Department of Computer ScienceAalborg University, Denmark
Nadeem Iftikhar, Joseph Okika, Lise Tordrup Hermansen, Liu Xiufeng
Controlling Action Research Projects
CANONICAL ACTION RESEARCHJoseph Okika
ISSUES I Shortcomings of AR:
Lack of methodological rigor Lack of distinction from consulting Tendency to produce either “research with little action or
action with little research”
Issues of rigor and relevance to research domain and researchers
Irrelevance of I.S research due to: Arcane explanations Advanced statistical analysis Extensive mathematical notation Excessive references to other published work Shortage of practical advice
Insufficient number of methodological guidance for CAR3
IDEAS
Canonical Action research (CAR) Practical guidance for researchers/reviewers Iterative, rigorous, collaborative
Five principles and 31 associated criteria for canonical action research
4
PRINCIPLES OF CAR
The Researcher-Client Agreement (RCA) The Cyclical Process Model (CPM) Theory Change through Action Learning through Action
5
THE RESEARCHER-CLIENT AGREEMENT (RCA) Mutual guarantees for behaviour Building trust/spirit of shared enquiry
Criteria for the RCA Did the client make an explicit commitment to
the project? etc
6
THE CYCLICAL PROCESS MODEL (CPM)
7
• Criteria for the CPM– Did the project follow the CPM or justify any
deviation from it?– Did the researcher reflect on the outcomes of
the intervention?– etc.
THE PRINCIPLE OF THEORY AR without theory is “not research” In situation S that has salient features F, G,
and H, the outcomes X, Y, and Z are expected actions A, B, and C.
Criteria for the Principle of TheoryWere the project activities guided by a theory or
a set of theories?Was a theoretically based model used to derive
the causes of the observed problem?etc 8
THE PRINCIPLE OF CHANGE THROUGH ACTION
Take actions to change the current situation and its unsatisfactory conditions
Criteria for the Principle of Change through Action Were both the researcher and client motivated to
improve the situation? Did the client approve the planned actions before they
were implemented? etc
9
THE PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING THROUGH REFLECTION Practical progress and the advancement of
knowledge
Criteria for the Principle of Learning through Reflection Did the researcher provide progress report to the
client? Were the results considered in terms of implications
for the research community? etc
10
CONTROLLING AR PROJECTS:
ISSUES OF INITIATION AND AUTHORITYLise Hermansen
CONTROLLING AR PROJECTSAVISON, BASKERVILLE AND MYERS
Overcoming the double challenge No consensus on ideal control structures Three key aspects:
Initiation of the AR project Determination of authority for action in the AR
project Degree of formalisation of the project
12
THE INITIATION OF AR PROJECTS
Goal: mutual interest in solving a problem Research-driven or problem-driven
Client initiation - a host organization with a problem seeks help from researcher
Researcher initiation – researcher searches for a host organization as a site for an AR project
Collaborative initiation – the AR evolves from the interaction between researchers and client.
13
THE INITIATION OF AR PROJECTS
Three failure forms: Iceberg subjects – practitioners do not
understand the real opportunities for improvement
Irrelevant subjects – no prospects for generating knowledge in the particular problem setting
No client – no problem setting can be found that matches the theoretical frames
14
AUTHORITY FOR AR PROJECTS
Issue: who is in charge of the project?
Mechanisms by which authority is defined are: Determination of action warrants Power over the structure of the project Processes for renegotiation and/or cancellation
15
AUTHORITY FOR AR PROJECTS
Three different authority patterns: Client domination – the research team itself do
not hold an action warrant (common in AR practice)
Staged domination – involves a migration of power domination among the AR stakeholders
Identity domination – the researchers and the practicing organization were the same person(s)
16
FORMALIZATION IN AR PROJECTS
Involves the ability to renegotiate AR structures
AR control structures can be classified as: Formal – well-defined in written agreements at
the projects outset Informal – will begin and complete with, at most,
only broad and general written agreements Evolved – require changes in the control
structures as the research scope develops progressively, but not necessarily from informal to formal structures.
17
RECOMMENDATIONS
AR management – control is required Collaboratively determined
Researchers and practitioners should actively collaboratively determine these control structures in the early stages of the project
Need explicit understanding of the current and past control structures Or else the researcher or the practitioner can
unknowingly lose control and thereby mismanage the project
18
STRENGTHS OF AR IN PRACTICENadeem Iftikhar
STRENGTHS FOR PRACTICAL AR
Action research (AR), which emphasizes collaboration between researchers and practitioners, is a qualitative research method that has much potential for the information systems (IS) field. The action researcher is concerned to create
organizational change and simultaneously to study the process.
STRENGTHS FOR PRACTICAL AR Action research aims to contribute both to the
practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework. mutually acceptable ethical framework is a key to AR.
AR is concerned to enlarge the stock of knowledge of the social science community. It is this aspect of AR that distinguishes it from applied
social science, where the goal is simply to apply social scientific knowledge but not to add to the body of knowledge.
STRENGTHS FOR PRACTICAL AR
AR provides control structures to manage the research projects: Initiation
Initiation refers to the genesis of the AR project. Did the problem discover the research or vice versa?
Authority Authority refers to the issue of ``who is really in
charge of the research project’’.
STRENGTHS FOR PRACTICAL AR
Formalization Formal control structures are typically defined in
written agreements, such as a contract or letter of agreement.
These agreements may describe the immediate problem situation and the scope of the research.
WEAKNESSES OF AR IN PRACTICELiu Xiufeng
WEAKNESSES OF AR IN PRACTICE
”Double challenge” of action and research -- Potentially leads to control difficulties in AR Projects.
-- It is difficult to draft general laws on how to carry each project.
Controlling AR projects -- There is no consensus on the ideal control structrues
for AR projects.
25
WEAKNESSES OF AR IN PRACTICE
The initiation of AR projects -- Either of problem-driven and research-driven can lead
to success or failure depending on whether the initiation goal is achieved.
The determination of authority for AR projects -- It is a complex procedure.
-- Determinate action warrants, power over the structure of the projec, and processes for renegotiation and/or cancellation.
26
WEAKNESSES OF AR IN PRACTICE
Synergy between researchers and practitioners -- Threre might be compromised by realities
The use of formal arrangements -- It is not easy to define the clarity and prediction of
agreements and contracts.
-- A general approach defined by researches is likely to change to the requirements of particular situation.
27
WEAKNESSES OF AR IN PRACTICE
Problem situation rather than problem solution --It might conflict with practionaers who wish solve
immediate problems in short time.
Difficulties of generalisation and validation -- Difficult to write with authority on AR
--Impossible to suggest general laws for the conduct of AR projects.
28
QUESTIONS
How useful is AR? Has AR any useful impact on “real” IS
projects? Is CAR the best among all the other forms of
AR? What are the advantages and disadvantages
of respectively: client-, researcher- and collaborative initiation?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of respectively: client-, staged- and identity domination?
29
Top Related