of-war camps.
Previously these psychological syndromes had not been identified in
such a large population.
Complex causes -> difficult to formulate any universal treatment with
enough confidence
Each case appeared different.
Idea: Social action – scientists intervened in each experiment case by
changing some aspect of the patients being or surrounding.
Scientist and therapists were the same – the scientists were
participating in their own research.
Effects of actions were recorded and studied – A body of knowledge
were developed about successful therapy.
8
History of Action Research
4 periods of AR:
• Origins 1940-1960
• Disputes 1960-1975
• Fragmentation 1975-1990
• Diffusion 1990->
5 Streams (traditions) of AR:
• Social and Organizational
science
• Organizational Learning
• Process Consultation
• Systems science
• IS action research
Baskerville(98)
9
Outline
•
•
•
•
What is the problem?
What is Action Research?
Classifications of Action Research
Traditions of Action Research
– Iterative
– Reflective
– Linear
• Action Research as part of larger research projects
10
Characteristics of Action Research
•
Essence of action research
– Diagnosis stage (analysis of the social situation. Hypothesis
formulation)
– Therapeutic stage (change experiments)
•
Common characteristics of action research
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Multivariate social setting
Highly interpretive assumptions about observation
Researcher intervention
Participatory observation
Study of change in a social setting
Blum(55), Baskerville(98)
11
Other Characteristics of Action
Research: Control Aspects
• Initiation
– Researcher (field experiment)
– Practitioner (Classic action research genesis)
– Collaborative (evolves from existing interaction)
• Authority
– Practitioner (consultative action warrant)
– Staged (migration of power)
– Identitiy (practitioner and researcher are the same person)
• Formalism
– Formal (specific written contract or letter of agreement)
– Informal (broad, perhaps verbal contract)
– Evolved (shift from one form to the other)
Avison(2001)
12
IS Action Research –
Classification mechanism
•
Process modell
–
–
–
•
Structure
–
–
•
Rigorous
Fluid
Researchers Role
–
–
–
•
Iterative
Reflective
Linear
Collaborative
Facilitative
Expert
Primary Goal
–
–
–
–
Organizational development
System Design
Scientific Knowledge
Training
Baskerville(98)
13
Outline
•
•
•
•
What is the problem?
What is Action Research?
Classifications of Action Research
Traditions of Action Research
– Iterative
– Reflective
– Linear
• Action Research as part of larger research projects
14
Traditions of Action Research
Process
Structure
Involvement
Goals
Canonical Action Research
Iterative
Rigorous
Col
org. dev. and sci. kno.
Information Systems Prototyping
Iterative
Rigorous
Col/Fac
system design
Collaborative Practice Research
Iterative
Fluid
Fac
org. dev. and sci. kno.
Soft Systems
Iterative
Fluid
Col
org. dev. and systems design
Dialogical Action Research
Reflective
Rigorous
Fac
org. dev.
Action Science
Reflective
Fluid
Fac
org. dev. and sci. Kno.
Participant Observation
Reflective
Fluid
Exp
scientific knowledge
Action Learning
Reflective
Fluid
Exp
Training
Multiview
Linear
Rigorous
Col/Fac/Exp
System design
ETHICS
Linear
Rigorous
Fac
org. dev. and systems design
Clinical Field Work
Linear
Fluid
Fac
org. dev. and sci. kno.
Process Consultation
Linear
Rigorous
Exp
org. dev.
Baskerville(98), Davidson(04), Mathiassen(02)
15
Outline
•
•
•
•
What is the problem?
What is Action Research?
Classifications of Action Research
Traditions of Action Research
– Iterative
– Reflective
– Linear
• Action Research as part of larger research projects
16
Iterative Action Research
• Iterative IS action research uses iteration as its
primary organising principle.
• The entire set of research activities is repeated until
the practical problem is resolved.
• Traditions of iterative IS action research:
–
–
–
–
Canonical Action Research
Soft Systems
Prototyping
Collaborative Practice Research
17
Canonical Action Research
• Canonical AR in IS, is a method that aims to improve
theoretical quality and at the same time preserve
relevance.
• Based on five basic principles:
–
–
–
–
–
Researcher Client Agreement
Cyclical Process Model
Theory
Change through Action
Learning through Reflection
Davison(04)
18
Researcher-client Agreement
•
Goal
1. Create an environment for the organization and researchers to cooperate
in.
1. Ensure social reflection through cooperation
2. Mutual guarantees for behaviour
3. Create a solid basis for building trust
2. Ensure common goals
1. Organizational goals vs. Researcher goals
2. Clarify the role of the researcher(s). Balance between research and consultancy.
3. Ethical Framework
1. Different values. Fast results (organization) vs reflection before action
(researcher)
19
Cyclic Process Model
• Lewin’s original AR model had six distinct, iterative
phases.
• Susman revised this model slightly to a five phase
model, commonly used today.
Susman(78)
20
Diagnosing
• Goal
– Create organizational understanding
– Understand the organizational problem
• Approach
–
–
–
–
Conversations
Interviews
Collect and study available documentation
Prioritize in case of several problems
• Results
– Hypothesis
– Description of the problem the organization needs to solve
– Relevant background knowledge
21
Action Planning
• Goal
– Plan the intervention
– The planned change must be made explicit
• Approach
– Cooperation between researchers and the organization
– Changes must relate to theories
• Results
– List of actions both researchers and the organization agrees on.
22
Action Taking
• Goal
– Therapy
– Conduct the changes in the organization
• Approach
– Start and quality assure the process
– Researchers role can vary
– The researcher don’t need to be involed in this stage
• Results
– Observations of the change
– Organizational changes
23
Evaluating
• Goal
– Assess the usefulness of the action taken
• Approach
– Meetings between the organization and researchers
• Results
– Assessment of the effect of the actions
– Suggestions for new actions
24
Specify learning
• Goal
– Action should inform theory
• Approach
– Documenting the knowledge that has emerged as a result of the
action
– Often, the learning occurs during the entire cycle (as double looped
learning)
– Organizational learning
• Result
– More consise theory
25
Canonical Action Research (cont)
•
Theory
–
–
–
•
Change through Action
–
–
–
•
Disagreement on wether theoretical framework need to be there from the start.
Rely on theory to guide and focus actions.
Theory provides a basis for delineating the scope of data collection and analysis.
Researcher and practitioner need to have a common understanding of the
organizational context in order for change to be meaningful.
Both researcher and practitioners must be motivated to improve the existing situation.
The intervention needs to be apropriate to the identified problems.
Learning through reflection
–
–
–
Explicit specification of learning is critical.
The organization must be informed of the findings.
Researchers should reflect on: implications for future actions, implications for practice,
implication for theory.
26
Outline
•
•
•
•
What is the problem?
What is Action Research?
Classifications of Action Research
Traditions of Action Research
– Iterative
– Reflective
– Linear
• Action Research as part of larger research projects
27
Reflective Action Research
•
•
•
•
•
Focuses on the distinction between theory in-use and espoused
theory.
Actors’ discovery of where their behaviour is unexplained by
their own understanding.
Iteration is implied but is no longer an end in itself.
Structure is generaly fluid.
Three traditions widely used outside IS:
– Action Science
– Participant Observation
– Action Learning
•
One new form, not in Baskerville’s framework
– Dialogical Action Research
28
Dialogical Action Research
• ”The scientific attitude” vs. ”the natural attitude of
everyday life” (Theoria vs. Praxis)
• Problem: A practitioner and researcher will have
difficulties communicating because of different
backgrounds (different languages, different culture).
• Intervention: Reflective one-on-one dialogues
between practitioner and researcher, periodically in a
setting removed from the practitioners organization.
• Adds two features to action research:
– Knowledge heterogeneity
– Knowledge Contextuality
Mårtensson(2004)
29
Dialogical Action Research
Researcher’s expertise
theoria
Reflective
dialogue
action/stimulus
Real world
problem
reaction/response
practitioner’s expertise
praxis
Mårtensson(2004)
Action research team
30
Dialogical Action Research
•
Distinguishing features of dialogical AR.
–
–
–
–
•
Adopting the scientific attitude.
Adopting the natural attitude of everyday life.
Accepting the role played by social and historical context.
Understanding the social and historical context.
Philosophical underpinnings
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Sees no conflict between positivist and interpretive approaches.
The practitioner is the agent of action, the action can serve as an experimental
stimulus or treatment.
The distinction between the world of the researcher and the world of the practitioner is
significant.
Researchers are best at scientific research. Practitioners are best at practical problem
solving.
There needs to be a point of contact between researcher and practitioner.
The researcher and practitioner will have their own set of language and culture.
The knowledge of the researcher does not have a higher status than the knowledge of
the practitioner. Theoria and Praxis are simply two different forms of
knowledge.
Mårtensson(2004)
31
Dialogical Action Research
Time: t=1
Time: t=2
improved
researcher’s
expertise
Researcher’s
expertise
Real world
problem
practitioner’s
expertise
Mårtensson(2004)
improved
practitioner’s
expertise
Solved or
remedied
real world
problem
32
Outline
•
•
•
•
What is the problem?
What is Action Research?
Classifications of Action Research
Traditions of Action Research
– Iterative
– Reflective
– Linear
• Action Research as part of larger research projects
33
Linear Action Research
• Overall linear process
• Linear IS action research methods:
– ETHICS
– Multiview
• Implicit linear IS action research methods:
– Clinical field work
– Process Consultation
34
ETHICS
•
•
•
•
•
Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer
Systems.
Strong participatory methodology.
Balance technical requirements vs human needs.
End user participation in design.
Rigorous structure for organising design activities:
– Diagnosing user needs and problems
– Delineate efficiency, effectiveness, job satisfaction and quality goals and
objectives
– Develop alternative desings that meet the objectives.
– Select the most appropriate design
– Design detailed hardware and software requirements
– Implementation
– Evaluation
Mumford(1983)
35
Outline
•
•
•
•
What is the problem?
What is Action Research?
Classifications of Action Research
Traditions of Action Research
– Iterative
– Reflective
– Linear
• Action Research as part of larger research projects
36
Action Research in larger
research projects
ie. Case study
O’Leary(2004)
37
Action Research in larger
research projects
+ Relevance
- Control
+ Controll
- Relevance
Mathiassen(2002)
+ Repertoire
- Distance
38
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
D. Avison et. al., Action Research, Communication of the ACM, 42(1),1999
D. Avison, R. Baskerville, M. Myers, Controlling Action Research Projects, Information Technology &
People, 14(1), 2001
R. Baskerville, A.T. Wood-Harper, A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a method for information
systems research, Journal of Information Technology, 11, 1996
R. Baskerville, A.T. Wood-Harper, Diversity In Information Systems Action Research Methods, European
Journal of Information Systems, 7, 1998
F. Blum, Action Research – A scientific approach?, Philosophy of science, 22(1), 1955
R.M. Davison, M.G. Martinsons, N. Kock, Principles of Canonical Action Research, Information Systems
Journal, 2004, 14(1)
D. Greenwood & M. Levin, Introduction to Action Research, SAGE publications, 1998
L. Mathiassen, Collaborative practice research, Information Technology & People, 15(4), 2002
E. Mumford, Designing Human Systems for New Technology: The ETHICS Method, Manchester Business
School, 1983
P. Mårtensson & A.S. Lee, Dialogical Action Research at Omega Corporation, MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 2004
Z. O’Leary, The Essential Guide to Doing Research, London: SAGE, 2004
C.B. Seaman, Qualitative research in software engineering, IEEE Transactions on software engineering,
1999
G.I. Susman and R.D. Evered, An assessment of the scientific merits of action research, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 23, 1978