Quality and Rigour of Action Research in Information Systems

This paper discusses nature of action research, and its particular strengths in disciplines such as information systems (IS). However concerns are raised about the quality and rigour of the conduct and reporting of action research studies. Criteria for quality and rigour of qualitative research generally, and for action research in particular, are discussed and analysed. These then form the basis of a framework put forward to guide potential action researchers through issues such as the design, conduct, and presentation of their research, with the aim of improving relevance and rigour in action research studies

Rethinking Current Conceptualisations of Action Research

Information Systems (IS) researchers are increasingly encourated to adopt qualitative research approaches, including action research. While action research offers much in terms of addressing the practical concerns of an applied discipline such as IS, there are concerns voiced about the rigour and validity of the findings of action research studies. In this paper, an argument is developed that suggests that a reconceptualisation of action research is warranted in order to enhance the quality, credibility, and academic respectability of its findings. Further, this reconceptualisation serves to add a touch of realism to the sometimes simplistic models of the action research process that are presented in the literature. Specifically, a view of action research is presented that facilitates a clear understanding of the difference between the research interest and the problem solving interest of this research method. This model guides action researchers in promoting the rigour of their research endeavours without detracting from the relevance that stems from the contextual, real world nature of action research

Linking Theory and Practice: Performing a Reality Check on a Model of IS Success

The issue of ‘rigour vs. relevance’ in IS research has generated an intense, heated debate for over a decade. It is possible to identify, however, only a limited number of contributions on how to increase the relevance of IS research without compromising its rigour. Based on a lifecycle view of IS research, we propose the notion of ‘reality checks’ in order to review IS research outcomes in the light of actual industry demands. We assume that five barriers impact the efficient transfer of IS research outcomes; they are lack of awareness, lack of understandability, lack of relevance, lack of timeliness, and lack of applicability. In seeking to understand the effect of these barriers on the transfer of mature IS research into practice, we used focus groups. We chose DeLone and McLean’s IS success model as our stimulus because it is one of the more widely researched areas of IS

The purpose of mess in action research: building rigour though a messy turn

Mess and rigour might appear to be strange bedfellows. This paper argues that the purpose of mess is to facilitate a turn towards new constructions of knowing that lead to transformation in practice (an action turn). Engaging in action research - research that can disturb both individual and communally held notions of knowledge for practice - will be messy. Investigations into the 'messy area', the interface between the known and the nearly known, between knowledge in use and tacit knowledge as yet to be useful, reveal the 'messy area' as a vital element for seeing, disrupting, analysing, learning, knowing and changing. It is the place where long-held views shaped by professional knowledge, practical judgement, experience and intuition are seen through other lenses. It is here that reframing takes place and new knowing, which has both theoretical and practical significance, arises: a 'messy turn' takes place

Bridging the gap between research and agile practice: an evolutionary model

There is wide acceptance in the software engineering field that industry and research can gain significantly from each other and there have been several initiatives to encourage collaboration between the two. However there are some often-quoted challenges in this kind of collaboration. For example, that the timescales of research and practice are incompatible, that research is not seen as relevant for practice, and that research demands a different kind of rigour than practice supports. These are complex challenges that are not always easy to overcome. Since the beginning of 2013 we have been using an approach designed to address some of these challenges and to bridge the gap between research and practice, specifically in the agile software development arena. So far we have collaborated successfully with three partners and have investigated three practitioner-driven challenges with agile. The model of collaboration that we adopted has evolved with the lessons learned in the first two collaborations and been modified for the third. In this paper we introduce the collaboration model, discuss how it addresses the collaboration challenges between research and practice and how it has evolved, and describe the lessons learned from our experience

Exploring Standards of Rigour for Design Cases

Designers share their specialized knowledge by developing design cases, which we define as representations of design efforts and outcomes disseminated to peers. In the field of instructional design this practice is not well established. In addition, many fields in which design is practiced are examining how knowledge is built by designers, and considering the methods of research most applicable to building design knowledge. We consider design cases to be the method of dissemination for that design research which is wholly of apiece with the act of design (as compared to design research carried out in the process of designing or research on design). In considering the factors required to establish this practice, we understand the issue of rigour to be critical, since without standards by which to judge the rigour of a representation this form of knowledge building may always be undervalued in comparison to others. We look to naturalistic inquiry and action research to begin exploring how rigour might be approached in developing design cases, presenting from the perspective of instructional designers and hoping to engage designers from other fields insofar as these ideas are useful to them. Keywords: Design Knowledge; Knowledge Building; Case Study/Studies; Design Research</p

In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design

The field of Participatory Design (PD) has greatly diversified and we see a broad spectrum of approaches and methodologies emerging. However, to foster its role in designing future interactive technologies, a discussion about accountability and rigour across this spectrum is needed. Rejecting the traditional, positivistic framework, we take inspiration from related fields such as Design Research and Action Research to develop interpretations of these concepts that are rooted in PD׳s own belief system. We argue that unlike in other fields, accountability and rigour are nuanced concepts that are delivered through debate, critique and reflection. A key prerequisite for having such debates is the availability of a language that allows designers, researchers and practitioners to construct solid arguments about the appropriateness of their stances, choices and judgements. To this end, we propose a “tool-to-think-with” that provides such a language by guiding designers, researchers and practitioners through a process of systematic reflection and critical analysis. The tool proposes four lenses to critically reflect on the nature of a PD effort: epistemology, values, stakeholders and outcomes. In a subsequent step, the coherence between the revealed features is analysed and shows whether they pull the project in the same direction or work against each other. Regardless of the flavour of PD, we argue that this coherence of features indicates the level of internal rigour of PD work and that the process of reflection and analysis provides the language to argue for it. We envision our tool to be useful at all stages of PD work: in the planning phase, as part of a reflective practice during the work, and as a means to construct knowledge and advance the field after the fact. We ground our theoretical discussions in a specific PD experience, the ECHOES project, to motivate the tool and to illustrate its workings

Fisheries and Aquaculture and Their Potential Roles in Development: An Assessment of the Current Evidence

Commissioned by the International Sustainability Unity, this report investigates a number of innovative solutions that have been developed to deal with five key challenges that are impeding progress in achieving sustainable fisheries: overcapacity; perverse subsidies; poor governance; lack of data; and by-catch and discards. These key challenges are interlinked and affect the sustainability of fisheries both directly as well as indirectly by undermining instances of good management. Through 22 case studies demonstrating good practice, we explore how these challenges have been addressed around the world and how these approaches might be scaled up and applied in other fisheries. Each case study draws on published material and interviews with key people involved in the fishery. The main report draws lessons from these case studies

Helping Business Schools Engage with Real Problems: The Contribution of Critical Realism and Systems Thinking

The world faces major problems, not least climate change and the financial crisis, and business schools have been criticised for their failure to help address these issues and, in the case of the financial meltdown, for being causally implicated in it. In this paper we begin by describing the extent of what has been called the rigour/relevance debate. We then diagnose the nature of the problem in terms of historical, structural and contextual mechanisms that initiated and now sustain an inability of business schools to engage with real-world issues. We then propose a combination of measures, which mutually reinforce each other, that are necessary to break into this vicious circle – critical realism as an underpinning philosophy that supports and embodies the next points; holism and transdisciplinarity; multimethodology (mixed-methods research); and a critical and ethical-committed stance. OR and management science have much to contribute in terms of both powerful analytical methods and problem structuring methods