Advertisement

A Review on the Use of Action Research in Information Systems Studies

Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT)

Abstract

This paper examines the use of action research in information systems (IS) studies reported in literature over the last twenty-five years. Thirty such field studies and discussion papers on information technology, system design/use or socio-technical systems were reviewed and compared with those from social science. Evolving patterns are noted among these IS studies in terms of their underlying assumptions, study designs and presentation styles. A contemporary IS action research framework is proposed as a conceptual foundation and practical guide for researchers and practitioners interested in action research for IS studies. Its implications in IS research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

Information System Organization Design Human Relation Participatory Action Research Soft System Methodology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Argyris, C.; Putnam, R.; and Smith, D. M. (1985). Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Argyris, C., and Schon, D. A. (1989). “Participatory Action Research and Action Science Compared.” American Behavioral Scientist, Volume 32, Number 5, pp. 612–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baburoglu, O. N.; and Ravn, I. (1992). “Normative Action Research.” Organization Studies, Volume 13, Number 1, pp. 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Badham, R.; Couchman, P.; and Little, S. (1995). “Getting Smart: Developing an Action Research Approach to the Integrated Management of Technical and Organizational Innovation.” Human Systems Management, Volume 14, pp. 91–104.Google Scholar
  5. Banville, C., and Landry, M. (1989). “Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined.” Communications of the ACM, Volume 32, Number 1, pp. 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartunek, J. M. (1993). “Scholarly Dialogues and Participatory Action Research.” Human Relations, Volume 46, Number 10, pp. 1221–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benbasat, I. (1985). “An Analysis of Research Methodologies.” In W. MacFarlan (Editor), The Information Systems Research Challenge. Proceedings of Harvard Business School Colloquium. Boston: HBS Press, pp. 47–85.Google Scholar
  8. Blennerhassett, E. (1988). “Research Report: Management Learning Groups: A Lesson in Action.” Journal of European Industrial Training, Volume 12, Number 8, pp. 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, L. D. (1993). “Social Change Through Collective Reflection with Asian Nongovernmental Development Organizations.” Human Relations, Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 249–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, L. D.; and Tandon, R. (1983). “Ideology and Political Economy in Inquiry: Action Research and Participatory Research.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Volume 19, Number 3, pp. 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calabrese, A. M., and Acker, S. R. (1987). Information System Design: A Case Study in the Generation of Innovations. Meeting of the Human Communication Technology Interest Group, International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  12. Candlin, D. B., and Wright, S. (1992). “Managing the Introduction of Expert Systems.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Volume 12, Number 1, 1992, pp. 46–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cassell, C., and Fitter, M. (1992). “Responding to a Changing Environment.” In D. M. Hosking and N. Anderson (Editors), Organizational Change and Innovation: Psychological Perspectives and Practices in Europe. London: Routledge, pp. 288–304.Google Scholar
  14. Cassell, C.; Fitter, M.; Fryer, D.; and Smith, L. (1988). “The Development of Computer Applications by Non-employed People in Community Settings.” Journal of Occupational Psychology, Volume 61, pp. 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Checkland, P. B. (1989). “Soft Systems Methodology.” Human Systems Management, Volume 8, pp. 273–289.Google Scholar
  16. Checkland, P. (1991). “From Framework through Experience to Learning: The Essential Nature of Action Research.” In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 397–403.Google Scholar
  17. Chisholm, R. F., and Elden, M. (1993). “Features of Emerging Action Research.” Human Relations, Volume 46, Number 2, 1993, pp. 275–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Covaleski, M. A.; Dirsmith, M. W.; and Jablonsky, S. F. (1985). “Traditional and Emergent Theories of Budgeting: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Volume 4, pp. 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crowther, W. (1994). “Considering Complex Objectives and Scarce Resources in Information Systems Analysis.” ASIS Annual Meeting, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
  20. DeCock, C. (1994). “Action Research: In Search of a New Epistemology?” International Journal of Management, Volume 11, Number 3, pp. 791–797.Google Scholar
  21. Denzin, N., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1993). “Entering the Field of Qualitative Research.” In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Editors), Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  22. Earl, M. J. (1978). “Prototype Systems for Accounting, Information and Control.” Accounting, Organizations and Society, Volume 3, Number 2, pp. 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elden, M., and Chisholm, R. F. (1993). “Emerging Varieties of Action Research: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Human Relations, Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Engelstad, P. H., and Gustaysen, B. (1993). “Swedish Network Development for Implementing National Work Reform Strategy.” Human Relations, Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fox, W. M. (1995). “Sociotechnical System Principles and Guidelines: Past and Present.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Volume 31, Number 1, pp. 91105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. French, W. L., and Bell Jr., C. H. (1990). Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement, Fourth Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Galliers, R. D., and Land, F. F. (1987). “Choosing Appropriate Information Systems Research Methodologies.” Communications of the ACM, Volume 30, Number 11, pp. 900–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gibson, C. F. (1975). “A Methodology for Implementation Research.” In R. L. Schultz and D. P. Slevin (Editors), Implementing Operations Research/Management Science. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co., pp. 53–73.Google Scholar
  29. Greenwood, D. J.; Whyte, W. F.; and Harkavy, I. (1993). “Participatory Action Research as a Process and as a Goal.” Human Relations, Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 174–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gustaysen, B. (1993). “Action Research and the Generation of Knowledge.” Human Relations, Volume 46, Number 10, pp. 1361–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hamilton, S., and Ives, B. (1982). “MIS Research Strategies.” Information and Management, Volume 5, pp. 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harris, R. T. (1978). “Improving Patient Satisfaction Through Action Research.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 382–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heller, F. (1993). “Another Look at Action Research.” Human Relations, Volume 46, Number 10, 1993, pp. 1235–1242.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hult, M. and Lennung, S. (1978). “Towards a Definition of Action Research: A Note and Bibliography.” Journal of Management Studies, Volume 17, Number 2, pp. 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jonsson, S. (1991). “Action Research.” In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 371–396.Google Scholar
  36. Jonsson, S., and Gronlund, A. (1988). “Life with a Sub-contractor: New Technology and Management Accounting.” Accounting, Organizations and Society, Volume 13, Number 5, pp. 512–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jonsson, S., and Solli, R. (1993). “Accounting Talk in a Caring Setting.” Management Accounting Research, Volume 4, pp. 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keen, P. G. W. (1991). “Relevance and Rigor in Information Systems Research: Improving Quality, Confidence, Cohesion and Impact.” In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 27–49.Google Scholar
  39. Lacity, M. C., and Janson, M. A. (1994). “Understanding Qualitative Data: A Framework of Text Analysis Methods.” Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 11, Number 2, pp. 137–155.Google Scholar
  40. Laughlin, R. C. (1987). “Accounting Systems in Organizational Contexts: A Case for Critical Theory.” Accounting, Organizations and Society, Volume 12, Number 5, pp. 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ledford, G. E., and Mohrman S. A. (1993a). “Looking Backward and Forward at Action Research.” Human Relations, Volume 46, Number 10, pp. 1349–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ledford, G. E., and Mohrman, S. A. (1993b). “Self-Design for High Involvement: A Large-Scale Organizational Change.” Human Relations, Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 143–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee, A. S. (1989). “A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies.” MIS Quarterly, Volume 13, Number 1, pp. 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee, A.; Baskerville, R.; Liebenau, J.; and Myers, M. (1995). “Judging Qualitative Research in Information Systems: Criteria for Accepting and Rejecting Manuscripts.” In J. I. DeGross, G. Ariav, C. Beath, R. Hoyer, and C. Kemerer (Editors), Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Information Systems. Amsterdam, pp. 367.Google Scholar
  45. Levin, M. (1993). “Creating Networks for Rural Economic Development in Nor- way.” Human Relations, Volume 46, Number 2, (46:2), 1993, pp. 193–218.Google Scholar
  46. Levine, H. G., and Rossmoore, D. (1993). “Diagnosing the Human Threats to Information Technology Implementation: A Missing Factor in Systems Analysis Illustrated in a Case Study.” Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 10, Number 2, pp. 55–73.Google Scholar
  47. Lewin, K. (1947). “Frontiers in Group Dynamics. I. Concepts, Method and Reality in Social Sciences: Social Equilibria and Social Change.” Human Relations, Volume 1, pp. 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liu, M.,;Denis, H.; Kolodny, H.; and Stymne, B. (1990). “Organization Design for Technological Change.” Human Relations, Volume 43, Number 1, pp. 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mangham, I, L. (1993). “Conspiracies of Silence? Some Critical Comments on the Action Research Special Issue, February 1993.” Human Relations, Volume 46, Number 10, pp. 1243–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Markus, M. L. (1994). “Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice.” Organization Science, Volume 5, Number 4, pp. 502–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Markus, M. L., and Robey, D. (1988). “Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research.” Management Science, Volume 34, Number 5, pp. 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McFarlan, F. W. (Editor) (1985). The Information Systems Research Challenge, Proceedings of Harvard Business School Colloquium. Boston: HBS Press.Google Scholar
  53. McTaggart, R. (1991). “Principles for Participatory Action Research.” Adult Educa-tion Quarterly, Volume 41, Number 3, pp. 168–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mirvis, P. H., and Lawler, E. E. (1983). “Systems Are Not Solutions: Issues in Creating Information Systems That Account for the Human Organization.” Accounting, Organizations and Society, Volume 8, Number 2/3, pp. 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mumford, E.; Hirschheim, R.; Fitzgerald, G.; and Wood-Harper, T. (Editors) (1985). Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  56. Nissen, H-E.; Klein, H. K.; and Hirschheim, R. (Editors) (1991). Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches & Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. Ngwenyama, O. K. (1991). “The Critical Social Theory Approach to Information Systems: Problems and Challenges.” In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 267–280.Google Scholar
  58. Ngwenyama, O. K. (1993). “Developing End-users’ Systems Development Competence: An Exploratory Study.” Information & Management, Volume 25, pp. 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nosek, J. T., and Yaverbaum, G. (1991). “Overcoming Obstacles to University and industry Synergy in Information System Education: Lessons from Action Research.” Education for Information, Volume 9, 1991, pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
  60. Oakland, J. S. (1986). “Production Management and High Technology in the United Kingdom.” Engineering Management International, Volume 3, pp. 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations.” Organization Science, Volume 3, Number 3, pp. 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). “CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development.” MIS Quarterly, Volume 17, Number 3, pp. 309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pava, C. (1986). “Redesigning Sociotechnical Systems Design: Concepts and Methods for the 1990s.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Volume 22, Number 3, 1986, pp. 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Peters, M., and Robinson, V. (1984). “The Origins and Status of Action Research.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Volume 20, Number 2, pp. 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rapoport, R. N. (1970). “Three Dilemmas in Action Research.” Human Relations, Volume 23, Number 4, pp. 499–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reason, P. (1993a). “Three Approaches to Participative Inquiry.” In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Editors), Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications, pp. 324–339.Google Scholar
  67. Reason, P. (1993b). “Sitting Between Appreciation and Disappointment: A Critique of the Special Edition of Human Relations on Action Research.” Human Relations, Volume 46, Number 10, pp. 1253–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Revans, R.W. (1980). Action Learning: New Techniques for Management. London: Blond & Briggs.Google Scholar
  69. Revans, R. W. (1983a). “Action Learning: Kindling the Touch Paper.” Management Decision, Volume 21, pp. 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Revans, R. W. (1983b). “Action Learning: Its Terms and Character.” Management Decision, Volume 21, pp. 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Revans, R. W. (1983c). “Action Learning: The Skills of Diagnosis.” Management Decision, Volume 21, pp. 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rickards, T. (1985). “Making New Things Happen: An Interpretation of Observed Innovation Strategies.” Technovation, Volume 3, 1985, pp. 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Robinson, V. M. J. (1993). “Current Controversies in Action Research.” Public Administration Quarterly, Fall, pp. 263–290.Google Scholar
  74. Salmela, H., and Ruohonen, M. (1992). “Aligning DSS Development with Organization Development.” European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 61, pp. 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sandberg, A. (1985). “Socio-technical Design, Trade Union Strategies and Action Research” In E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald, and A. T. Wood-Harper (Editors), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 79–92.Google Scholar
  76. Susman, G. I., and Evered, R. D. (1978). “An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 23, Number 4, pp. 582–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Timpka, T.; Sjoberg, C.; and Svensson, B. (1995). “The Pragmatics of Clinical Hypermedia: Experiences From Five Years of Participatory Design in the MEDEA Project.” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, Volume 46, pp. 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Walsham G. (1993). Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  79. Walsham G. (1995). “The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research.” Information Systems Research, Volume 6, Number 4, pp. 376–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Whyte, W. F. (Editor) (1991). Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  81. Wood-Harper, A. T. (1985). “Research Methods in Information Systems: Using Action Research.” In E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald, and A. T. Wood-Harper (Editors), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 169–191.Google Scholar
  82. Wood-Harper, A. T., and Flynn, D. J. (1983). “Action Learning for Teaching Infor-mation Systems.” The Computer Journal, Volume 26, Number 1, pp. 79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Second Edition. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  84. Ziegenfuss Jr., J. (1987). “Research Information Systems are Paths to High-Quality Healthcare.” Health Progress, October, pp. 50–53, 82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Lau
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of BusinessUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations