Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 191–202 | Cite as

Action Research as a Bridge Between Two Worlds: Helping The NGOs and Humanitarian Agencies Adapt Technology to Their Needs

  • Yao-Jen Chang
  • Rui-Hua Liao
  • Tsen-Yung Wang
  • Yao-Sheng Chang
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

This paper reflects upon the process of introducing social media systems into supported employment programs for peoples with severe mental illness in Taipei. Such intervention represents the encounter of two different worlds that are often-unknown to each other, i.e. IT student engineers and job coaches in NGOs. With the participatory and cyclic feature of action research approach, the process can be divided into three stages: technology-led stage, mutual infusion stage, and service-led stage. The focus of this research is to illustrate how action research provides a site for the infusion of two different horizons, that is technology experts in academia and social service providers in NGOs. The existing problems in the use of IT within NGOs were studied and changes through co-inquiry and interventions were implemented towards better utilization of IT and higher levels of service qualities. The researchers utilized an action research approach to investigate the problems, plan the actions, intervene, assess the effectiveness resulting from the actions, and specify learning outcomes.

Keywords

NGO Action engagement Evaluation Reflection 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work presented in this paper has been funded by the National Science Council, Taiwan, NSC 95-2627-E-008-002-.

References

  1. Banathy BH (1996) Designing social systems in a changing world. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Baskerville RL (1999) “Investigating Information systems with action research.” Communications of the association for information systems, vol 2, Article 19, Oct. 1999Google Scholar
  3. Chang YJ, Wang TY, Chang YS, Chou LD (2008) A qualitative study of web 2.0 services for NGO—a case study of employment services for individuals with mental illness. J Adv Eng 3(2):161–170Google Scholar
  4. Emerson R (1983) Ethnography and understanding members’ worlds. Contemporary field research. Prospect hieghts. Waveland Press, Illinois, pp 19–35Google Scholar
  5. Friedman VJ (2001) Action science: creating communities of inquiry in communities of practice. In: Reason P, Bradbury H, (eds) Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Gregory RL (1963) Distortions of visual space as inappropriate constancy scaling. Nature 199:678–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hall H, Davison B (2007) Social software as support in hybrid learning environments: the value of the blog as a tool for reflective learning and peer support. Libr Inf Sci Res 29:163–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jøsendal K, Skarholt K (2007) Communicating through theatre: how organizational theatre engages researchers and industrial companies. Syst Pract Act Res 20:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kay R (2006) Developing a comprehensive metric for assessing discussion board effectiveness. Br J Educ Technol 37(5):761–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kvale S (1996) Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Mathiassen L (1998) Reflective systems development. Scand J Inf Syst 10:67–118Google Scholar
  12. Mathiassen L, Heje JP, Ngwenyama O (2002) “Improving Software Organizations” Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  13. PMI (1996) A guide to the project management body of knowledge, PMI. Newtown Square, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  14. Reinharz S (1993) On becoming a social scientist. From survey research and participant observation to experimental analysis. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  15. Rolfsen M, Johnsen A, Knutstad G (2007) Action engagement: improving researchers’ involvement in action research projects. Syst Pract Act Res 20:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Salamon LM (1995) Partners in public service: government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. The Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  17. Spradley J (1979) The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Wasko MM, Faraj S (2005) Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly 29(1):35–57Google Scholar
  19. Yin RK (1994) Case study research: design and method, 2nd edn. Sage Publications Inc., Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yao-Jen Chang
    • 1
  • Rui-Hua Liao
    • 2
  • Tsen-Yung Wang
    • 3
  • Yao-Sheng Chang
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Electronic EngineeringChung Yuan Christian UniversityChung LiTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Institute of SociologyNational Tsing Hua UniversityHsinchuTaiwan, ROC
  3. 3.Institute of Health and Social WelfareNational Yang Ming UniversityTaipeiTaiwan, ROC
  4. 4.Institute of Business & ManagementNational Chiao Tung UniversityHsinchuTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations