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