Dialogical Action Research at Omega Corporation

In dialogical action research, the scientific researcher does not "speak science" or otherwise attempt to teach scientific theory to the real-world practitioner, but instead attempts to speak the language of the practitioner and accepts him as the expert on his organization and its problems. Recognizing the difficulty that a practitioner and a scientific researcher can have in communicating across the world of science and the world of practice, dialogical action research offers, as its centerpiece, reflective one-on-one dialogues between the practitioner and the scientific researcher, taking place periodically in a setting removed from the practitioner's organization. The dialogue itself serves as the interface between the world of science, marked by theoria and the scientific attitude, and the world of the practitioner, marked by praxis and the natural attitude of everyday life. The dialogue attempts to address knowledge heterogeneity, which refers to the different forms that knowledge takes in the world of science and the world of practice, and knowledge contextuality, which refers to the dependence of the meaning of knowledge, such as a scientific theory or professional expertise, on its context. In successive dialogues, the scientific researcher and the practitioner build a mutual understanding, including an understanding of the organization and its problems. The scientific researcher, based on one or more of the scientific theories in her discipline, formulates and suggests one or more actions for the practitioner to take in order to solve or remedy a problem in his organization. Dialogical action research recognizes that the practitioner's experience, expertise, and tacit knowledge, or praxis, largely shapes how he understands the suggested actions and appropriates them as his own. Upon returning to his organization, he takes one or more of the suggested actions, depending on his reading of the situation at hand. The reactions or responses of the problem to the actions or stimuli of the practitioner would embody, in the practitioner's eyes, success or failure in solving or remedying the problem and, in the scientific researcher's eyes, evidence confirming or disconfirming the theory on which the action was based. The scientific researcher may then suggest, based on her theories, additional actions, hence initiating another cycle of action and learning. To illustrate dialogical action research, this paper reconstructs some dialogues between an information systems researcher and a managing director at a European company called Omega Corporation.

[1]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[2]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Beyond Rigor and Relevance: Producing Consumable Research about Information Systems , 1998 .

[3]  P. Atkinson,et al.  Making sense of qualitative data , 1996 .

[4]  Allen S. Lee Quixotic Communication , 1987 .

[5]  John R. Kimberly,et al.  Issues in the Design of Longitudinal Organizational Research , 1976 .

[6]  Allen S. Lee The Hermeneutic Circle as a Source of Emergent Richness in the Mangagerial Use of Electronic Mail , 1994, ICIS.

[7]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[8]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

[9]  Gerald R. Adams,et al.  Book Review: Primary Prevention Practices.Martin Bloom. (1996). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. , 1998, Journal of Primary Prevention.

[10]  Harry F. Wolcott,et al.  Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and Interpretation , 1996 .

[11]  L. Kirsch The Management of Complex Tasks in Organizations: Controlling the Systems Development Process , 1996 .

[12]  Donald A. Schön The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action , 1986 .

[13]  W. Ouchi A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms , 1979 .

[14]  Mike Chiasson,et al.  System development conflict during the use of an information systems prototyping method of action research: Implications for practice and research , 2001, Inf. Technol. People.

[15]  James A. Holstein,et al.  The active interview , 1995 .

[16]  Robert Davison,et al.  GSS and action research in the Hong Kong police , 2001, Inf. Technol. People.

[17]  T. Kuhn The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. , 1996 .

[18]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  GIS for District-Level Administration in India: Problems and Opportunities , 1999, MIS Q..

[19]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Diversity in information systems action research methods , 1998 .

[20]  Allen S. Lee Electronic Mail as a Medium for Rich Communication: An Empirical Investigation Using Hermeneutic Interpretation , 1994, MIS Q..

[21]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[22]  Allen S. Lee A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies , 1989, MIS Q..

[23]  Kay M. Nelson,et al.  Understanding Software Operations Support Expertise: A Revealed Causal Mapping Approach , 2000, MIS Q..

[24]  J. Dutton Understanding strategic agenda building and its implications for managing change , 1986 .

[25]  Pär Mårtensson Management processes : an information perspective on managerial work , 2001 .

[26]  Enid Mumford,et al.  Advice for an action researcher , 2001, Inf. Technol. People.

[27]  P. Berger,et al.  Social Construction of Reality , 1991, The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society.

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

[29]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[30]  K. Lewin Action Research and Minority Problems , 1946 .

[31]  Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama,et al.  Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of Meaning , 1997, MIS Q..

[32]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  An Investigation of Media Selection Among Directors and Managers: From "Self" to "Other" Orientation , 1998, MIS Q..

[33]  Thomas A. Schwandt Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms , 1997 .

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

[35]  Abhijit Gopal,et al.  Understanding GDSS in Symbolic Context: Shifting the Focus from Technology to Interaction , 2000, MIS Q..

[36]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[37]  Allen S. Lee Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Research , 1991 .

[38]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[39]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[40]  A. Schutz Concept and Theory Formation in the Social Sciences , 1954 .

[41]  Eileen M. Trauth,et al.  Understanding Computer-Mediated Discussions: Positivist and Interpretive Analyses of Group Support System Use , 2000, MIS Q..

[42]  C. Geertz Local Knowledge: Further Essays In Interpretive Anthropology , 1983 .

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

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

[45]  F. Lau,et al.  A review on the use of action research in information systems studies , 1997 .

[46]  Ulrike Schultze,et al.  A Confessional Account of an Ethnography About Knowledge Work , 2000, MIS Q..