Diversity in information systems action research methods
- PDF / 174,499 Bytes
- 18 Pages / 594 x 797 pts Page_size
- 18 Downloads / 282 Views
1998 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/98 $12.00
Diversity in information systems action research methods R Baskerville1 and AT Wood-Harper2 1
Department of Computer Information Systems, Georgia State University, Post Office Box 4015, Atlanta, Georgia 30302-4015, USA; 2Information Research Centre, University of Salford, Salford, Manchester, M5 4WT, UK Discussions of action research in information systems (IS) often proceed as if there were one definitive action research method. This paper describes and analyses the different frameworks, assumptions and goals that characterise the diverse forms of action research. A more inclusive action research paradigm is delineated that offers a basis for validating a wider range of IS research. Acceptance of the full range of the diverse forms of action research may enable the IS field to be more explicit about its research methodology, thereby enabling criteria to be improved and applied to a broader range of IS research.
Introduction Discussions of qualitative research methods in information systems (IS) are typically illustrated with case study research methods (Benbasat, 1987; Lee, 1989), ethnographic research methods (Agar, 1986; Tanton & Fox, 1987; Fetterman, 1989), and action research methods (Kaiser & Bostrom, 1982; Wood-Harper, 1985). Discussions of these methods often proceed as if there were one definitive case method, ethnography method, or action research method. However, each of these terms reference a genre of research methods. While different forms of case study approaches have been explored (Yin, 1989), and different forms of ethnography have been discussed (Agar, 1986), we are only beginning to develop similar comparative studies of the various forms of action research methods (Lau, 1997). The discipline of IS seems to be a very appropriate field for the use of action research methods. IS is a highly applied field, almost vocational in nature (Banville & Landry, 1989). Action research methods are highly clinical in nature, and place IS researchers in a ‘helping role’ within the organizations that are being studied (cf. Schein, 1987, p 11). It should not be surprising that action research is the “touchstone of most good organizational development practice” and “remains the primary methodology for the practice of organizational development” (Van Eynde & Bledsoe, 1990, p 27). Action research merges research and praxis thus producing exceedingly relevant research findings. Such relevance is an important measure of the significance of IS research (Keen, 1991). There is disagreement about the action research paradigm for IS. Authorities variously define patterns or models of action research that are more or less exclusive. This disagreement not only reflects a broader social scientific disagreement over the paradigm, but also con-
fusion about the IS action research tradition. This confusion arises in concerns about excluding certain IS research (e.g., consulting) that ‘falsely’ claims to be action research (Johnsson, 1991), along w
Data Loading...
