Advertisement

Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 443–452 | Cite as

Triple Task Method: Systemic, Reflective Action Research

  • Simon BellEmail author
  • Stephen Morse
Original Paper

Abstract

This brief article introduces a new methodology for systemic action research—Triple Task (TT)—and sets out its rationale and initial progress in becoming an embedded method for group working. Arising from the authors previous work with soft systems approaches, the Imagine method for sustainable development assessment and action research in a variety of global locations, TT provides a means for groups to engage together in purposive work and, at the same time, for facilitators to understand how the dynamic of the group influences the groups output. TT is based on an ambitious concept and at the time of writing the results of TT applied in the context of an EU Framework 7 funded project are in their early stages but importantly, significant insights are already arising including the answers to some puzzling questions:
  • Do purposeful groups always produce the most insightful outcomes?

  • Do conflictual groups produce incoherent results?

  • What makes a ‘good’ group?

Keywords

Triple task method Participatory approaches Action research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under the Grant Agreement No. 217207 (POINT Project, www.point.pb-works.com).

References

  1. Barnes M, Newman J et al (2007) Power, case studies in public participation, participation and political renewal. London Policy Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell S (2000) Finding out rapidly: a soft systems approach to training needs analysis in Thailand. In: Wallace T (ed) Development and management. Oxfam Publication in association with the Open University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell S, Morse S (2004) Experiences with sustainability indicators and stakeholder participation: a case study relating to a ‘Blue Plan’ project in Malta. Sust Dev 12:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell S, Morse S (2009) Participatory visioning of indicator use. In: International sustainable development research conference, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumberg HH (2006) A simplified version of the SYMLOG (R) trait rating form. Psychol Rep 99(1):46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bridger H (2007) The consultant and the consulting process. In: Handout at the midhurst working conference, The Bayswater Institute LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambers R (2002) Participatory workshops: a sourcebook of 21 sets of ideas and activities. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Checkland P, Jayastna N (2000) The soft systems reseach discussion group: taking stock, background, current position, future direction. Universtiy of Salford, SalfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Checkland PB, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  10. Creighton J (2005) The public participation handbook: making better decisions through citizen involvement: a practical toolkit. Pfeiffer Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  11. Gottschick M (2008) Participatory sustainability impact assessment: scientific policy advice as a social learning process. Syst Pract Action Res 21(6):479–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haynes M (1995) Soft systems methodology. In: Ellis K (ed) Critical issues in systems theory and practice. Plenum, New York, pp 251–257Google Scholar
  13. Hurley JR (1991) Self-acceptance, acceptance of others, and SYMLOG: equivalent measures of the two central interpersonal dimensions? J Clin Psychol 47(4):576–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Isenberg DJ, Ennis JG (1981) Perceiving group members: a comparison of derived and imposed dimensions. J Pers Soc Psychol 41(2):293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keyton J, Wall VDJ (1989) Symlog. Theory and method of measuring group and organisational communication. Manag Commun Q 2(4):544–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein L (2001) On the use of pshychoanalytic concepts in organizational social science. Concept Transform 6(1):59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klein L (2006) Joan Woodward memorial lecture—applied social science: is it just common sense? Hum Relat 59(8):1155–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mingers J (2001) An idea ahead of its time: the history and development of soft systems methodology. Syst Pract Action Res 13(6):733–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nowack W (1987) SYMLOG as an instrument of internal and external perspective taking—construct-validation and temporal change. Int J Small Group Res 3(2):180–197Google Scholar
  20. Open University (2000) T306 managing complexity: a systems approach. Open University, Milton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  21. Park JH (1985) SYMLOG as a method of a team diagnosis of soccer teams. Int J Sports Psychol 16(4):331–332Google Scholar
  22. Wall VDJ, Galanes GJ (1986) The SYMLOG dimensions and small group conflict. Cent States Speech J 37(2):61–78Google Scholar
  23. Winter M, Checkland P (2003) Soft systems: a fresh perspective for project management. Civil Eng 156:187–192Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.Bayswater Institute in LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Geography DepartmentUniversity of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations