Action in action research. Elaborating the concepts of action, roles and dilemmas in a public e-service development project
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JSIT-10-2015-0074 |
| Pages | 118-147 |
| Published date | 09 May 2016 |
| Date | 09 May 2016 |
| Author | Ulf Melin,Karin Axelsson |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Information systems,Information & communications technology |
Action in action research
Elaborating the concepts of action, roles and
dilemmas in a public e-service
development project
Ulf Melin and Karin Axelsson
Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University,
Linköping, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to elaborate on the concept of action by addressing actions and
roles in the practice of action research, illustrated by dilemmas in an action research project on
information systems development in public sector. The main ambition with action research is being able
to solve organisational problems through intervention and to contribute to scientic knowledge. The
main emphasis has so far been on the “research part”. Here the authors focus on the “action part” of
action research to generate rigorous research, to solve local problems and to deal with evident dilemmas
in action research.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a qualitative case study. The empirical illustrations of
this paper originate from an action research project that focused the two e-service development
initiatives analysed below. The analysis is structured using key aspects and phases proposed by
Avison et al. (2001). As a result of the analysis, the concept of action is elaborated. The action elements
action, actor, motive, space and time are analysed together with different roles. This goes beyond the
existing action research literature.
Findings – The conclusions show that there is a need to understand actions and roles within action
research projects – not separating action from research. Research is also seen as action. The practice of
action research is also discussed as context-bounded interactive social action: action research as a
recurrent, interactive and dynamic activity. It is also identied that the understanding of roles, actions
and interaction can help handle dilemmas in action research.
Research Limitations/implications – The authors contribute to the body of knowledge
concerning action research in the information systems research eld and in general by exploring the
need to study the concept of action (e.g. situations and elements), to be explicit concerning the different
phases, roles and responsibilities and management of different dilemmas in action research. A
limitation of this study is that the inter-organisational development character in this study adds an
extra dimension into the practice of actions research only partially highlighted. Another limitation is
focus on public agencies. However, this is not critical for the results on action elements and the action
research dilemmas that are studied.
Practical Implications – The understanding of roles, actions and interaction can solve the dilemmas
and challenges linked to the practice of action research in the information systems eld, but such
understanding can help discover and handle dilemmas in action research.
Originality/value – The originality in this research is an illustration of and a perspective of action
research as a context-bounded interactive social action: action research as a recurrent, interactive and
dynamic activity. The value is that this knowledge can help handle dilemmas in action research.
Keywords Research methodology, Information systems development, Engaged scholarship,
Action research, e-government
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1328-7265.htm
JSIT
18,2
118
Received 8 October 2015
Revised 18 February 2016
Accepted 2 March 2016
Journalof Systems and
InformationTechnology
Vol.18 No. 2, 2016
pp.118-147
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1328-7265
DOI 10.1108/JSIT-10-2015-0074
1. Introduction
Action research (AR) is an orientation to inquiry often used in the information system
(IS) research discipline together with qualitative research ideals, for example, in case
study research and ethnographic research methods (Baskerville and Myers, 2004;
Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1998;Mathiassen et al., 2009;Myers, 2009)[1]. The main
ambition with AR is often described as being able to solve organisational problems and
issues through intervention and contributing to scientic knowledge. A well-cited
denition of AR is that it “[…] aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people
in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science […]” (Rapoport,
1970, p. 499). In AR, researchers are intervening in social systems (Susman, 1983) using
a scientic approach to solve organisational problems together with people who
normally experience them (Elden and Chisholm, 1993). AR rests on a participatory
worldview and democratic values (Reason and Bradbury, 2001) and is frequently used
within the IS eld (Baskerville, 1999;Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996;Mumford,
2001;Chiasson et al., 2009;Conboy et al., 2012). IS researchers have been encouraged to
consider AR as a suitable research approach (McKay and Marshall, 2001) to develop
knowledge, achieve organisational change and design IS. In general, AR is accepted as
a valid research approach in elds with applied research such as management,
organisational change and development as well as education (Baskerville and Myers,
2004). At its best, AR contains situations where researchers (theory) inform
practitioners and practitioners (practice) inform researchers in an equal and synergistic
way (Avison and Wood-Harper, 1991). One relevant question is, however, how we
achieve this ideal situation when several dilemmas are present when we practice AR.
This is relevant from a theoretical and practical point of view.
The main emphasis when discussing and analysing AR in existing literature has so
far been on the “research part” of AR (Avison et al., 2001). The content and context of AR
are well-reported (McKay and Marshall, 2001) as well as parts of the methodology, e.g.
the problem-solving methodology (Mathiassen et al., 2009; illustrated by Henfridsson
and Lindgren, 2005). This is also the case in classical IS approaches such as ETHICS[2]
(Mumford, 2001) that rests on a participatory worldview and democratic values (cf.
Reason and Bradbury, 2001). In the case of the practice of AR, there is more of an
emergent set of literature (Chiasson et al., 2009;Cronholm and Goldkuhl, 2004b;McKay
and Marshall, 2001). As an example, Chiasson et al. (2009) review the IS literature and
explore how IS researchers practice AR and how different approaches are mixed in use
while managing risks related to research and practice. Our study also explores the
practice of AR, but from a case study approach and with a distinct and theoretically
informed analytical focus on actions.
A short quote from Avison et al. (2001, p. 28) reects the core content of AR: “Action
and research”. However, the separation of action and research can be complicated and
problematic both practically and analytically, as it represents a dilemma. The challenge
with a separation is that research is not considered as action per se and that the action
concept seems to be used exclusively for actions directed towards a part of a domain (the
social system below) located outside the “original” research arena. Maybe it is more
suitable to talk about the dual purpose and combination in terms of a: “dual agenda –
with practical and scientic dimensions” (cf. Rapoport, 1970, p. 506). To realise the
opportunity with AR to “bridge the gap between theory and practice” (Mathiassen et al.,
2009, p. 5) within the IS eld, and using AR in social science in general, we need to
119
A public
e-service
development
project
To continue reading
Request your trial