Action Research as Experimentation

Abstract

This paper suggests that the metaphors of experimentation and the laboratory are applicable when positioning action research vis-à-vis more conventional business school research. Following on from three different action research projects in a large multinational pharmaceutical company, the paper argues that an action researcher can never construct a sheltered environment wherein certain qualities of nature can be isolated, purified, and enhanced, but must always undertake research activities in vivo, in real life organizational setting. Still, the metaphor of the laboratory is applicable because it enables for an understanding of how what Ian Hacking calls interventions in the "hard sciences" share certain characteristics with the action research activities. When action researchers intervene within organizations, the activities are always experimental in nature, i.e., they can never be fully predicted or anticipated, but are initial steps in an emergent process of organizational change.

Developing a Design Science for the Use of Problem Structuring Methods

“…Thirdly, the Design Sciences paradigm and management science share an affinity with action research approaches to professional work. This has most recently been pointed to by Styhre and Sundgren (2005) and Eden and Ackermann (2006). Susman and Evered (1978) influentially argue that action research is future oriented, collaborative, develops systems, generates theories grounded in action, agnostic, and situational.…”

“…Typically, it involves using proposed technological rules on artefacts and systems in their application domain, often by individuals adopting a reflective attitude in a number of related interventions. It has two forms, a-testing which is undertaken by the developers of the rules and b-testing undertaken by third parties to provide a more objective assessment (Dolan and Matthews 1993, van Aken 2004, 2005. Grounding means there is some understanding why the rule generates the desired outcome.…”

“…Grounding means there is some understanding why the rule generates the desired outcome. The grounding of technological rules may be achieved by adopting generative mechanisms (Pawson and Tilley 1997, van Aken 2004, 2005. These are processes that enable an observer to understand why a particular action enables the observed outcome to occur.…”

Examining innovation as process: Action research in journalism studies

“…In employing action research, researchers look for insights and understanding of phenomena in real-life settings (Styhre and Sundgren, 2005: 58) through a bottom-up approach. It shares characteristics with ‘neighbouring’ approaches like participant observation, phenomenology, design research, participatory research and community-based research.…”

Creating ‘Rhizomatic Systems’ for Understanding Complexity in Organizations

“…Thus, the goal of a systemic inquiry is not necessarily to come to definite solutions or answers to a problem (or problem situations), but merely to increase problem-solvers' understanding of it (Checkland 1981;Checkland and Scholes 1990). To appreciate the learning process of (participatory) action research is to increase our capacity for finding alternative possibilities and developing 'questions' through the process of problematization (Yu 2004;Styhre and Sundgren 2005). Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a useful approach that makes use of the concepts of insider (Emic) and outsider (Ethic) perspectives so that a researcher liberates 'subjugated knowledge' in organizations and societies (Borda 1996;Dash 1997;McIntyre 2004;Young 2005).…”