Skip to main content

Action Research and Consulting

Hellish Partnership or Heavenly Marriage?

  • Chapter

Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS,volume 13)

Abstract

A number of criticisms have been levelled at Action Research over the years. Among these has been the observation that the practice of Action Research is insufficiently distinct from Consulting. Indeed, some academics appear to see consulting as little short of making a deal with the Devil. In contrast, we believe that there is the potential for a heavenly marriage between Action Research and Consulting: not only do they have much to learn from each other but they also can usefully complement each other. This chapter focuses on how the practice of Consulting would benefit from the adoption of specific Action Research principles. We briefly review the background literatures of both Action Research and Consulting, particularly Management Consulting. We also consider a previously-developed set of principles and associated criteria that help to ensure the rigor and relevance of Canonical Action Research. The discussion section highlights how the principles and criteria for Action Research can usefully contribute to high quality consulting practice. We conclude with a call for more dialogue and hands-on interaction between practitioners of Action Research and Consulting.

Key words

  • Action Research
  • Consulting
  • Synthesis
  • Relevance
  • Rigour

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-36060-7_16
  • Chapter length: 18 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-0-387-36060-7
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

6. References

  • Avison, D.E., Lau, F., Myers, M. & Nielsen, P.A. (1999). Action Research. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 94–97.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. (1999). Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the AIS, 2(19), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. & Pries-Heje, J. (1999). Grounded action research: A method for understanding IT in practice. Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 9(1), 1–23.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. & Wood-Harper, A.T. (1998). Diversity in information systems action research methods. European Journal of Information Systems, 7(2), 90–107.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I. & Zmud, R. (1999). Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 23(1), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunning, C. (1995). Placing Action Learning and Action Research in Context. International Management Centre: Brisbane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Careers in Consulting (2001). Facts and trends in Consulting, available online at http://www.careers-in-business.com/consulting/mc.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Caulkin, S. (1997). The great consulting cop-out, Management Today, 58(3), 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1980). Research Methods in Education, 2nd Ed. Croom Helm: Dover, NH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J.B. (1993). Action Research and Organizational Development. Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curle, A. (1949). A theoretical approach to action research. Human Relations. 2, 269–280.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, R.M. & Vogel, D.R. (2000). Group support systems in Hong Kong: An action research project. Information Systems Journal, 10(1), 3–20.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, R.M., Martinsons, M.G. and Kock, N.F. (2004). Principles of Canonical Action Research, Information Systems Journal, 14(1), 65–86.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, L. & Watkins, K. (1999). Action research: rethinking Lewin. Management Learning, 30(2), 127–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easley, C.F.. and Harding, C.F. (1999). Client versus consultant, Journal of Management Consulting, 10(4), 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for management research. British Journal of Management, 7(1), 75–86.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gable, G.G. (1997). A multidimensional model of client success when engaging external consultants, Management Science, 42(8), 1175–1198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasek, G. (1997). The era of experts, Industry Week, 246(10), 60–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, F. (1993). Another look at action research. Human Relations, 46(10), 1235–1242.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, M. & Lennung, S.-Å. (1980). Towards a definition of action research: A note and bibliography. Journal of Management Studies, 17(2), 241–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H.K. & Myers, M.D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 23(1), 67–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kock, N. & Lau, F. (2001). Introduction to the special issue: Information systems action research serving two demanding masters. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kock, N., Avison, D., Baskerville, R., Myers, M. & Wood-Harper, T. (1999). IS action research: can we serve two masters? Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Information Systems. De, P. and DeGross, J. (eds.), 582–585. The Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Simon, A., and Kimberley, N. (2000). Strategic capabilities which lead to management consulting success, Management Decision, 38(1–2), 24–35.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, F. (1997). A review on the use of action research in information systems studies. In: Information Systems and Qualitative Research, Lee, A.S., Liebenau, J. & DeGross, J.I. (eds.), 31–68. Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinsons, M.G., Davison, R.M. and Tse, D. (1999). The balanced scorecard: A foundation for the strategic management of information systems, Decision Support Systems, 25(1), 71–88.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Martinsons, M.G. (1993). Strategic innovation, Management Decision, 31(8), 4–11.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McKay, J. & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 46–59.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McLachlin, R.D. (1999). Factors for consulting engagement success, Management Decision, 37(5), 394–402.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McTaggart, R. (1991). Principles for participatory action research. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3), 168–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteleone, F. (2000). Anyone need a consultant?, Computerworld, 34(5), 52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, E. (2001). Advice for an action researcher, Information Technology & People, 14(1), 12–27.

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, J. and Madigan, C. (1997). Dangerous company: The consulting powerhouses and the businesses they save and ruin, Times Books, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robey, D. & Markus, M.L. (1998). Beyond rigor and relevance: Producing consumable research about information systems. Information Resources Management Journal, 11(1), 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senn, J. (1998). The challenge of relating IS research to practice. Information Resources Management Journal, 11(1), 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E.C., Eccles, R.G. and Soske, T.L. (1993). Consulting: Has the solution become part of the problem, Sloan Management Review, 34(4), 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright C. and Kitay J. (2002). But does it work? Perceptions of the impact of management consulting’, Strategic Change, 11(5), 271–278.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zmud, R. (1996). Editor’s comments: on rigor and relevancy. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 20(3), xxxvii–xxxviii.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Davison, R.M., Martinsons, M.G. (2007). Action Research and Consulting. In: Kock, N. (eds) Information Systems Action Research. Integrated Series in Information Systems, vol 13. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36060-7_16

Download citation