The principle of researcher-client
agreement in canonical action research
Petter Øgland, Department of
Informatics, University of Oslo
NEON, 25th-27th November 2014
Plan for presentation
• Motivation (3 minutes)
– Problem: RCA is important for CAR, but sometimes difficult to achieve
– Possible solution: Use NoA approach for developing RCA
• Monopoly model and bootstrap algorithm (7 minutes)
– Explanatory theory: The RCA context can be understood as a Monopoly game
– Norm. theory: The Bootstrap Algorithm (BA) tells us how to win at Monopoly
– Hypothesis: The BA tells us how to establish an RCA
• Testing the hypotheses in a NTAX action research study (7 minutes)
– Researchers and clients in NTAX action research as Monopoly game players
– The BA is used for establishing the RCA, but ultimately fails
– Discussion: What was the reason for failure? Normative theory (BA),
explanatory theory (Monopoly game), both, or none?
• Conclusion (3 minutes)
– How to establish an RCA in non-trivial situations has to be seen as a formal
research question to be answered through the initial cycles of CAR
Action research fundamental #1:
Researcher-Client Agreement (RCA)
Without agreement the
action research project
can easily become a
whistleblower project
But getting an agreement can be hard
Can we establish an RCA
with management for
researching how to
improve labour conditions
through workplace
democracy?
Reaching agreement (RCA) is like
winning Monopoly
1. Industry clients try to build
monopolies of practice (streets,
houses & hotels)
2. Academic researchers try to
build monopolies of knowledge
(streets, houses & hotels)
3. Action researcher tries to
build monopolies of knowledge
about practice (streets, houses
& hotels)
Reaching agreement (RCA) is like
winning Monopoly
Bootstrap algorithm (Hanseth &
Aanestad, 2003; Øgland, 2013):
Phase 1: Invest in all research
opportunities
Phase 2: Negotiate to establish
monopolies (define domain of
expertise)
Phase 3: Develop properties
(become a domain authority)
Phase 4: Positive feedback; the rich
get richer, the poor get thrown out
of the game
How to test the Monopoly strategy
through real world experiments?
The Bootstrap Algorithm (BA) is based on
knowledge, skill and luck (Bewersdorff,
1994; Øgland, 2013) .
Networks of action (NoA) is an action
research strategy used for investigating
the BA hypothesis in the real world (Braa
et al, 2004) .
The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated
through the 2009 world championships
Action researcher
Research community
Client industry
The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated
through the 2009 world championships
Action researcher
develops research
proposal
Client requests external
funding (even though
action researcher is
employee in client
organisation)
Action researcher tries to
get funding and struggles
Client refuses research
before funding exists
The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated
through the 2009 world championships
Action researcher
presents funding source
and research proposal to
client
Client is defeated. He accepts research
proposal.
The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated
through the 2009 world championships
Action researcher
submits grant
application.
The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated
through the 2009 world championships
Action researcher
believes he is going to be
Monopoly champion.
The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated
through the 2009 world championships
Action researcher
believes he is going to be
Monopoly champion.
Application gets rejected. No action research can be done.
Why did it go wrong?
Wrong diagnosis,
wrong treatment
Right diagnosis,
wrong treatment
Wrong diagnosis,
right treatment
Right diagnosis,
Right treatment
Why did it go wrong?
Wrong diagnosis,
wrong treatment ?
Right diagnosis,
wrong treatment
Wrong diagnosis,
right treatment
Right diagnosis,
Right treatment
Unlikely that the action researcher was
completely incompetent as the proposed
research was an extension of recently
completed PhD research.
Why did it go wrong?
Wrong diagnosis,
wrong treatment
Right diagnosis,
wrong treatment
Wrong diagnosis,
right treatment ?
Right diagnosis,
Right treatment
Perhaps industry client and/or research
community were not interested in further
action research, but communicated this in
a vague manner? Perhaps the RCA game
was impossible to win?
Why did it go wrong?
Wrong diagnosis,
wrong treatment
Right diagnosis,
wrong treatment ?
Wrong diagnosis,
right treatment ?
Right diagnosis,
Right treatment
According to Mintzberg (1994) it is not
uncommon that there are differences
between intended and emergent
strategies. Perhaps the action researcher
did not do exactly as he intended?
Why did it go wrong?
Wrong diagnosis,
wrong treatment
Right diagnosis,
wrong treatment
Wrong diagnosis,
right treatment ?
Right diagnosis,
Right treatment ?
Monopoly is a game of chance, skill and
strategy. Sometimes loss can be due to
back luck.
Why did it go wrong?
Wrong diagnosis,
wrong treatment
Right diagnosis,
wrong treatment
Wrong diagnosis,
right treatment
Right diagnosis,
Right treatment
Seems like best explanation,
but does not produce learning.
Why did it go wrong?
Wrong diagnosis,
wrong treatment
Right diagnosis,
wrong treatment
Wrong diagnosis,
right treatment
Right diagnosis,
Right treatment
Not necessarily best explanations, but produce
interesting questions for further investigations
Seems like best explanation,
but does not produce learning.
Contribution to CAR theory
How to establish an RCA should be a
formal research question in CAR studies.
Summary of presentation
• Contributions to CAR theory and implications for CAR practice
– How to establish an RCA should be a research question for each CAR study
• Why should the establishment of an RCA be defined as an RQ?
– Action failure: Using the BA as method for establishing an RCA
– Discussion: What was the reason for failure? Normative theory (BA),
explanatory theory (Monopoly game), both, or none?
– Unless the RCA is easily established, it becomes an RQ by default
• How did we expect the RCA to be established?
– Explanatory theory: The RCA context can be understood as a Monopoly game
– Norm. theory: The Bootstrap Algorithm (BA) tells us how to win at Monopoly
– Hypothesis: The BA tells us how to establish an RCA
• Why was the BA interesting?
– Problem: RCA is important for CAR, but sometimes difficult to achieve
– Possible solution: Use BA/NoA approach for developing RCA