Abstract
This paper develops three concepts important to the practice of action research—recoverability, research themes, and iteration—by highlighting their applicability beyond single action research studies. The concepts are discussed against a program of action research, undertaken by a multidisciplinary research team, with a research focus on local, sector and national levels. This contrasts with the more usual pattern of action research in single situations.
Action research is criticized on the grounds that it lacks generalizability and external validity from one-off studies. Goodness criteria have been derived to address these and other criticisms. The recoverability criterion, less strong than the repeatability of experimentation, is central to these. A second concept, that of research themes, links the recoverability criterion and iteration in action research. Iteration within and between projects and the notion of critical mass, of doing work in more than one setting, address the limitations of single setting studies.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Argyris, C.; Putnam, R.; and Smith, D.M. Action Science—Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and Intervention, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
Avison, D.; Lau, F.; Myers, M.; and Nielsen, P.A. “Action Research: Making Academic Research Relevant” Communications of the ACM (42:1) 1999, pp. 94–97.
Baskerville, R.; Myers, M.; Nielsen, P.A.;and Wood-Harper, A.T. “Panel: The Impact of Action Research on Information Systems” in A.S. Lee, J. Liebenau, and J.I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems Research: Information Systems and Qualitative Research, London: Chapman & Hall, 1997, p.69.
Baskerville, R., and Wood-Harper, A.T. “A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a Method for Information Systems Research” Journal of Information Technology (11:2) 1996, pp. 235–246.
Baskerville, R., and Wood-Harper, A.T. “Diversity in Information Systems Action Research Methods” European Journal of Information Systems (7) 1998, pp. 90–107.
Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Aldershot, England: Gower, 1979.
Checkland, P.B. “From Framework Through Experience to Learning: The Essential Nature of Action Research” in H.E. Nissen, H.K. Klein, and R.A. Hirschheim (Eds.), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1991, pp. 397–403.
Checkland, P.B., and Holwell, S.E. “Action Research: Its Nature and Validity” Systemic Practice and Action Research (11:1) 1998a, pp. 9–21.
Checkland, P.B., and Holwell, S.E. Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field, Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, 1998b.
Chisholm, R.F., and Elden, M. “Features of Emerging Action Research” Human Relations (46:2) 1993, pp. 275–297.
Eden, C., and Huxham, C. “Action Research for the Study of Organizations” in S. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W. Nord (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Studies, Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1996, pp. 526–542.
Elden, M., and Chisholm, R.F. “Emerging Varieties of Action Research” Human Relations (46:2) 1993, pp. 121–141.
Gummesson, E. Qualitative Methods in Management Research Bickley, Bromley, England: Chartwell-Bratt, 1988.
Hart, E., and Bond, M. Action Research for Health and Social Care: A Guide to Practice, Buckingham, England: Open University Press, 1995.
Kock, N.F. “Myths in Organizational Action Research: Reflections on a Study of Computer-Supported Process Redesign Groups” Organizations & Society (4:9) 1997, pp. 65–91.
Kock, N.F., McQueen, R.J., and Rouse, A. “Negotiation in Information Systems Action Research” in Proceedings of the First Information Systems Conference of New Zealand, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996, pp. 164–173.
Kock, N.F., McQueen, R.J., and Scott, J.L. “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) 1997, pp. 1–24.
Lau, F. “A Review on the Use of Action Research in Information Systems Studies” in A.S. Lee, J. Liebenau, and J.I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems Research: Information Systems and Qualitative Research, London: Chapman & Hall, 1997, pp. 31–68.
Lewin, K. Field Theory in Social Sciences, New York: Harper, 1951.
Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E.G. Naturalistic Inquiry, London: Sage Publications, 1985.
Marshall, C. “Goodness Criteria: Are They Objective or Judgement Calls?” in E.G. Guba (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990, pp. 188–197.
Phillips, D.C. The Social Scientist’s Bestiary: A Guide to Fabled Threats to, and Defenses of. Naturalistic Social Science, Oxford: Pergamon, 1992.
Robson, J. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner Researchers, Oxford: Blackwells, 1993.
Susman, G., and Evered, R.D. “An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research” Administrative Science Quarterly (23) 1978, pp. 582–603.
Whyte, W.F. Participatory Action Research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1991.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Holwell, S. (2004). Themes, Iteration, and Recoverability in Action Research. In: Kaplan, B., Truex, D.P., Wastell, D., Wood-Harper, A.T., DeGross, J.I. (eds) Information Systems Research. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol 143. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8094-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8095-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive