Building Capacity for E-Government: Contradictions and Synergies in the Dialectics of Action Research

Abstract

Action research has been widely espoused within IS as a methodology for achieving relevant research, simultaneously addressing problems pertinent to practice as well as generating valuable IS theory. Debate, however, continues to revolve around the standing of action research. The need to address an applied problem as well as the imperative to deliver substantive research findings builds a degree of conflict into the process of action research (McKay and Marshall 2001) which has led some commentators to doubt whether action research is viable. In contrast, we believe that action research is not only feasible but an essential tool for developing and evaluating social theory. However, the need to serve the two masters of practice and research, at the heart of the action research dialectic, inevitably constrains the research process. The exigencies of practical problem solving and the need to deliver solutions limit the time and resources available for rigorous data collection and validation, and constrain the research agenda. Nonetheless the theory generated by action research reflects the dynamics and complexity of the real world milieu in which it was developed. Rather

Escalation and de‐escalation of commitment: a commitment transformation analysis of an e‐government project

“…In addition, the model also suggests change as a multistage process and all stages must be negotiated before a stable change can be said to have taken place (Schein, 1988). So far, the model has been used widely in the organizational development area (Marshak, 1993), but more recently, also in IS research (Wastell et al ., 2003).…”

“…The concept of deploying IT to bring about organizational transformation is not new in the IS area (Wastell et al ., 2003), but examining the actors’ commitment to change in the transition from escalation to de‐escalation is still exploratory. Figure 1 shows Lewin's stages and steps – a tentative framework we adopt for guiding our study.…”

“…Figure 1 shows Lewin's stages and steps – a tentative framework we adopt for guiding our study. The framework suggests that unfreezing can only take place when there is motivation to change, and such motivation could either be self‐induced or influenced by peers (Wastell et al ., 2003). Unfreezing tends to generate a certain extent of psychological struggle within individuals, which can often be inherently painful.…”