A Conceptual Model for Action and Design Research

  • Telmo Antonio Henriques
  • Henrique O’Neill
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 861)


Organizational research has a pattern of special characteristics which make a clear distinction from other research paradigms. When using this kind of approaches – mainly those which are based on Action and Design – the Interpretivist, Constructivist, and Participatory perspectives dominate. They have already proven to have strong foundations – including ways of doing, data, and results – which turn these two paradigmatic approaches into effective ways for getting knowledge, doing things, and promoting change. The objective of the current article is to present a top-level conceptual model – under the form a tri-dimensional perspective – for Action and Design Research. It combines the traditional scientific, engineering, and organization development approaches – depicting how an organization can, simultaneously, solve problems, produce actionable knowledge, change, and artifacts. It has been developed using a Design Science Research approach, tested in a major organizational change program, and successfully used to teach research methods essentials to Master and DBA students.


Action Research Design Science Research Conceptual model 


  1. 1.
    Robson, C.: Real World Research: A Resource for Users of Social Research Methods in Applied Settings, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simon, H.: The Sciences of Artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37(2), 337–355 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vaishnavi, V., Kuechler, W.: Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Information and Communication Technology. Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Henriques, T.A.: IT quality and organization development – using action research to promote employee engagement, leadership development, learning and organizational improvement. Ph.D. Dissertation in Information Science and Technology. ISCTE-IUL (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henriques, T.A., O’Neill, H.: IT quality and organizational development – using action research to promote employee engagement, leadership development, learning and organizational improvement. In: 2014 Annual Conference on British Academy of Management, BAM, Belfast, UK (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henriques, T.A., O’Neill, H.: A process model for organizational action research. In: 2018 Annual Conference on European Academy of Management, EURAM, Reykjavik, Iceland (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boonstra, J.: Some reflections and perspectives on organizing, changing, and learning. In: Boonstra, J. (ed.) Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning, pp. 317–341. Wiley, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burnes, B.: No such thing as … a ‘one best way’ to manage organizational change. Manag. Decis. 34(10), 11–18 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P.E.T., Thornhill, A.: Research Methods for Business Students, 5th edn. Pearson Education, London (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yin, R.: Case Study Research Design and Methods, 4th edn. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bryman, A.: Social Research Methods, 4th edn. Oxford University Press Inc., Oxford (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eriksson, M., Kovalainen, A.: Qualitative Methods in Business Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Creswell, J.W.: Research Design Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Sage Publications, London (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lewin, K.: Field Theory in Social Science. Harper & Row, New York (1951)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dick, B.: Action research literature: Themes and trends. Action Res. 2(4), 425–444 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dick, B.: Action research literature 2004–2006: themes and trends. Action Res. 4(4), 439–458 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dick, B.: Action research literature 2006–2008: themes and trends. Action Res. 7(4), 423–441 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dick, B.: Action research literature 2008–2010: themes and trends. Action Res. 9(2), 122–143 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stringer, E.T.: Action Research: A Handbook for Practitioners. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herr, K., Anderson, G.: The Action Research Dissertation – A Guide for Students and Faculty. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greenwood, D., Levin, M.: Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reason, P., Bradbury, H.: The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Social Research for Social Change, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coghlan, D., Brannick, T.: Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coghlan, D., Brydon-Miller, M.: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holman, P., Devane, T., Cady, S.: The Change Handbook: The Definitive Resource on Today’s Best Methods for Engaging Whole Systems, 2nd edn. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Argyris, C., Schön, D.A.: Participatory action research and action science compared: a commentary. Am. Behav. Sci. 32(5), 612–623 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zuber-Skerritt, O., Perry, C.: Action research within organizations and university thesis writing. Learn. Organ. 9(4), 171–179 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gummesson, E.: Qualitative Methods in Management Research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2000)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shani, A.B., Pasmore, W.: Towards a new model of the action research process. Acad. Manag. Proc. (1982)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Susman, G.I., Evered, R.D.: An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Adm. Sci. Q. 23(4), 582 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kemmis, S.: The Action Research Reader, 3rd edn. Deakin University Press, Victoria (1998)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mezirow, J.: Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1991)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    McKay, J., Marshall, P.: Driven by two masters, serving both - the interplay of problem solving and research in information systems action research projects. In: Kock, N., Information Systems Action Research: An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van Aken, J.E.: Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. J. Manage. Stud. 41(2), 219–246 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hevner, A., Chatterjee, S.: Design Research in Information Systems: Theory and Practice. Integrated Series in Information Systems. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reeves, T.C.: Design research from a technology perspective. In: van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., Nieveen, N. (eds.) Educational design research, pp. 52–66. Routledge, London (2006)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hevner, A.R.: A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2), 87–92 (2007)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Offermann, P., Levina, O., Schönherr, M., Bub, U.: Outline of a design science research process. In: 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, vol. 11 (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action Design Research. MIS Q. 35(1), 37–56 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Argyris, C.: Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Acad. Manag. Lean. Educ. 1(2), 206–218 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Senge, P.: The Leader’s New Work - Building Learning Organizations. In: Gallos, J.V. (ed.) Organization Development: A Jossey-Bass Reader, vol. 38, pp. 765–792. Wiley, San Francisco (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Telmo Antonio Henriques
    • 1
  • Henrique O’Neill
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information Science and TechnologyISCTE-IULLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.ISCTE Business SchoolISCTE-IULLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations