Skip to main content
Book cover

Information Systems Action Research pp 131–158Cite as

Driven by Two Masters, Serving Both

The Interplay of Problem Solving and Research in Information Systems Action Research Projects

  • Chapter

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

Abstract

One of the challenges of action research is the need simultaneously to serve two ‘masters’: as researchers, we need to produce rigorous, relevant research to advance our understanding and knowledge of our discipline. However, there is also a responsibility to intervene in organisational contexts and improve or ameliorate situations or issues perceived to be problematic, and thus, action researchers need also to be problem solvers and change agents. This chapter will discuss this duality of purpose, and discuss ways in which action researchers can successfully manage to address both the research imperative and the problem solving imperative in real world organisational contexts. An argument will be made to suggest that given both the research and action-oriented nature of action research, it is essential that IS action researchers have a sound appreciation of the nature of organisational contexts and of the information systems implemented in response to environmental problems, challenges and opportunities. The chapter will approach the need to serve two masters by suggesting a conceptualization which might support this, and will relate an action research case to this conceptual frame.

Key words

  • Action Research
  • Nature of Information Systems
  • Research Method

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-36060-7_6
  • Chapter length: 28 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   84.99
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   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

8. Bibliography

  • Alvesson, M. & Skoldberg, K. (2000) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. (2002) Postmodernism and Social Research. Open University Press, Buckingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, L.M. (1999) Rigor and relevance in MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 1–2.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Avison, D.E. (1993) Research in information systems development and the discipline of information systems. Proceedings of the Fourth Australasian Conference on Information Systems: 1–27. University of Queensland, Brisbane, 28–30 September.

    Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Avison, D.E. & Wood-Harper, A.T. (1991) Conclusions from action research: the Multiview experience. In M.C. Jackson et al. (eds.) Systems Thinking in Europe. Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M. & Tindall, C. (1994) Qualitative Methods in Psychology: A Research Guide. Open University Press, Buckingham.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R.L. & Wood-Harper, A.T. (1996) A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. Journal of Information Technology, 11 (1996), 235–246.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I. & Zmud, R.W. (1999) Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 3–16.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boland, R.J. & Lyytinen, K. (2004) Information systems research as design: identity, process and narrative. In Kaplan, B. at el. (eds.) Information Systems Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burr, V. (2003) Social Constructionism. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. & Torbert, B. (2003) Transforming inquiry and action: interweaving 27 flavors of action research. Action Research, 1(2), 133–152.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1991) From framework through experience to learning: the essential nature of action research. In H.E. Nissen et al. (eds.) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W. & Hirschheim, R. (2004) A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal, 14(3), 197–235.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T.H. & Markus, M.L. (1999) Rigor vs. relevance revisited: response to Benbasat and Zmud. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 19–23.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Denscombe, M. (1998) The good research guide. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. (1995) On evaluating the performance of ‘wide-band’ GDSS’s. European Journal of Operational Research, 81 (1995), 302–311.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. (2004) Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 159 (2004), 673–686.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. & Ackerman, F. (1998) Making Strategy: The Journal of Strategic Management. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Elden, M. & Chisholm, R.F. (1993) Emerging varieties of action research: introduction to the special issue. Human Relations, 46(2), 121–142.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, G., Hirschheim, R., Mumford, E. & Wood-Harper, A.T. (1985) Information systems research methodology: an introduction to the debate. In Mumford, E. et al. (eds.) Research Methods in Information Systems, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers, R.D. (1991) Choosing appropriate information systems research approaches: a revised taxonomy. In H.E. Nissen, H.K. Klein and R. Hirschheim (eds.) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Elsevier Science Publishers, North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2002) Design theory in information systems. Australian Journal of Information Systems, Special Issue December 2002, 14–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. (2004) The social and academic standing of the information systems discipline. JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Applications, 6(2), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindle, T., Checkland, P., Mumford, M. & Worthington, D. (1995) Developing a methodology for multidisciplinary action research: a case study. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46 (1995), 453–464.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R. (1985) Information systems epistemology: an historical perspective. In Mumford, E. et al. (eds.) Research Methods in Information Systems, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladkin, D. (2005) The enigma of subjectivity: how might phenomenology help action researchers negotiate the relationship between’ self’, ‘other’ and ‘truth’? Action Research, 3(1): 108–126.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, M. & Banville, C. (1992) A disciplined methodological pluralism for MIS research. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 2(2), 77–98.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A.S. (1999) Rigor and relevance in MIS research: beyond the approach of positivism alone. MIS Quarterly, 23(10), 29–34.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Limayem, M. & Wanninger, L.A. (1993) The use of a group CASE tool to improve information requirements determination. Document de Travail 93-33, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, P., Kelder, J. & Perry, A. (2005) Social constructionism with a twist of pragmatism: a suitable cocktail for information systems research. Proceedings of the 16 th Annual Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Manly, Sydney, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, J. & Marshall, P. (2005) A review of design science in information systems. Proceedings of the 16 th Annual Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Manly, Sydney, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McNiff, J. Lomax, P. & Whitehead, J. You and Your Action Research Project. Routledge, London, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitev, N.N. (2003) Constructivist and critical approaches to an IS failure case study: symmetry, translation and power. Department of Information Systems Working Paper 127, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montealegre, R. & Keil, M. De-escalating information technology projects: lessons from Denver International Airport. MIS Quarterly, 24(3), 417–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. & Robey, D. (1992) A social process model of user-analyst relationships. MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 249–266.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ngwenyama, O.K. (1998) Groupware, social action and organizational emergence: on the process dynamics of computer mediated distributed work. Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 8 (1998), 127–146.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ngwenyama, O. & Nielsen, P.A. (2003) Competing values in software process improvement: an assumption analysis of CMM from an organizational culture perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(1), 100–112.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A.M. (1997) What is processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 337–348.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, R.N. (1970) Three dilemmas in action research. Human Relations, 23(6), 499–513.

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, P. (2003) Pragmatist philosophy and action research: readings and conversation with Richard Rorty. Action Research 1(1), 103–123.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (eds.) (2001) Handbook of Action Research. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead, J. & Mingers, J. (2001) A new paradigm of analysis. In Rosenhead, J. & Mingers, J. (eds.) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, F., Truex III, D.P. & Kvasny, L. (2004) Cores and definitions: building the cognitive legitimacy of the information systems discipline across the Atlantic. In Kaplan, B. at el. (eds.) Information Systems Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somekh, B. (1995) The contribution of action research to development in social endeavours: a position paper on action research methodology. British Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 339–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stair, R.M. & Reynolds, G.W. (2003) Fundamentals of Information Systems 2 nd ed. Thomson Course Technology, Boston, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susman, G.I. & Evered, R.D.(1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582–603.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, W.I.& Thomas, D.S. (1928) The Child in America: Behaviour Problems and Programs. Knopf, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. (1987) Towards a theory of artifacts: a paradigmatic base for information systems research. Journal of Information Systems, 1(2), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swinburne University of Technology, Australia

    Judy McKay

  2. University of Tasmania, Australia

    Peter Marshall

Authors
  1. Judy McKay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A & M International University, Laredo, Texas, USA

    Ned Kock

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McKay, J., Marshall, P. (2007). Driven by Two Masters, Serving Both. 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_6

Download citation