Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 537–549 | Cite as

Idea Networking: Constructing a Pragmatic Conceptual Frame for Action Research Interventions

  • Najmeh Hassanli
  • Mike Metcalfe
Original Paper


Action research interventions require use of some form of conceptual frame to guide and evaluate the intervention. Pragmatism offers an explanation of ideas that enables this conceptual frame to be constructed inductively from diverse participants’ ideas. They define ideas as experienced patterns of activity. The purpose of this paper is to explain why and how this pragmatic explanation of ideas can be used to induce an action research conceptual frame. As a demonstration, the paper inducts (emerges) a conceptual frame using idea networking for service providers in an emerging cultural accommodation industry. 50 h of interviews and site visits provided 117 individual idea statements which were networked. The conceptual frame that emerged had five elements: sufficient-legitimation, selected-market, inclusive-boomi, appropriately-financial, and collaboratively-empowered. This provides a coordinated, multi-part, way of evaluating any possible future changes.


Intervention Conceptual frame(work) Ideas Pragmatism Accommodations industry 


  1. Aas C, Ladkin A, Fletcher J (2005) Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Ann Tour Res 32(1):28–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson C (2003) Finding ideas. Harv Bus Rev 81(11):18–19Google Scholar
  4. Axelrod R (1976) The structure of decisions. Princeton University Press, TrentonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailin S (2003) Is argument for conservatives? Or where do sparkling new ideas come from? Informal Log 23:3–17Google Scholar
  6. Baskerville R, Wood-Harper AT (1998) Diversity in information systems action research methods. Eur J Inf Syst 7:90–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borgatti SP, Everett M, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet for windows: software for social network analysis. MA Analytic Technologies, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  8. Buckle P (2003) Uncovering system teleology: a case for reading unconscious patterns of purposive intent in organizations. Syst Res Behav Sci 20:435–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Checkland P (2000) Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Syst Res Behav Sci 17(1):S11–S58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coghlan D (2011) Action research: exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing. Acad Manag Ann 5(1):53–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennett DC (1989) The intentional stance. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewey J (1938) Logic: the theory of inquiry. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Dreyfus H (2007a) The return of the myth of the mental. Inquiry 50:352–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreyfus H (2007b) Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggerian. Philos Psychol 20:247–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamel G, Prahalad CK (2005) Strategic intent. Harv Bus Rev 83(7–8):148–161Google Scholar
  16. Houston D (2008) Systemic Intervention in a University Department: reflections on arrested action research. Syst Pract Action Res 21(2):133–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huff AS, Jenkins M (2002) Mapping strategic knowledge. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Hume D (1748/1999) An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Huzzard T, Ahlberg BM, Ekman M (2010) Constructing interorganizational collaboration: the action researcher as boundary subject. Action Res 8(3):293–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ison R (2010) Systemic intervention systems practice: how to act in a climate-change. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. James W (1890) Principles of psychology, vol 1. Henry Holt, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. James W (1907/1910) Pragmatism. World Publishing Meridian, ClevelandGoogle Scholar
  23. James W (1911/1996) Some problems of philosophy. University of Nebraska Press, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  24. Kajamaa A (2012) Enriching action research with the narrative approach and activity theory: analyzing the consequences of an intervention in a public sector hospital in Finland. Educ Action Res 20(1):75–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaplan S (2011) Cognition and strategy. J Manag Stud 48(3):665–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kastenholz E, Sparrer M (2009) Rural dimensions of the commercial home. In: Lynch P, McIntosh A, Tucker H (eds) Commercial homes in tourism: an international perspective. Routledge, Oxon, pp 138–149Google Scholar
  27. Keupp MM, Palmié M, Gassmann O (2011) The strategic management of innovation: a systematic review and paths for future research. Int J Manag Rev. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00321.x Google Scholar
  28. Khoshesar (2012) About Khoshesar. Accessed Jan 2013
  29. King B, White L (2009) The diversification of the commercial home. In: Lynch P, McIntosh A, Tucker H (eds) Commercial homes in tourism: an international perspective. Routledge, Oxon, pp 179–193Google Scholar
  30. Latour B (1986) Visualization and cognition. Knowledge and Society 6:1–40Google Scholar
  31. Lynch P (2005) The commercial home enterprise and host: a United Kingdom perspective. Int J Hosp Manag 24(4):533–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lynch P, McIntosh A, Tucker H (2009) Introduction. In: Lynch P, McIntosh A, Tucker H (eds) Commercial homes in tourism: an international perspective. Routledge, Oxon, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  33. Mackenzie J, Tan P-L, Hoverman S, Baldwin C (2012) The value and limitations of participatory action research methodology. J Hydrol 474:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin C, Metcalfe M, Harris H (2009) Developing an implementation capacity: justifications from prior research. J Oper Res Soc 60:859–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Metcalfe M (2007) Conceptualizing problems using idea networks. Syst Pract Action Res 20:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Metcalfe M, Powell P (1995) Information: a perceiver-concerns perspective. Eur J Inf Syst 4:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Midgley G (2003) Science as systemic intervention. Syst Pract Action Res 16(2):77–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Midgley G (2006) Systemic intervention for public health. Am J Public Health 96(3):466–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morgan G (1986) Images of organization. Sage, Beverley HillsGoogle Scholar
  41. Moscardo G (2009) Bed and breakfast, homestay and farm stay accommodation. In: Lynch P, McIntosh A, Tucker H (eds) Commercial homes in tourism: an international perspective. Routledge, Oxon, pp 25–37Google Scholar
  42. National Project Office (2002) Iran Tourism Development and Management Master Plan Google Scholar
  43. O’Gorman KD (2007) Iranian hospitality: a hidden treasure. Hosp Rev 9(1):31–36Google Scholar
  44. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  45. Peirce CS (1878) How to make our ideas clear. Pop Sci Mon 12:286–302Google Scholar
  46. Rescher N (2005) Pragmatism at the crossroads. Trans Charles S Pierce Soc XLI(2):355–365Google Scholar
  47. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rorty R (1982) The consequences of pragmatism. University of Minnesota Press, Saint PaulGoogle Scholar
  49. Sautter ET, Leisen B (1999) Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model. Ann Tour Res 26(2):312–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shields P (2005) Classical pragmatism does not need an upgrade. Adm Soc 37:504–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Surowiecki J (2005) The wisdom of crowds. Anchor, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Toulmin S (1972) Human understanding: the collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton University Press, TrentonGoogle Scholar
  53. Trochim WMK (1989) Introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Eval Program Plan 12:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tropman JE (1998) The management of ideas in the creating organization. Quorum Books, WestportGoogle Scholar
  55. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vandenbosch B, Saatcioglu A, Fay S (2006) Ideas management: a systems view. J Manag Stud 43:259–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vernon J, Essex S, Pinder D, Curry K (2005) Collaborative policymaking: local sustainable projects. Ann Tour Res 32(2):325–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. von Hipple E (1988) The sources of innovation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  59. Walsh JP (1995) Managerial and organizational cognition: notes for a trip down memory lane. Organ Sci 6(3):280–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Warfield JN, Perino GH Jr (1999) The problematique: evolution of an idea. Syst Res Behav Sci 16:221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Watson P (2006) Ideas: a history of thought and invention. Harper Perennial, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Weick KE (2006) The role of imagination in the organizing of knowledge. Eur J Inf Syst 15:446–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations