Advertisement

Work-Integrated Learning as an Outcome of Using Action Design Research in Practice

  • Amir Haj-BolouriEmail author
  • Christian Master Östlund
  • Matti Rossi
  • Lars Svensson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11491)

Abstract

This paper highlights Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) as an outcome of using Action Design Research (ADR) in practice. We argue that ADR is a subtype of Design Science Research (DSR) and a prominent method for facilitating mutually beneficial collaboration between academia and practice. Subsequently, we tie our work around ADR and WIL to the Scandinavian school of IS-research and worker participation, by emphasizing reflective practice on both researcher and practitioner side. We demonstrate this through two empirical cases and four case episodes. Consequently, the cases highlight building, intervention, and evaluation in the areas of civic orientation and county administration. The narrative around each case focuses on ADR-activities that mediate reflection and learning through iterative cycles. Outcomes from the cases are reported as WIL-outcomes and finally, we conclude this paper by briefly suggesting two implications for future relevant research.

Keywords

Action Design Research Work-Integrated learning Reflective practice Design Science Research 

References

  1. 1.
    Baskerville, R., Myers, M.: Special issue on action research in information systems: making: IS research relevant to practice – foreword. MIS Q. 28(3), 329–335 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davison, R.M., Martinsons, M.G., Kock, N.: Principles of canonical action research. Inf. Syst. J. 14, 65–86 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Walls, J., Widmeyer, G., El Sawy, O.: Building an information systems design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 36–59 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, K.: Design research in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 76–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The anatomy of a design theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. (JAIS) 8(5), 312–335 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldkuhl, G.: The research practice of practice research: theorizing and situational inquiry. Syst. Signs Actions 5(1), 7–29 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mathiassen, L.: Collaborative practice research. Inf. Technol. People 15(4), 321–345 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van de Ven, A.: Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford University Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mathiassen, L., Nielsen, P.A.: Engaged scholarship in IS research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 20(2), 1 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ehn, P., Kyng, M.: The collective resource approach to systems design. In: Computers and Democracy, pp. 17–57 (1987)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bratteteig, T., Wagner, I.: Spaces for participatory creativity. CoDesign 8(2-3), 105–126 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35(1), 35–56 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haj-Bolouri, A., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Bernhardsson, L.: Action design research as a method-in-use: problems and opportunities. In: Designing the Digital Transformation: DESRIST 2017 Research in Progress Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany, 30 May–1 June. Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT) (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haj-Bolouri, A., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Bernhardsson, L.: Action design research in practice: lessons and concerns. In: European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2018, Portsmouth, UK, 23rd June–28th 2018 (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mullarkey, M.T., Hevner, A.R.: Entering action design research. In: Donnellan, B., Helfert, M., Kenneally, J., VanderMeer, D., Rothenberger, M., Winter, R. (eds.) DESRIST 2015. LNCS, vol. 9073, pp. 121–134. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18714-3_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keijzer-Broers, W.J.W., de Reuver, M.: Applying agile design sprint methods in action design research: prototyping a health and wellbeing platform. In: Parsons, J., Tuunanen, T., Venable, J., Donnellan, B., Helfert, M., Kenneally, J. (eds.) DESRIST 2016. LNCS, vol. 9661, pp. 68–80. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39294-3_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lempinen, H., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V.K.: Design principles for inter-organizational systems development – case hansel. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 52–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mustafa, M.I., Sjöström, J.: Design principles for research data export: lessons learned in e-health design research. In: vom Brocke, J., Hekkala, R., Ram, S., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7939, pp. 34–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38827-9_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maccani, G., Donnellan, B., Helfert, M.: Action design research in practice: the case of smart cities. In: Tremblay, M.C., VanderMeer, D., Rothenberger, M., Gupta, A., Yoon, V. (eds.) DESRIST 2014. LNCS, vol. 8463, pp. 132–147. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06701-8_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miah, S., Gammack, J.: Ensemble artifact design for context sensitive decision support. Aust. J. Inf. Syst. 18(2) (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCurdy, N., Dykes, J., Meyer, M.: Action design research and visualization design. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Beyond Time and Errors on Novel Evaluation Methods for Visualization, BELIV 2016, pp. 10–18 (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haj-Bolouri, A.: Designing for adaptable learning. Doctoral Dissertation, University West (2018)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Billett, S.: Learning through work: workplace affordances and individual engagement. J. Work. Learn. 13(5), 209–214 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Billett, S.: Workplace participatory practices: conceptualizing workplaces as learning environments. J. Work. Learn. 16(6), 312–324 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schön, D.: Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1987)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cole, R., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Sein, M.: Being proactive: where action research meets design research. In: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ehn, P.: Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Doctoral Dissertation, Arbetslivscentrum (1988)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bjerknes, G., Bratteteig, T.: User participation and democracy: a discussion of Scandinavian research on system development. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 7(1), 1 (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schuler, D., Namioka, A. (eds.): Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1993)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kensing, F.: Methods and Practices in Participatory Design. ITU Press, Copenhagen (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brockbank, A., McGill, I., Beech, N.: Reflective Learning in Practice. Gower Publishing, Burlington (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Engeström, Y., Kerosuo, H.: From workplace learning to inter-organizational learning and back: the contribution of activity theory. J. Work. Learn. 19(6), 336–342 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fuller, A., Unwin, L., Felstead, A., Jewson, N., Kakavelakis, K.: Creating and using knowledge: an analysis of the differentiated nature of workplace learning environments. Br. Educ. Res. J. 33(5), 743–759 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., Pretto, G.: The WIL (Work-Integrated Learning) Report: A National Scoping Study. Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC). Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lave, J., Wenger, E.: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wenger, E.: Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vygotsky, L.S.: Socio-cultural theory. In: Mind in society (1978)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Billett, S.: Implications for practice. In: Mimetic Learning at Work, pp. 83–103. Springer, Cham (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Engeström, Y.: Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. J. Educ. Work. 14(1), 133–156 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Malloch, M., Cairns, L., Evans, K., O’Connor, B.N.: The SAGE Handbook of Workplace Learning. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Akkerman, S.F., Bakker, A.: Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Rev. Educ. Res. 81(2), 132–169 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nygaard, K.: Tasks, roles, and interests of information systems specialists in the 1980s. Lecture at CREST Course (1979)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Flensburg, P.: Personlig Databehandling: Introduktion, Konsekvenser, Möjligheter. Lund Universitet (1986)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., Kyng, M.: Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian Challenge. Avebury, Aldershot (1987)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Greenbaum, J., Kyng, M.: Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Erlbaurn Assoc, Hillsdale (1991)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Robertson, T., Wagner, I.: Engagement, representation and politics-in-action. In: Simonsen, J., Robertson, T. (eds.) The Handbook of Participatory Design, pp. 64–85 (2012)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bodker, K., Kensing, F., Simonsen, J.: Participatory IT Design: Designing for Business and Workplace Realities. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bødker, S.: Creating conditions for participation: conflicts and resources in systems development. Hum. Comput. Interact. 11(3), 215–236 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Beck, E.: P for political - participation is not enough. SJIS 14 (2002)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Argyris, C., Schön, D.A.: Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1978)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schön, D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bilandzic, M., Venable, J.: Towards a participatory action design research: adapting action research and design science research methods for urban informatics. J. Community Inform. (2011)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Haj-Bolouri, A., Bernhardsson, L., Rossi, M.: PADRE: a method for participatory action design research. In: Parsons, J., Tuunanen, T., Venable, J., Donnellan, B., Helfert, M., Kenneally, J. (eds.) DESRIST 2016. LNCS, vol. 9661, pp. 19–36. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39294-3_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Berge, Z.L.: Obstacles to distance training and education in corporate organizations. J. Work. Learn. 14(5), 182–189 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lee, M.C.: Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: an extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Comput. Educ. 54(2), 506–516 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kraiger, K., Ford, J.K.: The expanding role of workplace training: themes and trends influencing training research and practice. In: Koppes, L.L. (ed.) Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp. 281–309 (2006)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tynjälä, P., Häkkinen, P., Hämäläinen, R.: TEL@ work: toward integration of theory and practice. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 45(6), 990–1000 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hung, D.W.L., Chen, D.: Situated cognition, vygotskian thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: implications for the design of web-based e-learning. Educ. Media Int. 38(1), 3–12 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., Oliver, R.: A Guide to Authentic E-Learning. Routledge, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hardless, C.: Designing Competence Development Systems. Department of Informatics, Göteborg University, Göteborg (2005)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Norman, D.A.: The Design of Everyday Things. Doubleday, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Nielsen, J.: Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity. New Riders, Indianapolis (2000)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human Computer Interaction, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Östlund, C.: Design for e-training. Copenhagen Business School (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amir Haj-Bolouri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian Master Östlund
    • 1
  • Matti Rossi
    • 2
  • Lars Svensson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Economics, Business, and ITUniversity WestTrollhättanSweden
  2. 2.Information SystemsAalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations