Generating Data for Research on Emerging Technologies

An Action Learning Approach
  • Pak Yoong
  • David Pauleen
  • Brent Gallupe
Chapter
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 13)

Abstract

One of the difficulties of conducting applied qualitative research on the applications of emerging technologies is finding available sources of relevant data for analysis. Because the adoption of emerging technologies is, by definition, new in many organisations, there is often a lack of experienced practitioners who have relevant background and are willing to provide useful information for the study. Therefore, it is necessary to design research approaches that can generate accessible and relevant data. This chapter begins with a description of action learning and its application to the training of e-facilitators. It will also explain the differences between action learning and action research. The chapter will then describe two case studies in which the researchers used an action learning approach to study the nature of e-facilitation for face-to-face and for distributed electronic meetings. Finally, the chapter describes some lessons learned for both practitioners and researchers.

Key words

Action learning emerging technology electronic meeting virtual teams e-facilitation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anson, R. (1990). Effects of Computer Support and Facilitator Support on Group Processes and Outcomes: An Experimental Assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  2. Avison, D. (1989). Action Learning for Information Systems Teaching. International Journal of Information Management. 9, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (1999). Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice. Accounting Management and Information Technologies. 9, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benbasat, I. & Lim, L. (1993). The Effects of Groups, Task, Context, and Technology Variables on the Usefulness of Group Support Systems: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies. Small Group Research. 24(4), 430–462.Google Scholar
  5. Bostrom, R., Clawson, V., and Anson, R. (1991). Training People to Facilitate Electronic Environments. Working Paper, Department of Management, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.Google Scholar
  6. Boud, D. (1993). Experience as a Base for Learning. Higher Education Research and Development. 12(1), 33–44.Google Scholar
  7. Cunningham, J. (1993). Action Research and Organizational Development. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
  8. Davison, R.M., Martinsons, M.G. and Kock, N. (2004). Principles of Canonical Action Research, Information Systems Journal. 14(1), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dennis, A.R. and Gallupe, R.B. (1993). GSS Past, Present, and Future. Jessup, L. and Valacich, eds. Group Support Systems: New Perspectives. New York: Macmillan:, 59–77.Google Scholar
  10. DeSanctis, G. and Poole, S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science. 5(2), 121–147.Google Scholar
  11. Duarte, N., and Tennant-Snyder, N. (1999). Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools, and Techniques that Succeed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Fjermestad, J., and Hiltz, S.R. (1999). An assessment of group support systems experiment research: methodology and results. Journal of Management Information Systems. 15(3), 7–15.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, P. (1989). Upstream Facilitation: A Proactive Approach to Managing Problem-Solving Groups. Management Communications Quarterly. 3(1), 33–51.Google Scholar
  14. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Glesne, C. and Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. White Plains, N.Y: Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Gopal, A., & Prasad, P. (2000). Understanding GDSS in symbolic context: shifting the focus from technology to interaction. MIS Quarterly. 24(3), 509–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gregory, M. (1994). Accrediting Work-Based Learning: Action Learning-A Model For Empowerment. Journal of Management Development. 13(4), 41–52.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Kayworth, T.R. and Leidner, D.E. (2001). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems. 18(3), 7–40.Google Scholar
  19. Jessup, L. and Egbert, J. (1995). Active Learning in Business Education With, Through, and About Technology. Journal of Information Systems Education. 7(3), 108–112.Google Scholar
  20. Kock, N., McQueen, R. and Scott, J. (1997). Can Action Research be Made More Rigorous in a Positivist Sense? The Contribution of an Iterative Approach. Journal of Systems and Information Technology. 1(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  21. Lau, F. (1997). A Review on the Use of Action Research in Information Systems Studies. Lee, A.S., Liebenau, J. and J.I. DeGross, J. I. eds. Information Systems and Qualitative Research. London: Chapman and Hall, 31–68.Google Scholar
  22. Lofland, J. & Lofland, L. (1995). Analyzing Social Settings; A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Pub.Google Scholar
  23. Margerison, C. (1988). Action learning and excellence in management development.” Journal of Management Development. 7(5): 43–55.Google Scholar
  24. Marquardt, M. (1999). Action Learning in Action. Palo Alto, California: Davis-Black Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Marsick, V. and O’Neil, J. (1999). The Many Faces of Action Learning. Management Learning. 30(2), 159–176.Google Scholar
  26. Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., Briggs, R.O. and Mittleman, D.D. (1996). Lessons from a Decade of Group Support Systems Research. The Proceedings of the 29th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 418–427.Google Scholar
  27. Orlikowski, W. (1992). The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organization. Organization Science. 3(3), 398–427.Google Scholar
  28. Pauleen, D. (2001). A Grounded Theory of Virtual Facilitation: Building Relationships with Virtual Team Members. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  29. Pauleen, D. (2003). Leadership in a Global Virtual Team: An Action Learning Approach. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal. 24(3), 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pauleen, D. (2003–4). An Inductively Derived Model of Leader-Initiated Relationship Building with Virtual Team Members. Journal of Management Information Systems 4,(3), 227–256.Google Scholar
  31. Ramirez, R. (1983). Action Learning: A Strategic Approach for Organizations Facing Turbulent Conditions. Human Relations, 36(8), 725–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Revans, R. (1982). The Origins and Growth of Action Learning. Bromley: Chartwell-Bratt.Google Scholar
  33. Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Trauth, E. M., and Jessup, L.M. (2000). Understanding computer-mediated discussions: positivist and interpretative analysis of group support system use. MIS Quarterly. 24(1), 43–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yoong, P., and Gallupe, B. (2001). Action learning and groupware technologies: a case study in GSS facilitation research. Information Technology and People. 14(1), 78–90.Google Scholar
  36. Yoong, P. (1998). Training Facilitators for Face-to-Face Electronic Meetings: An Experiential Learning Approach. Journal of Informing Science. 1(2), 31–36.Google Scholar
  37. Yoong, P. (1996). A Grounded Theory of Reflective Facilitation: Making The Transition From Traditional To GSS Facilitation. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  38. Yoong, P. (1999). Making Sense of GSS Facilitation: A Reflective Practice Perspective. Journal of Information Technology and People. 12(1), 86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1991). Professional Development in Higher Education: A Theoretical Framework for Action Research. Brisbane: Griffith University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pak Yoong
    • 1
  • David Pauleen
    • 1
  • Brent Gallupe
    • 2
  1. 1.Victoria University of WellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Queen’s UniversityCanada

Personalised recommendations