Information Technology & People

The dual imperatives of action research

Judy McKay Peter Marshall
Article information:
To cite this document:
Judy McKay Peter Marshall, (2001),"The dual imperatives of action research", Information Technology &
People, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 46 - 59
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593840110384771
Downloaded on: 05 January 2015, At: 05:02 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 29 other documents.
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2920 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Paul Coughlan, David Coghlan, (2002),"Action research for operations management", International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 Iss 2 pp. 220-240 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570210417515
Herbert Altrichter, Stephen Kemmis, Robin McTaggart, Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt, (2002),"The
concept of action research", The Learning Organization, Vol. 9 Iss 3 pp. 125-131 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470210428840
Enid Mumford, (2001),"Advice for an action researcher", Information Technology & People, Vol. 14 Iss
1 pp. 12-27 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593840110384753

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 215531 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


ITP
14,1
46
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)
Information Technology & People,
Vol. 14 No. 1, 2001, pp. 46-59.
# MCB University Press, 0959-3845
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
The dual imperatives of action
research
Judy McKay and Peter Marshall
Edith Cowan University, Churchlands, Australia
Keywords Information systems, Research, Methodology, Action research
Abstract Action research (AR) is not without its critics, and those who reject some of the
paradigmatic assumptions embodied in AR maintain that AR is little more than consultancy,
that it is impossible to establish causal relationships, that it is difficult to generalize from AR
studies, that there is a risk of researcher bias, and that generally speaking, it lacks some of the
key qualities that are normally associated with rigorous research. The authors are sensitive to
such criticisms, for although they are committed action researchers, they have elsewhere
voiced their concerns about the quality of AR practice in the field of information systems. The
authors argue that part of the issue concerns the way in which we currently conceptualize AR.
In this article, the argument for a deeper and more reflective analysis of the meaning and full
implications of AR is developed, culminating in a model of AR being developed that explicitly
includes both a problem solving interest cycle and a research interest cycle. Important
implications of this new model are articulated, with examples to illustrate these points being
drawn from a real-life AR study.
Introduction
For some time, information systems (IS) researchers have been encouraged
to consider action research (AR) as a suitable candidate research approach
among the repertoire of methodologies embraced by the discipline (West et
al., 1995). AR has many features which would tend to suggest it is ideally
suited to the study of information systems, a point supported by Avison et
al. (1999), who argue that AR has already had a significant impact on
practice within the IS profession. However, in recent times, concerns have
emerged in the literature about the practice of AR. Stowell et al. (1997) and
Lau (1997) point out that there is little guidance for the researcher on how to
conduct AR. McKay and Marshall (1999a) argue that there has been scant
attention paid to the reporting of the AR process itself (as opposed to the
context and content of the AR study), and question whether there has been
sufficient academic scrutiny of the AR process and its underpinning data
collection and analysis techniques. If AR is to be accepted as a serious
vehicle for the conduct of research in IS, then it would seem reasonable that
steps are taken to improve the practice of AR.
In this article, the authors argue that part of the problem with AR stems
from a lack of clarity in the way some researchers think about AR. The
dominant model of the AR process presented in the literature is a cyclical
approach to research. Arguments will be developed throughout this paper that
suggest that it may be more helpful and enlightening for researchers rather to
conceptualise AR as consisting of two, interlinked cycles. Thinking of AR in
this way would then have implications for the process adopted in AR, and thus
 also on the learning and research outcomes that may ensue from an AR The dual
intervention. imperatives of
The article will commence with a consideration of the characteristic features action research
of AR, its strengths as an approach for IS research, and some of its limitations.
From there, it will present arguments to support a change in conceptualisation
about AR, and will then discuss the implications of these changes.
47
What is action research?
There is a sense in which the very essence of AR is encapsulated within its
name: it represents a juxtaposition of action and research, or in other words, of
practice and theory. Thus, as an approach to research, AR is committed to the
production of new knowledge through the seeking of solutions or
improvements to ``real-life'' practical problem situations (Elden and Chisholm,
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

1993; Shanks et al., 1993). However, it is more than just another approach to
problem solving, for the action researcher is working from within a conceptual
framework (Checkland, 1991; Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996) and actions
taken to ameliorate a situation perceived as problematic should form part of
and stem from strategies for developing, testing, and refining theories about
aspects of the particular problem context (Avison, 1993; Susman and Evered,
1978).
One distinguishing feature of AR is, therefore, the active and deliberate
self-involvement of the researcher in the context of his/her investigation. Unlike
the methods of objectivist science where the researcher is argued to be an
impartial spectator on the research context (Chalmers, 1982), the action
researcher is viewed as a key participant in the research process, working
collaboratively with other concerned and/or affected actors to bring about
change in the problem context (Checkland, 1991; Hult and Lennung, 1980).
Collaboration between researcher and what may be described as the ``problem
owner'' is essential to the success of the AR process. A mutual dependence
exists in that both researcher and problem owner are reliant on the other's skill,
experiences, and competencies in order for the research process to achieve its
dual aim of practical problem solving and the generation of new knowledge
and understanding (Hult and Lennung, 1980). In particular, the researcher
brings an intellectual framework and knowledge of process to the research
context: by contrast, the problem owner brings knowledge of context (Burns,
1994). Thus AR evolves, in part at least, as a function of the needs and
competencies of all involved (Susman and Evered, 1978), with a key feature of
this research approach being a willingness to share and thus learn, a result of
which is enhanced competencies of all concerned (Hult and Lennung, 1980).
Underlying the AR process, therefore, is a rejection of many tenets of more
traditional approaches to research which are embodied in the scientific method.
The methods of natural science are viewed as both problematic and indeed,
inappropriate, when applied in ``human'' disciplines such as IS, for intelligent
human agents can (and tend to) take action which can effect both the
phenomena under study and the outcomes of the research (Checkland, 1991).
 ITP ``Facts'' in a social context are viewed as being given existence by as well as
14,1 interpreted within some socially constructed framework of understanding
(Avison, 1993). Hence, any scientific or systematic investigation of a social
context cannot be regarded as value-free (Elden and Chisholm, 1993), nor can it
be divorced from the situational and historical context in which it is given
meaning (Hult and Lennung, 1980).
48 Given these features, a fulsome (albeit cumbersome) definition of AR is
offered by Hult and Lennung (1980) who write that:
Action research simultaneously assists in practical problem-solving and expands scientific
knowledge, as well as enhances the competencies of the respective actors, being performed
collaboratively in an immediate situation using data feedback in a cyclical process aiming at
an increased understanding of a given social situation, primarily applicable for the
understanding of change processes in social systems and undertaken within a mutually
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

acceptable ethical framework.

Within IS therefore, AR offers many positive features thus rendering it a

powerful tool for researchers who are interested in finding out about the
interplay between humans, technology, information, and socio-cultural
contexts. For example, unlike other research approaches, such as laboratory
experiments, which struggle to maintain relevance to the real world, the
``laboratory'' of AR is the real world, thus avoiding the potential separation of
research and practice (Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996, Susman and
Evered, 1978; Avison and Wood-Harper, 1991). Indeed, it could be argued that
in applied disciplines such as IS, AR appropriately establishes action and
practice as being the prime focus of research efforts (Shanks et al., 1993). It is
ideally suited to gaining understanding of whether technology or methodology
is perceived useful and helpful in practice, what problems and issues are
perceived to arise, and to identify how practice can be improved within the
value system of the problem owner (Avison, 1993).
Its dual aim of being both a mechanism for practical problem solving and for
generating and testing theory provides a win-win scenario for both researcher
and participants in an AR study (Elden and Chisholm, 1993). In addition, AR is
viewed as a means for enhancing the skills and competencies of both the
researcher and the participants (Hult and Lennung, 1980). Its explicit
requirement that an object of inquiry should not be divorced from the context
in which meanings are ascribed supports a more holistic understanding of
phenomena in changing contexts (Hult and Lennung, 1980).
Nonetheless, AR is not without its weaknesses as a research approach, nor is
it without its critics. Arguments are expressed, for example, which suggest that
AR may be regarded as being little more than consultancy (an issue raised in
Avison, 1993). When interventions are deemed successful, some would argue
that causal connections and explanations cannot be safely made (Baskerville
and Wood-Harper, 1996). Researchers are questioned over a perceived lack of
impartiality and bias (Avison and Wood-Harper, 1991). The supposed lack of
scientific rigour and discipline in AR, the lack of validity of data (Baskerville
and Wood-Harper, 1996), and the difficulty of generalising results from AR
 studies have lead to it falling into disfavour in those academic circles which The dual
evaluate research according to scientific criteria. In such quarters, action imperatives of
researchers may find it difficult to attract research funds (Avison and Wood- action research
Harper, 1991).
The context of much IS research suggests that the strengths of AR may be
regarded as more important and significant than its weaknesses, particularly
when evaluated against other research approaches and paradigms. However, 49
the practice of AR remains somewhat enigmatic, as there are comparatively
few guidelines for would-be action researchers to follow. While much of the AR
literature is replete with discussions and argumentation about origins,
philosophical and conceptual underpinnings, there are relatively few AR
exemplars available, and little direct guidance on ``how-to-do'' AR (McKay and
Marshall, 1999a).
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

The action research process: one cycle or two?

The usual representation of the AR process is as a single cycle (with possible
iterations), no matter which depiction of AR is used. In Figure 1, the quadrants
(A: McKay, 2000; B: Susman and Evered, 1978; C: Burns, 1994; D: Checkland,
1991) are various representations of AR, and are all indicative of this point.
What is common to all these models is the notion of a singular cycle as
characteristic of the AR process. This cycle can be passed through once in an
AR study (referred to by Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1998 as linear AR), or it
can be repeated in the same context until satisfactory outcomes have been
achieved, or a similar process can be applied in a number of different sites

Figure 1.
Representations of the
action research cycle
 ITP (called multiple iterations of AR (Kock et al., 1998)). The issue here is not
14,1 whether or not multiple iterations of the AR cycle have been implemented, but
whether AR can rightfully be conceptualised as consisting of a single cycle.
In our discussion of AR in a previous section of this paper, the duality of AR
was described as the juxtaposition (and indeed interdependence) of action and
research, of theory and practice. This means that the action researcher has dual
50 aims: the researcher must aim to bring about improvements through making
changes in a problematic situation, and must also aim to generate new
knowledge and new insights as a result of his/her activities. So, conceptually at
the very least, there appears to be two AR cycles, one overlaid on the other, and
operating in tandem with one another. The first cycle relates to the researcher's
problem solving interests and responsibilities, the second to the researcher's
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

research interests and responsibilities. These ideas require further explication.

Figure 2 is a representation of the researcher's problem solving interest. An
action researcher must become aware of a real-world problem, one that
provides scope for the elucidation of research themes or ideas. Following initial
identification, there then follows a reconnaissance and fact-finding activity,
where the action researcher endeavours to find out more about the nature of the
problem and the problem context, who the problem owners are, key
stakeholders in the problem solving process, historical, cultural, and political
components of relevance, and so on. Thus armed, the action researcher, maybe
in collaboration with participants in the process, plans a problem solving
strategy, and then proceeds to implement a number of action steps. These steps
may or may not be guided or informed by a particular problem solving
approach (such as Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland, 1981) or Multiview
(Wood-Harper et al., 1985), or the like). These actions are monitored and

Figure 2.
The problem solving
interest in action
research
 evaluated for their impact on the perceived problem situation. At such time as The dual
satisfactory outcomes are deemed to have been reached by the stakeholders to imperatives of
this problem context, the researcher exits from the situation, or alternatively, action research
amends the action plan and makes additional changes to the problem context,
thus embarking on another AR cycle.
So how does this differ from ``good'' problem solving that might be
undertaken by a skilled operational researcher, business analyst, or systems 51
analyst? What makes it different, we believe, is the second cycle, which we
argue is built upon the research interest and responsibilities inherent in AR.
In Figure 3, we have attempted to depict the research interest cycle in AR. In
this case, the researcher has a particular idea, or objectives, or research
questions of interest which he/she wishes to pursue. Having identified some
initial area of interest, the researcher will engage the relevant literature,
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

clarifying issues and identifying existing theoretical frameworks of relevance.

A theoretical framework from which to investigate the research interest will be
adopted. From there, the researcher plans and designs a research project with
the express purpose of enabling him/her to find answers to research questions,
themes, or objectives, and so on. Action is taken, the researcher remaining
cognisant of his/her particular theoretical perspective. These actions are
monitored in terms of research interests, and evaluated for the effect the
intervention has had in terms of the research questions. If the research
questions can be answered or satisfactorily resolved, or in some way
illuminated or even reframed, the researcher exits from the organisational
setting. Otherwise, the researcher will amend his/her plans and designs to seek
further explanations. Another AR cycle is thus embarked on.
Before proceeding, a couple of caveats must be emphasised. The researcher
acknowledges that real-life thinking and acting will rarely follow the neat

Figure 3.
The research interest in
action research
 ITP linear sequence implied by the preceding diagrams and descriptions. Let us
14,1 accept that real life is a much more messy business than is implied here. This is
a problem which besets all models of the real world. Nonetheless, we believe the
models and concepts expressed remain valid. Second, it is stressed that these
two cycles are not conducted independently of one another, but are highly
interlinked and somewhat contingent on one another (see Figure 4).
52 We would assert that AR is more helpfully viewed and thought about as
consisting of these two cycles, which can be superimposed on each other.
What we are asserting and trying to emphasise here is a view that action
researchers need to think and act more deeply and more reflectively than any of
the AR models captured in Figure 1 would suggest. We think that researchers
need to think about their problem solving interest in AR, and also about their
research interest. By doing so, we believe much greater clarity will ensue for
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

both researcher and consumers of the research output. This position, has, we
believe, a number of important ramifications.
First, adoption of this dual cycle view in both our thinking and practice of
AR dispels the criticism that AR is just like consultancy. We would suggest
that consultancy is not dissimilar to the problem solving interest in AR (see
Figure 2). AR which is deemed to be just like consultancy may be found to be
lacking in its attention to the research interest cycle. However, if we explicitly
add and clearly acknowledge the research interest of AR, then AR is obviously
not the same as consultancy, and the research interest cycle offers a mechanism
for action researchers to clearly differentiate their activities from those of
consultants. Furthermore, we would assert that thinking about AR as though it
were composed of two cycles makes it a lot easier for the action researcher,
particularly the less experienced researcher, to ensure that they are doing
research, and are not inadvertently trying to masquerade consultancy or
problem solving as research.
Second, we think it becomes clear that in reference to Checkland's (1991)
model of AR for example (quadrant D in Figure, 1), some serious rethinking
needs to be done. In this model, Checkland (1991) argues that the cycle of AR

Figure 4.
Action research viewed
as a dual cycle process
 entailed the researcher identifying a real-world problem situation (A) The dual
potentially of interest to his/her research themes. Prior to any intervention in A, imperatives of
the researcher must declare both a theoretical framework (F) and a method (M) action research
which are used to formulate and guide the intervention, and to make sense of
the accumulating experience of the intervention. Subsequently, reflection takes
place on these experiences, yielding findings about F, about M, about A, and/or
about the research themes. However, the dual cycle process view of AR implies 53
that two methods (M) are potentially being talked about. One M is obviously
AR itself, which, as the research approach, is captured in the research interest
cycle of AR. Let us call that MR (research method). The other M potentially
appears in the problem solving interest cycle as the method which may be
employed to guide the problem solving intervention. Let us call this MPS
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

(problem solving method). We suspect that in some AR interventions, no

formal, explicit MPS is adopted (see cases in Greenwood and Levin, 1998, for
example). Figure 5 attempts to illustrate this point.
How is this significant? Importantly, we believe it implies that Checkland's
(1991) framework involving F, M, and A must be deepened and clarified.
Reflection and learning, we would argue, must take place about MPS and MR: in
other words, the researcher needs to explicitly consider what he/she has
learned about AR (MR), from this intervention and what he/she has learned
about the approach to problem solving ( MPS ) adopted on this occasion. Thus
we would argue strongly for Checkland's (1991) diagram to be amended as
follows in Figure 6.
Conceptually separating M in this way leads to the third important
implication of our view of AR. In some AR literature, there seems to be the
tendency for confusion to exist over MR and MPS, particularly when MPS is
itself the object of enquiry or the research interest. Such confusion, we
would argue, manifests itself in claims that methods or approaches such as
soft systems methodology (SSM) (Checkland, 1981), prototyping (Alavi,
1984), Multiview (Wood-Harper et al., 1985), and effective technical and
human implementation of computer-based systems (ETHICS) (Mumford,
1985), for example, are AR (Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1998). These

Figure 5.
Thinking about MR and
MPS
 ITP
14,1

54
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

Figure 6.
The revised action
research framework

methods are all examples of MPS. With the exception of prototyping, these
methods have been evolved and developed through extensive AR, and thus,
not unexpectedly, may themselves embody many of the features of AR. The
problem solving interest cycle of AR would be matched in many a textbook
on operational research developed in the 1950s and 1960s (for example, see
Ackoff and Sasieni, 1968, Churchman et al., 1957), and thus must be viewed
as a rational and responsible approach to tackling certain organisational
problems. But being similar in approach to problem solving does not mean
that SSM is AR. It could mean that SSM (or indeed, any of the other
approaches mentioned above) has been used as M PS, and it could be the
object of the research, and it could also serve to provide a conceptual
framework to guide the research. But SSM itself is not AR (any more than
prototyping, Multiview, and ETHICS are). With none of the approaches
mentioned here is there the requirement for what we have called the
research interest cycle of AR. In our view, until there is a research interest
explicit in those methods, then it is confusing and misleading to assert that
they are forms of AR.
If the dual cycle of AR is accepted, and the potentiality of there being MR
and MPS, then further elaboration on Checkland's (1991) framework is
required, and this brings us to the fourth implication of our view. We would
argue that F, MR, and A are all primarily of concern to the research interest
cycle, and that the research must be designed in such a way to enable new
knowledge to be generated about F and/or A: in other words, the design of
the research must enable the researcher to answer his/her research
questions or the like at the very least. Given the nature of AR, it may well be
that reflection can (indeed, should) occur on F, MR, and A, giving rise to new
 insights which may or may not have been anticipated in the research The dual
questions. But if we think of the problem solving interest cycle, then there is imperatives of
a problem situation (P) in which we are intervening, possibly using MPS. action research
Given the nature of AR, we are thus also in a position to reflect on P, and on
MPS, giving rise to what we would call experiential learning, learning from
the experience of doing.
A few comments must be made on the relationship between P and A. P may 55
be a specific, real-world example of any particular A, or it may be somewhat
different, but allows the researcher to investigate A, so that there would be
overlapping elements in P and A. These relationships are illustrated below in
Figure 7.
We would argue that this differentiation between P and A is justified, as
there is clearly different ownership of these two concepts. The ownership of A
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

rests with the researcher, and this remains the case throughout the research
process, no matter what the specific P is. By contrast, P remains in the
ownership of participants or relevant stakeholders, and although the researcher
is ethically bound to take an interest in P and to act to try to alleviate the
problem, it is the participants who retain ownership throughout the research
process. This is illustrated in Figure 8.
Let us take an example to illustrate our point. One of the researchers was
involved in a research project which was attempting to study the effect of using
cognitive mapping (Eden, 1988) for information requirements determination
(IRD) (McKay, 1998). Research questions had been developed, based on an
extensive review of pertinent literature, to reflect a theoretical premise that the
technique of cognitive mapping, and its accompanying method, Strategic
Options Development and Analysis (SODA) (Eden, 1989) would be effective to
support IRD in an organisation. At much the same time, the authors were
approached by a semi-autonomous government agency which was

Figure 7.
The relationship
between P and A

Figure 8.
Ownership with regards
to P and A
 ITP experiencing problems with its workers' compensation system (WCS). We were
14,1 asked if we could assist them in determining their information requirements
with respect to the WCS. They understood the research imperatives of
university academics, and left to our discretion all decisions about how this
was to be accomplished. Given this scenario, we would complete the revised
AR framework as shown in Table I.
56 Our argument says that adequate design of the research interest cycle
would enable new knowledge to be generated about A, and most likely F.
Reflection on F, A, and MR, will also generate new insights, modify existing
questions, or raise new questions. But through the problem solving interest
cycle, through intervening and acting in a real-world context, then we would
assert that experiential learning about P and M PS may well have taken
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

place. Whether or not such experiential learning should take the status of
new knowledge generated by rigorous research activity is debatable: our
own predilection is that it probably should not. But in our view, it still
constitutes a meaningful outcome of the research, and it most certainly
could, indeed should, form the basis of a subsequent research effort. Quality
of AR falls outside the scope of this paper (see McKay and Marshall, 1999b),
but let us flag at this stage the notion that the research interest cycle has
everything to do with an assessment of rigour and quality of AR, while the
insights and experiential learning associated with the problem solving
interest cycle have more to do with the richness of AR, the enhancement of
skills and competencies of both the researcher and participants, and
understanding about the nature of intervention in organisational problem
contexts.
Thus, in Figure 9, we rework Checkland's (1991) framework once more to
reflect these ideas.

Conclusion
This paper has provided a detailed consideration of the nature of AR and in
particular, some of its features which make it an attractive proposition for
the conduct of much IS research. However, concerns about the research
process adopted with AR, together with concerns regarding the need for a
clear conception of the nature of the AR process, were voiced. These include
the need for research questions or hypotheses to be clearly formulated up-
front, for thought and care to be given to planning and executing the

F = Cognitive mapping and SODA have characteristics that would render them
effective for application to IRD
MR = Action research
MPS = SODA and cognitive mapping
Table I. A = Issues and challenges in effectively determining information requirements in
Elements of an action organisations
research intervention P = Identifying information requirements for a new WCS at the government agency
 The dual
imperatives of
action research

57
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

Figure 9.
Outcomes of dual cycle
action research

collection of data, and for equal care and attention to be given to the
analysis of such data. The authors also suggest that the data collection and
data analysis should be explicitly and carefully described when the research
is reported. Giving these matters the attention they need and deserve will,
the authors feel, improve the practice of AR in general, and in IS in
particular.
Thus this paper has reiterated some of the features of AR that make it
particularly apposite for application to many facets of research in
information systems. These benefits and strengths of AR were clearly seen
to outweigh its limitations, but concerns were voiced about the practice of
AR, and about the need to maintain rigour and credibility in the knowledge
or theory generated through real-life interventions. Considering AR as
being composed of the dual imperatives of problem solving and research
enabled the authors to develop a new model of AR. This new
conceptualization presents AR as two separate but interconnected and
interacting cycles: one cycle representing and focused on the problem
solving interest in AR, and the other cycle representing and focused upon
the research interest in AR. Not only does this help dispel the criticism of
AR that it is just like consultancy, but it arguably facilitates researchers in
being much more explicit about the reflection and learning process that
seems to be part of the essence of AR. This conceptualization, the authors
believe, allows for better planning, evaluation, and monitoring of the AR
process and project. The authors also argue that conceptualizing AR in this
way may improve the rigour of AR, as it requires researchers to pay more
considered attention to their research interests and responsibilities than do
many of the more traditional models of AR.
 ITP References
14,1 Ackoff, R.L. and Sasieni, M.W. (1968), Fundamentals of Operations Research, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Alavi, M. (1984), ``An assessment of the prototyping approach in information systems
development'', Communications of the ACM, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 556-63.
Avison, D.E. (1993), ``Research in information systems development and the discipline of
58 information systems'', Proceedings of the 4th Australian Conference on Information
Systems, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Avison, D.E. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (1991), ``Conclusions from action research: the multiview
experience'', in Jackson, M.C. et al. (Eds), Systems Thinking in Europe, Plenum Press, New
York, NY.
Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M. and Nielsen, P.A. (1999), ``Action research'', Communications of the
ACM, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 94-7.
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

Baskerville, R.L. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (1996), ``A critical perspective on action research as a
method for information systems research'', Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 11,
pp. 235-46.
Baskerville, R.L. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (1998), ``Diversity in information systems action
research methods'', European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 7, pp. 90-107.
Burns, R. (1994), Introduction to Research Methods in Education, 2nd ed., Longman Cheshire,
Melbourne.
Chalmers, A.F. (1982), What is this Thing called Science?, University of Queensland Press,
Brisbane.
Checkland, P. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Checkland, P. (1991), ``From framework through experience to learning: the essential nature of
action research'', in Nissen, H.E. et al. (Eds), Information Systems Research: Contemporary
Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Churchman, C.W., Ackoff, R.L. and Arnoff, E.L. (1957), Introduction to Operations Research, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Eden, C. (1988), ``Cognitive mapping'', European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 36, pp. 1-13.
Eden, C. (1989), ``Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis'', in
Rosenhead, J. (Ed.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Elden, M. and Chisholm, R.F. (1993), ``Emerging varieties of action research: introduction to the
special issue'', Human Relations, Vol. 46, pp. 121-42.
Greenwood, D.J. and Levin, M. (1998), Introduction to Action Research, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hult, M. and Lennung, S. (1980), ``Towards a definition of action research: a note and a
bibliography'', Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 17, pp. 241-50.
Kock, N.F., McQueen, R.J. and Scott, J.L. (1998), ``Can action research be made more rigorous in a
positivist sense? The contribution of an iterative approach'', http://www.cis.temple.edu/
~kock/public/jsit97/is-arw6.htm, 25 May 1998.
Lau, F. (1997), ``A review of action research in information systems studies'', in Information
Systems and Qualitative Research, in Lee, A.S., Liebenau, J. and DeGross, J.I. (Eds),
Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG8.2 International Conference on Information Systems and
Qualitative Research, 31 May-3 June, 1997, Philadelphia, PA.
McKay, J. (1998), ``Using cognitive mapping to achieve shared understanding in information
requirements determination'', Australian Computer Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 139-45.
 McKay, J. (2000), ``Soft operational research/management science applied to information The dual
requirement determination: a study using cognitive mapping and the SODA
methodology'', unpublished PhD thesis, Edith Cowan University, Churchlands. imperatives of
McKay, J. and Marshall, P. (1999a), ``The poverty of action research in information systems'', action research
Proceedings of the UKSS Conference, Lincoln Business School, Lincoln, July.
McKay, J. and Marshall, P. (1999b), ``A framework for rigour in action research'', Proceedings of
the American Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, WI, August.
Mumford, E. (1985), ``Defining system requirements to meet business needs: a case study
59
example'', The Computer Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 97-104.
Shanks, G., Rouse, A. and Arnott, D. (1993), ``A review of approaches to research and scholarship
in information systems'', in Proceedings of the 4th Australian Conference on Information
Systems, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Stowell, F., West, D. and Stansfield, M. (1997), ``Action research as a framework for IS research'',
in Mingers, J. and Stowell, F. (Eds), Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline?,
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

McGraw-Hill, London.
Susman, G.I. and Evered, R.D. (1978), ``An assessment of the scientific merits of action research'',
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 582-603.
West, D., Stowell, F.A. and Stansfield, M.H. (1995), ``Action research and information systems
research'', in Ellis, K. et al. (Eds), Critical Issues in Systems Theory and Practice, Plenum
Press, New York, NY.
Wood-Harper, A.T., Antill, L. and Avison, D.E. (1985), Information Systems Definition: The
Multiview Approach, Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Stephen Duffield, S. Jonathan Whitty. 2015. Developing a systemic lessons learned knowledge model
for organisational learning through projects. International Journal of Project Management 33, 311-324.
[CrossRef]
2. Dr Anne Thurston, Joanne Evans, Barbara Reed, Henry Linger, Simon Goss, David Holmes, Jan Drobik,
Bruce Woodyat, Simon Henbest. 2014. Winds of change. Records Management Journal 24:3, 205-223.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Lise Tordrup Heeager, Jeremy Rose. 2014. Optimising agile development practices for the maintenance
operation: nine heuristics. Empirical Software Engineering . [CrossRef]
4. Martin Taggart, Lauri Koskela, John Rooke. 2014. The role of the supply chain in the elimination and
reduction of construction rework and defects: an action research approach. Construction Management and
Economics 32, 829-842. [CrossRef]
5. Eva Alice Christiane Bittner, Jan Marco Leimeister. 2014. Creating Shared Understanding in
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

Heterogeneous Work Groups: Why It Matters and How to Achieve It. Journal of Management Information
Systems 31, 111-144. [CrossRef]
6. Sudarsono Hardjosoekarto, Nadia Yovani, Lea Santiar. 2014. Institutional Strengthening for the Role of
Mass Media in Disaster Risk Reduction in Japan and Indonesia: An Application of SSM-Based Action
Research. Systemic Practice and Action Research 27:3, 227-246. [CrossRef]
7. Chivonne Algeo. 2014. Exploring Project Knowledge Acquisition and Exchange Through Action
Research. Project Management Journal 45:3, 46-56. [CrossRef]
8. Bruce Gurd, Panayiotis Ifandoudas. 2014. Moving towards agility: the contribution of a modified balanced
scorecard system. Measuring Business Excellence 18:2, 1-13. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Renée N. Jefferson. 2014. Action Research: Theory and Applications. New Review of Academic
Librarianship 20, 91-116. [CrossRef]
10. Christine Rogerson, Elsje Scott. 2014. Motivating an action design research approach to implementing
online training in an organisational context. Interactive Technology and Smart Education 11:1, 32-44.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Stewart Robinson, Claire Worthington, Nicola Burgess, Zoe J. Radnor. 2014. Facilitated modelling with
discrete-event simulation: Reality or myth?. European Journal of Operational Research 234:1, 231-240.
[CrossRef]
12. Stefan Holgersson, Ulf Melin. 2014. Pragmatic Dilemmas in Action Research: Doing Action Research
With or Without the Approval of Top Management?. Systemic Practice and Action Research . [CrossRef]
13. Per Levén, Jonny Holmström, Lars Mathiassen. 2014. Managing research and innovation networks:
Evidence from a government sponsored cross-industry program. Research Policy 43, 156-168. [CrossRef]
14. Triyuni Soemartono. 2014. Reconstruction of Education Policy in Jembrana Bali, Best Practices of Creative
and Innovative Leadership Using Soft Systems Methodology based Action Research. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 115, 269-282. [CrossRef]
15. Elena Tavella, Thanos Papadopoulos. 2014. Expert and novice facilitated modelling: A case of a Viable
System Model workshop in a local food network. Journal of the Operational Research Society . [CrossRef]
16. Sofia Börjesson, Maria Elmquist, Sophie Hooge. 2014. The challenges of innovation capability building:
Learning from longitudinal studies of innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management 31, 120-140. [CrossRef]
 17. Murale V., R. Preetha. 2014. An Integrated Approach towards Legitimization of Single Case Design-
working Paper. Procedia Economics and Finance 11, 812-818. [CrossRef]
18. Moutaz Haddara. 2014. ERP Selection: The SMART Way. Procedia Technology 16, 394-403. [CrossRef]
19. David Sammon, Seamus O’Reilly. 2013. A conceptual data model to enhance SKU management in food
SMEs. Journal of Decision Systems 22:4, 265-282. [CrossRef]
20. Javier Garzás, Francisco J. Pino, Mario Piattini, Carlos Manuel Fernández. 2013. A maturity model for
the Spanish software industry based on ISO standards. Computer Standards & Interfaces 35:6, 616-628.
[CrossRef]
21. Roman Beck, Sven Weber, Robert Wayne Gregory. 2013. Theory-generating design science research.
Information Systems Frontiers 15:4, 637-651. [CrossRef]
22. Dejan Baca, Kai Petersen. 2013. Countermeasure graphs for software security risk assessment: An action
research. Journal of Systems and Software 86, 2411-2428. [CrossRef]
23. Jane Elisabeth Frisk, Rikard Lindgren, Lars Mathiassen. 2013. Design matters for decision makers:
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

Discovering IT investment alternatives. European Journal of Information Systems . [CrossRef]

24. Andrée-Anne Lemieux, Robert Pellerin, Samir Lamouri. 2013. A Mixed Performance and Adoption
Alignment Framework for Guiding Leanness and Agility Improvement Initiatives in Product Development.
Journal of Enterprise Transformation 3:3, 161-186. [CrossRef]
25. Marcelo Hoss, Carla Schwengber ten Caten. 2013. Lean schools of thought. International Journal of
Production Research 51:11, 3270-3282. [CrossRef]
26. Jimmy Huang, Michele Martin-Taylor. 2013. Turnaround user acceptance in the context of HR self-
service technology adoption: an action research approach. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 24:3, 621-642. [CrossRef]
27. Katrina Falkner, Nickolas J.G. Falkner. 2012. Supporting and structuring “contributing student pedagogy”
in Computer Science curricula. Computer Science Education 22:4, 413-443. [CrossRef]
28. Sabrina Adamczyk, Angelika C. Bullinger, Kathrin M. Möslein. 2012. Innovation Contests: A Review,
Classification and Outlook. Creativity and Innovation Management 21:4, 335-360. [CrossRef]
29. Sudarsono Hardjosoekarto. 2012. Construction of Social Development Index as a Theoretical Research
Practice in Action Research by Using Soft Systems Methodology. Systemic Practice and Action Research
25:6, 493-509. [CrossRef]
30. Jeremy Rose, Memon Saifullah. 2012. Bridging Worlds: Information Systems Development Through
Cross-Cultural Comparison. Systemic Practice and Action Research 25:6, 511-536. [CrossRef]
31. Satya S. Chakravorty, Douglas N. Hales. 2012. Creating Successful Process Improvement Programs: The
Roles of Consultant and Industry. Journal of Enterprise Transformation 2:4, 250-271. [CrossRef]
32. Sue McKemmish, Frada Burstein, Rosetta Manaszewicz, Julie Fisher, Joanne Evans. 2012. INCLUSIVE
RESEARCH DESIGN. Information, Communication & Society 15:7, 1106-1135. [CrossRef]
33. Catherine Lang, Larry Stillman, Henry Linger, Jo Dalvean, Brooke McNamara, Jinny McGrath,
Rhonda Collins. 2012. COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS IN THE COMMUNITY.
Information, Communication & Society 15:7, 1081-1105. [CrossRef]
34. Thayanan Phuaphanthong, Tung Bui, Somnuk Keretho. 2012. Harnessing Interagency Collaboration in
Inter-Organizational Systems Development. International Journal of Electronic Government Research 6:3,
42-56. [CrossRef]
 35. Gary F. Templeton, James F. Dowdy. 2012. CASE-mediated organizational and deutero learning at NASA.
Information Systems Frontiers 14:3, 741-764. [CrossRef]
36. Tim Baker, Vaidyanathan Jayaraman. 2012. Managing information and supplies inventory operations in a
manufacturing environment. Part 1: An action research study. International Journal of Production Research
50:6, 1666-1681. [CrossRef]
37. Nikolaos Papas, Robert M O'Keefe, Philip Seltsikas. 2012. The action research vs design science debate:
reflections from an intervention in eGovernment. European Journal of Information Systems 21:2, 147-159.
[CrossRef]
38. Jacques Abrahamse, Hugo Lotriet. 2012. Towards an Understanding, Through Action Research, of the
Socio-Organizational Issues Impacting on Mobile Technology Adoption and Diffusion Within a Small-
to-Medium South African Construction Company. Systemic Practice and Action Research 25:1, 57-79.
[CrossRef]
39. Nannette P Napier, Lars Mathiassen, Daniel Robey. 2011. Building contextual ambidexterity in a software
company to improve firm-level coordination. European Journal of Information Systems 20, 674-690.
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

[CrossRef]
40. Tony Clear, Stephen G. MacDonell. 2011. Understanding technology use in global virtual teams: Research
methodologies and methods. Information and Software Technology 53:9, 994-1011. [CrossRef]
41. Markus Pscheidt. 2011. Structurational analysis of cross-cultural development of an academic registry
information system in Mozambique. Information Technology for Development 17:3, 168-186. [CrossRef]
42. Adel Badri, Sylvie Nadeau, André Gbodossou. 2011. Integration of OHS into Risk Management in an
Open-Pit Mining Project in Quebec (Canada). Minerals 1:1, 3-29. [CrossRef]
43. Marco Formentini, Pietro Romano. 2011. Using value analysis to support knowledge transfer in the multi-
project setting. International Journal of Production Economics 131:2, 545-560. [CrossRef]
44. Daniel A. Peak, Carl S. Guynes, Victor R. Prybutok, Chenyan Xu. 2011. Aligning Information Technology
With Business Strategy: An Action Research Approach. Journal of Information Technology Case and
Application Research 13, 16-42. [CrossRef]
45. David Wright, Catherine Pugnaire-Gros. 2010. Let's Talk About Sex. Journal For Nurses in Staff
Development (JNSD) 26:6, 250-255. [CrossRef]
46. Gitte Tjørnehøj, Lars Mathiassen. 2010. Improvisation during process-technology adoption: a
longitudinal study of a software firm. Journal of Information Technology 25:1, 20-34. [CrossRef]
47. Salman Azhar, Irtishad Ahmad, Maung K. Sein. 2010. Action Research as a Proactive Research Method for
Construction Engineering and Management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136:1,
87-98. [CrossRef]
48. Peter Axel Nielsen, Gitte Tjørnehøj. 2010. Social networks in software process improvement. Journal of
Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 22:1, 33-51. [CrossRef]
49. Panayiotis Ifandoudas, Ross Chapman. 2009. A practical approach to achieving Agility–a theory of
constraints perspective. Production Planning & Control 20:8, 691-702. [CrossRef]
50. Federica Farneti. 2009. Balanced scorecard implementation in an Italian local government organization.
Public Money & Management 29:5, 313-320. [CrossRef]
51. Mike Chiasson, Matt Germonprez, Lars Mathiassen. 2009. Pluralist action research: a review of the
information systems literature. Information Systems Journal 19:1, 31-54. [CrossRef]
 52. Tom Butler, Joseph Feller, Andrew Pope, Bill Emerson, Ciaran Murphy. 2008. Designing a core IT
artefact for Knowledge Management Systems using participatory action research in a government and a
non-government organisation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17:4, 249-267. [CrossRef]
53. Helle Damborg Frederiksen, Lars Mathiassen. 2008. A Contextual Approach to Improving Software
Metrics Practices. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 55:4, 602-616. [CrossRef]
54. Jeanette Lemmergaard. 2008. Roles in the ISD process: a collaborative approach. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management 21:5, 543-556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. Kersti Nogeste. 2008. Dual cycle action research: a professional doctorate case study. International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business 1:4, 566-585. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
56. Joanne Evans, Barbara Reed, Sue McKemmish. 2008. Interoperable data. Records Management Journal
18:2, 115-129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Derek H. T. Walker, Lynda Margaret Bourne, Arthur Shelley. 2008. Influence, stakeholder mapping and
visualization. Construction Management and Economics 26:6, 645-658. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

58. Kersti Nogeste, Derek H.T. Walker. 2008. Development of a method to improve the definition and
alignment of intangible project outcomes and tangible project outputs. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business 1:2, 279-287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Derek H.T. Walker. 2008. Reflections on developing a project management doctorate. International Journal
of Project Management 26:3, 316-325. [CrossRef]
60. Magnus Andersson, Rikard Lindgren, Ola Henfridsson. 2008. Architectural knowledge in inter-
organizational IT innovation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17:1, 19-38. [CrossRef]
61. Gitte Tjornehoj, Lars Mathiassen. 2008. Between control and drift: negotiating improvement in a small
software firm. Information Technology & People 21:1, 69-90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. Derek H.T. Walker, Svetlana Cicmil, Janice Thomas, Frank Anbari, Christophe Bredillet. 2008.
Collaborative academic/practitioner research in project management. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business 1:1, 17-32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. Briony June Oates, Brian Fitzgerald. 2007. Multi-metaphor method: organizational metaphors in
information systems development. Information Systems Journal 17:4, 421-449. [CrossRef]
64. Carol A. Adams, Carlos Larrinaga‐González, Carol A. Adams, Patty McNicholas. 2007. Making a
difference. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 20:3, 382-402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Peter Kawalek. 2007. The bubble strategy. International Journal of Public Sector Management 20:3,
178-191. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. Terry Nolan, Ray Brizland, Linda Macaulay. 2007. Individual trust and development of online business
communities. Information Technology & People 20:1, 53-71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Mikael Schönström. 2005. Creating knowledge networks: lessons from practice. Journal of Knowledge
Management 9:6, 17-29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Kersti Nogeste, Derek H.T. Walker. 2005. Project outcomes and outputs: making the intangible tangible.
Measuring Business Excellence 9:4, 55-68. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. David Wastell, Peter Kawalek, Peter Langmead-Jones, Rob Ormerod. 2004. Information systems and
partnership in multi-agency networks: an action research project in crime reduction. Information and
Organization 14:3, 189-210. [CrossRef]
70. Christine Vallaster. 2004. Internal brand building in multicultural organisations: a roadmap towards action
research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 7:2, 100-113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 71. Ned Kock. 2004. The three threats of action research: a discussion of methodological antidotes in the
context of an information systems study. Decision Support Systems 37:2, 265-286. [CrossRef]
72. Chad Perry, Evert Gummesson. 2004. Action research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing 38:3/4,
310-320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Robert Davison, Maris G. Martinsons, Ned Kock. 2004. Principles of canonical action research. Information
Systems Journal 14:1, 65-86. [CrossRef]
74. Frada Burstein, Henry Linger. 2003. Supporting post‐Fordist work practices. Information Technology &
People 16:3, 289-305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Lars Mathiassen. 2002. Collaborative practice research. Information Technology & People 15:4, 321-345.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. Ortrun Zuber‐Skerritt, Chad Perry. 2002. Action research within organisations and university thesis
writing. The Learning Organization 9:4, 171-179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
77. M.P.A Thompson. 2002. Cultivating meaning: interpretive fine-tuning of a South African health
Downloaded by University of Sheffield At 05:02 05 January 2015 (PT)

information system. Information and Organization 12:3, 183-211. [CrossRef]

78. David G. Wastell. 2001. Barriers to effective knowledge management: Action research meets grounded
theory. Journal of Systems and Information Technology 5:2, 21-36. [Abstract] [PDF]
79. Glenn Stewart, Guy Gable. 2001. Emancipating IT Leadership: An Action Research Program. Journal of
Information Technology Case and Application Research 3, 7-20. [CrossRef]
80. Muireann McMahon, Tracy BhamraSharing the Load: 1-26. [CrossRef]
81. Stephen DobsonThe Reflexive Practitioner 135-148. [CrossRef]
82. Jan Gulliksen, Åsa Cajander, Bengt Sandblad, Elina Eriksson, Iordanis KavathatzopoulosUser-Centred
Systems Design as Organizational Change 80-120. [CrossRef]
83. Thayanan Phuaphanthong, Tung Bui, Somnuk KerethoHarnessing Interagency Collaboration in Inter-
Organizational Systems Development 236-250. [CrossRef]