Proactive Research Approaches: Design and Action Research

1
Proactive Research Approaches Design and Action
Research

• Professor Matti Rossi (Helsinki School of
  Economics)
• Professor Maung Sein (Agder University College,
  Norway)
• This workshop is based on an ongoing
  collaborative effort with Dr. Sandeep Purao, Penn
  State University, USA, Dr. Ola Henfridsson and
  Dr. Rikard Lindgren both of Viktoria Institute,
  Sweden

2
Agenda

• To present the proactive research paradigms in
  IS research
• Design Research
• Action Research
• To map the similarities between the two methods
  and discuss how each can learn from the other
• Action Design an integrated approach
• To illustrate the concepts through an example

3
Program

• 0900 - 0920 Proactive research approaches
• 0920 - 1000 Design Research (DR)
• 1000 - 1030 Action Research (AR)
• 1030 - 1040 Break
• 1040 - 1130 Mapping AR DR
• Action Design - integrated approach to designing
  in action
• 1130 - 1230 lunch
• 1230 - 1330 discussion of possible research
  projects and wrap-up

4
Mattis background

• Acting professor of information systems at
  Helsinki School of Economics
• Held visiting assistant professorships both at
  Georgia State University and Erasmus University
  Rotterdam
• All studies at University of Jyväskylä
• Thesis on advanced CASE tools 1998
• Minority owner and former board member of
  MetaCase Consulting (www.metacase.com) a spin off
  of the thesis project

5
Maungs background

• Personal background
• Ethnically Arakanese, Born in Pakistan/Bangladesh
• Moved to USA in 1982, to Norway in 1995 and
  back in 1998
• Educational background
• Undergraduate (Electronics Engg.), Masters
  (Finance and IS), PhD. (MIS)
• Work experience
• Industry Hardware, software, systems analyst,
  consultant
• Academic Indiana, Florida International, Georgia
  State Universities (USA), University of Bergen
  (Norway)
• Main research areas
• End-user training and learning (Conceptual
  frameworks, best practices)
• IS development (Methods, projects, conceptual
  modelling)
• Theoretical/conceptual issues (Relevance of
  research, Research methods)
• Societal issues of IT (ICT and national
  development, e-Government)

6
Proactive Research Approaches Design and Action
Research
7
Research perspectives

• Natural sciences typically observe reality
• Social sciences interpret organizational and
  social phenomena
• Computer science assumes natural science as the
  way of doing research
• Information systems take a more
  multi-paradigmatic view

8
The Complex world that we operate in
Letters
Social Sciences
Natural Sciences
Management
Engineering
Information Systems
Information Systems Practice
9
Reactive and Proactive paradigms

• Reactive approaches take the world as a stable
  environment governed by laws that need to be
  discovered by scientists (i.e. are descriptive in
  nature)
• Proactive approaches aim at developing ways to
  achieve human goals (i.e. are prescriptive or
  constructive)
• The distinction between the two
• natural vs. artificial phenomena
• the intent of the research.

10
Reactive and Proactive paradigms

• Goals of research in Reactive paradigms
• Explanation research Truth Seeking and/or
  Understanding
• Knowledge for its own sake
• Goals of research in Proactive paradigms
• Design and Action Research Improving Practice,
  solving problems
• Utilitarian perspective

11
Link between Reactive and Proactive paradigms

• Proactive (Design) creates artifacts, giving the
  phenomena that Reactive (Explanation research)
  can study
• Proactive (Design) may depend on knowledge
  created by Reactive in creating new artifacts
• Proactive (Action) may depend on knowledge
  created by Reactive as a basis for intervention

12
Proactive Research Approaches Design Research
13
Why use Design Research approach?

• Things that do not exist cannot be observed
• "... without research efforts directed toward
  developing new solutions and systems, there would
  be little opportunity for evaluative research"
  Nunamaker et al., 1991

14
Remarks...

• Design is the core of all professional
  training it is the principal mark that
  distinguishes the professions from the sciences.
• business schools have become schools of
  finite mathematics.
• Herbert A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial.
  The MIT Press, 1981.

15
Design Research

• Reference disciplines
• Psychology, sociology, ethnography, computer
  science, economics, management
• Level of analysis
• Society, profession, inter-org, org, project,
  group, individual, concept, system, component

16
Design research premises

• Ontology
• Realist (real world exists but we are not seeking
  it)
• Epistemology
• We can intervene in the world to improve it
• Methodology
• Development/Design of systems, models
• Qualitative and exploratory way of thinking, but
  could lead to quantitative confirmations
• Axiology
• Relevance is stressed

17
When to use Design Research?

• New areas
• There are theories, but they cannot be tested
• There are clear deficiencies in former systems

18
Products of Design Research
Purao 2002
19
Steps in Design Research

• Identify a need
• Problem solving
• Build
• Model, Instantiate
• Evaluate
• Verify, Validate
• Learn
• Current, Emergent
• Theorize
• Conceptualize and generalize findings

20
Identify a need

• Find a deficiency in current systems
• Do field studies of problems in the field
• After a problem is found perform a thorough
  search of previous research on the topic
• If previous research does not address the problem
  and it is interesting
• gt go to next step

21
Build

• Design the system
• Use good software engineering principles
• Get the best tools and reuse everything that You
  can
• Define the measures of success
• gt Just do it!

22
Evaluation of Design Research

• Analysis of the built systems
• Trials in laboratory
• Field trials
• Commercial success
• Measure of success should be defined before the
  implementation
• Systems should be evaluated against the defined
  measures

23
Evaluation (Hevner et al., 2004)
24
Evaluation Chen et al.

• The purpose is to study an important phenomenon
  in areas of information systems through system
  building
• The results make a significant contribution to
  the domain
• The system is testable against all the stated
  objectives and requirements
• The new system can provide better solutions to IS
  problems than the existing systems and design
  expertise gained from building the system can be
  generalized for future use.

25
Evaluation Sein, Purao, Rossi - 1

• Internal criteria
• Match between the artifact and the abstract
  idea. How well does the artifact embody the
  abstract idea that is being researched?
• Match with generally accepted principles of
  designed artifacts
• Is the artifact a good system as defined by the
  field (good interfaces, easy to use etc.)

26
Evaluation Sein, Purao, Rossi - 2

• External
• Advancement of design theory
• Is the abstracted idea generalisable to other
  contexts or at least advance our understanding of
  other design contexts?
• Are the ideas, if not the elements of the
  artifact, reusable?
• Advancement of information systems discipline
• Does the artifact behave in / influences/improves
  the environment/context in which it is intended
  to be used?

27
Examples of measures

• How well the proposed algorithm performs in real
  life situations
• The speed of systems development using the
  constructed system
• The market share won
• Lukka Kasanens weak strong market test

28
Learn and theorize

• Reflect on the process and product
• Try to generalize findings
• Try to confirm or reject the original assumptions
• gt Start a new cycle, which analyzes the system in
  use
• lt Start from the beginning...

29
Design Research Guidelines
30
Reporting a building project

• Introduction
• explain the problem
• Identify the related research
• Research method
• what type of approach used?
• Nunamakerian, Marchian or Hevnerian?
• Identify the system properly 
• What problem it solves?
• What is the new idea behind the system and is
  indeed new
• State the approach
• explain logical design,
• some idea about the physical/platform aspects,
• explain the implementation project
• The product evaluation
• Measure against the "success" criteria
• In Discussion Specify lessons learnt and theorize

31
Further reading

• March, S., Hevner, A. and Ram, S. (2000).
  "Research Commentary An Agenda for Information
  Technology Research in Heterogeneous and
  Distributed Environments." Information Systems
  Research 11(4) 327-341.
• Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J. and Ram, S.
  (2004). "Design Science in Information Systems
  Research." MIS Quarterly 28(1) 75-105.
• Purao, S. (2002). Design Research in the
  Technology of Information Systems Truth or
  Dare. GSU Department of CIS Working Paper.
  Atlanta.
• Brooks, F. (1996). "The Computer Scientist as
  Toolsmith II." Communications of the ACM 39(3)
  61-68.
• Link http//www.isworld.org/Researchdesign/drisIS
  world.htm

32
Mening?
Frågor?
Commentar?
Preguntas?
Kommentteja?
Kysymyksiä?
Opinions?
Vragen?
Comments?
Questions?
33
Proactive Research Approaches Action Research
34
Action Research Definition

• Action research simultaneously assists in
  practical problem-solving and expands scientific
  knowledge, as well as enhances the competencies
  of the respective actors, being performed
  collaboratively in an immediate situation using
  data feedback in a cyclical process aiming at an
  increased understanding of change processes in
  social systems and undertaken within a mutually
  acceptable ethical framework.Hult Lennung,
  1980

35
Action research premises

• Ontology
• Information systems are Social systems with
  technical implications or Technical systems with
  social implications
• Epistemology
• Knowledge for action
• Knowledge for critical reflection
• Reflective science or Philosophy
• Methodology
• Active intervention in organizational contexts
• Qualitative and exploratory way of thinking
• Axiology
• Relevance is vital prime goal is problem solving

36
Action research basics

• Assumptions
• Social settings cannot be reduced for study
• Action (i.e. intervention) brings understanding
• Action research is performed collaboratively
  Researchers and practitioners are partners
• Action research is building/testing theory within
  context of solving an immediate practical problem
  in real setting
• Thus it combines theory and practice, researchers
  and practitioners, and intervention and
  reflection
• Action research is not consulting it is action,
  but still research

37
Action Research process
Susman Evered, 1978
38
Action Research process

• Diagnosing a problem
• develop a theoretical premise
• Action planning
• guided by theoretical framework
• Action taking
• intervention, introducing change
• Evaluating, reflecting
• effects of change, theoretical premises
• Specifying learning
• double loop
• feed next iteration
• theorise

39
Action Case

• Focus on method development and evaluation
• Action - from action research
• Understanding of context from case studies
• experimental approach - from field experiment
• Features
• projects with short duration
• intervention in real time
• emphasis on quasi-experiments
• reducing complexity - one issue at a time
• focus on changes in small scale

40
Canonical Action Research Criteria (Adapted from Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., and Kock, N. Principles of Canonical Action Research, Information Systems Journal (141), 2004, pp. 65-86.) Canonical Action Research Criteria (Adapted from Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., and Kock, N. Principles of Canonical Action Research, Information Systems Journal (141), 2004, pp. 65-86.)
Criterion Description
1. Principle of Researcher-Client Agreement (RCA) The RCA provides the basis for mutual commitment and role expectations.
2. Principle of Cyclical Process Model (CMP) The CPM consists of the stages diagnosing, action planning, action taking, evaluating, and specifying learning.
3. The Principle of Theory Theory must play a central role in action research.
4. The Principle of Change Through Action Action and change are indivisible research elements related through intervention focused on producing change.
5. The Principle of Learning Through Reflection Considered reflection and learning allow a researcher to make both a practical and theoretical contribution.
41
Further reading

• Baskerville, R. "Investigating information
  systems with action research", (paper) (A
  tutorial on how to do action research)
• Braa, K. "Priority workshops Springboard for
  user participation in redesign activities",
  Proceedings of the Conference on Organisational
  Computing, ACMSIGOIS, California, 1995, 90-112.
• Hult, M. and Lennung, S-A. (1980). Towards a
  definition of action research A note and
  bibliography, Journal of Management Studies, May,
  pp. 241-250.

42
Break!
43
Proactive Research Approaches Mapping AR DR
44
Commonalities between AR and DR

• Ontology the phenomenon of interest does not
  remain static through the research process.
• Epistemology knowledge is created through
  intervening to effect change, and reflecting on
  this intervention.
• Axiology both value the relevance of the
  research problem, and emphasise practical utility
  and theoretical knowledge

45
A Common Paradigm Pragmatism

• Applying the tenets of pragmatism (that
  characterize AR) to DR
• Consequences defining concepts In DR, there is a
  need to establish the purpose of the resultant
  artefact.
• Practical outcome embodying truth The focus of
  DR is practical action, which ensures that the
  notion of truth lies in the utility of the
  produced artefact.
• Logic of controlled inquiry The essence of DR is
  that designing must inform theory in that the
  produced artefact should embody a theoretical
  premise or a new idea, which can be evaluated
  by evaluating the artefact.
• Social context of action In DR, the act of
  designing is socially and organizationally
  situated, specifically in our conceptualization.

46
AR-DR Cross-Fertilization

• Adding Reflection to Augment Learning from DR
• Interjecting an AR cycle at the last stage of the
  DR process
• A DR project may be framed as an AR project if an
  organizational problem needs to be solved, and
  the action involves building a system
• Concretizing Learning from AR by Adding Build
• Frame the output of AR as a DR artefact, such as
  prototypes, frameworks, or models
• Enhancing the AR action taking phase by including
  the building of a design artefact.
• Envisioning an AR-DR Integrated Research Process
  Action Design

47
AR-DR Cross-Fertilization
Diagnosing a problem
Action planning
Action taking
Build
Start a DR process -gt
Evaluating, reflecting
Specifying learning
48
Mapping AR and DR processes

• Design Research
• DR1 - Identifying a need
• DR2 - Building
• DR3 - Evaluating
• DR4 - Learning
• DR5 - Theorizing

• Action Research
• AR1 - Diagnosing a problem
• AR2 - Action planning
• AR3 - Action taking
• AR4 - Evaluating, reflecting
• AR5 - Specifying learning

Mapping Map 1 - DR1 -gt AR1 Map 2 - DR2 -gt AR2
AR3 Map 3 - DR3 -gt AR4 Map 4 - DR4 DR5 -gt AR5
49
Action Design
Problem Definition
DR1 - Identifying a need
AR1 - Diagnosing a problem
Building and Intervention
DR2 - Building
AR2 - Action planning
AR3 - Action taking
Evaluation
DR3 - Evaluating
AR4 - Evaluating, reflecting
Reflection and Learning
DR4 - Learning
DR5 - Theorizing
AR5 - Specifying learning
50
Principles of Action Design - 1

• Principle of utility
• truth in knowledge is determined by the utility
  of the developed artifact (based on pragmatism,
  Baskerville and Myers 2004)
• Principle of artifact
• The product of the AR-DR synthesized approach is
  an artifact (Hevner et al., Järvinen, DR core)
• Principle of knowledge through building,
  intervention and reflection
• The epistemology of our research subscribes to

51
Principles of Action Design - 2

• Principle of evaluation in an organizational
  context (March Smith, AR core)
• Principle of mutual learning and informing
• Theory-to-practice and practice-to-theory (CAR
  core)
• Principle of purposeful action (CAR core)

52
Map 1 (Problem definition)

• DR1 AR1
• Both start with diagnosing the problem, but
• Question is the level of abstraction of problem
  articulation abstract at the beginning of the
  research process or at the end?
• in DR, abstraction a priori is an important
  concern
• in AR, it is debatable
• ideal to define it at a higher level of
  abstraction
• often it is defined in a contextual manner

53
Map 2 (Building and Intervention)

• DR2 AR2 AR3
• Design and action are both intervening into
  reality to improve or support existing
  organizational activities/processes, but
• In DR the idea of intervention is not clearly
  planned i.e. it does not involve a clear set of
  steps
• In AR, planning and acting are distinct steps

54
Map 3 (Evaluation)

• DR3 AR4
• Both approaches stress problem solving
• For DR, evaluation involves additionally
• Internal criteria
• Match between the artifact and the abstract
  idea
• Match with generally accepted principles of
  designed artifacts
• External criteria
• Advancement of design theory
• Advancement of information systems discipline

55
Map 4 (Reflection and Learning)

• DR4 DR5 AR5
• Both depend on reflection and generalization to
  theoretical concepts and other contexts
• In AR, what the practitioner members of the
  research team learn is vital

56
DR-AR Mapping Some Issues

• Role of theory
• AR community is divided on whether a priori
  theory is necessary
• In DR, a theoretical stance is not a prerequisite
  to starting the research process theoretical
  stance often emerges during design.
• Role of the user
• In AR, there is always a user (practitioners)
• In DR, a user is either present (systems designed
  for specific organizational context), or assumed
• Iteration
• In DR, iterations are more frequent than in AR
• Continual modification element of play
• Design research involves play in DR, the idea
  of intervention is true though it is not clearly
  planned i.e. it does not involve a clear set of
  steps

57
Further reading

• Cole, R., Purao, R., Rossi, M. and Sein. M.K.
  (2005). Being Proactive Where Action Research
  meets Design Research, Proceedings of ICIS
  2005, Las Vegas, USA, Dec 2005
• Järvinen, P. (2005). Action Research as an
  Approach in Design Science, presented in THE
  EURAM (European Academy of Management)
  Conference, Munich, May 4-7, 2005

58
Mening?
Frågor?
Commentar?
Preguntas?
Kommentteja?
Kysymyksiä?
Opinions?
Vragen?
Comments?
Questions?
59
Contact Information

• Matti Rossi
• Helsinki School of Economics
• P.O. Box 1210
• FIN-00101 Helsinki
• Finland
• Email mrossi_at_hkkk.fi
• Phone [phone]
• Fax [phone]
• http//www.hkkk.fi/mrossi