Driven by two masters, serving both: the interplay of problem solving and research in information systems action research projects

One of the challenges of action research is the need simultaneously to serve two 'masters': as researchers, we need to produce rigorous, relevant research to advance our understanding and knowledge of our discipline. However, there is also a responsibility to intervene in organisational contexts and improve or ameliorate situations or issues perceived to be problematic, and thus, action researchers need also to be problem solvers and change agents. This chapter will discuss this duality of purpose, and discuss ways in which action researchers can successfully manage to address both the research imperative and the problem solving imperative in real world organisational contexts. An argument will be made to suggest that given both the research and action-oriented nature of action research, it is essential that IS action researchers have a sound appreciation of the nature of organisational contexts and of the information systems implemented in response to environmental problems, challenges and opportunities. The chapter will approach the need to serve two masters by suggesting a conceptualization which might support this, and will relate an action research case to this conceptual frame.

[1]  P. Marshall,et al.  Social constructionism with a twist of pragmatism: a suitable cocktail for information systems research , 2005 .

[2]  G. Susman,et al.  An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. , 1978 .

[3]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Rigor vs. relevance revisited: response to Benbasat and Zmud , 1999 .

[4]  Colin Eden,et al.  On evaluating the performance of 'wide-band' GDSS's , 1995 .

[5]  N. Mitev Constructivist and critical approaches to an IS failure case study: symmetry, translation and power , 2003 .

[6]  David E. Avison,et al.  Conclusions from Action Research: The Multiview Experience , 1991 .

[7]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001 , 2004, Inf. Syst. J..

[8]  Alison Clements,et al.  Qualitative methods in psychology: A research guide , 1995 .

[9]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Information Systems Research as Design: Identity, Process, and Narrative , 2004, Relevant Theory and Informed Practice.

[10]  Trevor Wood-Harper,et al.  A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research , 1996, J. Inf. Technol..

[11]  M. El-den,et al.  Emerging Varieties of Action Research: Introduction to the Special Issue , 1993 .

[12]  P. Reason Pragmatist Philosophy and Action Research , 2003 .

[13]  P. Checkland From framework through experience to learning: The essential nature of action research , 1991 .

[14]  Maurice Landry,et al.  A disciplined methodological pluralism for mis research , 1992 .

[15]  Peter Axel Nielsen,et al.  Competing values in software process improvement: an assumption analysis of CMM from an organizational culture perspective , 2003, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[16]  T. Hindle,et al.  Developing a Methodology for Multidisciplinary Action Research: A Case Study , 1995 .

[17]  D. Ladkin ‘The enigma of subjectivity’ , 2005 .

[18]  S LeeAllen Rigor and relevance in MIS research , 1999 .

[19]  Judy McKay,et al.  The dual imperatives of action research , 2001, Inf. Technol. People.

[20]  Daniel Robey,et al.  A Social Process Model of User-Analyst Relationships , 1992, MIS Q..

[21]  J. Mingers,et al.  A New Paradigm of Analysis , 2001 .

[22]  C. Eden,et al.  Action Research for Management Research , 1996 .

[23]  Allen S. Lee Rigor and relevance in MIS research: beyond the approach of positivism alone , 1999 .

[24]  R. Rapoport Three Dilemmas in Action Research , 1970 .

[25]  Colin Eden,et al.  Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[26]  M. Alvesson,et al.  Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research , 2000, QMiP Bulletin.

[27]  R. Hirschheim INFORMATION SYSTEMS EPISTEMOLOGY: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE , 2000 .

[28]  H. Bradbury,et al.  Handbook of action research , 2006 .

[29]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance , 1999, MIS Q..

[30]  Judy McKay,et al.  A review of design science in information systems , 2005 .

[31]  Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama,et al.  Groupware, social action and organizational emergence: On the process dynamics of computer mediated distributed work , 1998 .

[32]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  Design Theory in Information Systems , 2002, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[33]  Dawn E. Chandler,et al.  Transforming Inquiry and Action , 2003 .

[34]  Bridget Somekh,et al.  The Contribution of Action Research to Development in Social Endeavours: a position paper on action research methodology , 1995 .

[35]  M. Denscombe The Good Research Guide , 2003 .

[36]  Lynette Kvasny,et al.  Cores and Definitions: Building the Cognitive Legitimacy of the Information Systems Discipline Across the Atlantic , 2004, Relevant Theory and Informed Practice.

[37]  Mats Alvesson,et al.  Postmodernism and social research , 2002 .

[38]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Investigating Information Systems with Action Research , 1999, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..