literature can enrich
the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research
Joseph Kim-keung Ho
Independent
Trainer
Hong
Kong, China
Abstract: The
contemporary version of the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research
adopts the vision of considering practice-/ action-oriented research
methodologies in its research scope so as to strengthen its ability to produce
intellectual knowledge of higher actionable and usable value to the real-world
of management practices. One of such research methodologies is action research.
This paper conducted a literature review on action research and figured out how
the action research literature can enrich the MPSB Research subject. Several
observations are made in this respect. Overall, the paper contributes to the
theoretical development of the MPSB Research.
Keywords: action research, multi-perspective, systems-based (MPSB) Research,
literature review
Please cite the paper as:
Ho, J.K.K. 2016. “An exploratory study on how the action research literature
can enrich the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research” Joseph KK Ho e-resources July 18 (url
address: http://josephho33.blogspot.hk/2016/07/an-exploratory-study-on-howthe-action.html).
1. Introduction
The Multi-perspective, Systems-based
(MPSB) Research was initiated by this writer in 1992 as his Ph.D. thesis at the
University of Hong Kong. It resulted in the publication of a thesis report as
well as a number of academic papers in the 1990s (Ho, 1996). The 1990s’ version
of the MPSB Research was chiefly literature review-based, focusing on examining
the subjects of management accounting, information systems and logistics
management using critical systems thinking. Since then, the MPSB Research has
directed its attention towards practice- and issue-focused type of research
strategies so as to produce research outputs that are usable, relevant and high
in actionable value (Ho, 2014). Out of this theoretical review of the MPSB
Research, the writer identified action research as relevant to be employed in a
more comprehensive as well as practice- and issue-focused MPSB Research version
(Ho, 2014). This paper now takes a close look at the action research literature
to explore how its literature can enrich the MPSB Research. To do so, the next
section presents the literature review findings by the writer on action research.
This is then followed by a discussion how these literature review findings can
contribute to the theoretical development of the contemporary version of the
MPSB Research.
2.
The main ideas underlying the action
research literature
Action research was put forward in
the 1950s by Kurt Lewin and was associated with his social-psychology work
(Bradbury-Huang, 2010). Lewin originally conceptualized it as a means for “the
betterment of society by enabling the resolution of social problems” (Gill et al., 2010) and the role of researcher
as “a participant in concrete problem solving and real-life issues” (Greenwood
and Levin (1998) as cited in Sandberg and Wallo (2013).). Unquestionably, its
social justice focus has a long history (Weaver-Hightower, 2010). It is
described by Bradbury-Huang (2010) as “an orientation to knowledge creation
that arises in a context of practice and requires researchers to work with
practitioners”. For Shani and Pasmore (1985: 439) cited in Roth et al. (2007), action research is “an
emergent inquiry process in which applied behavioral and organizational
sciences are applied to solve real business problems”. By now, action research
has developed into a diverse set of approaches (Gill et al., 2010), see also action
research and action learning Facebook page in bibliography. To
conveniently comprehend its fundamental characteristics, two definitions on
action research are provided by Gill et
al. (2010):
Definition
1: “Action research is the process of systematically
collecting research data about an ongoing system relative to some objective,
goal, or need of that system; feeding back these data back into the system;
taking action by altering selected variables within the system based both on
data and hypotheses; and evaluating the results of actions by collecting more
data” (French and Bell, 1999).
Definition
2: “….action research is a participatory, democratic, process
concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human
purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview… It seeks to bring together
action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in
pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and
more generally the flourishing of individual persons and their communities”
(Reason and Bradbury, 2006).
These two definitions underline some key characteristics of
Action Research, such as: “taking action”, “feeding… data back into the
system..”, “participatory”, “practical knowing”, “practical solutions”,
“reflection” and “theory”, etc.. More specifically, Bryman and Bell (2007),
citing Eden and Huxham (1996), identify the following four action research
characteristics:
·
Have implications related to other situations
·
Be usable as well as theory-related
·
Be able to generate emergent or grounded theory
·
Have practical findings that meet participants’ expectations
A number of theoretical viewpoints
on action research have been raised in the academic literature, which offers a stimulating
comprehension on action research. They are related to three research themes,
namely: (i) related to research goals, (ii) related to participants, roles and
their relationship, and (iii) related to research process and actions. Details
are as follows:
Theme 1: Related to research goals
Idea 1.1.
“… many action researchers
consider normative goals, especially democracy or democratic processes, utopian
..….Some action research approaches have been criticized for prioritizing
practical development at the expense of critical research…” (Sandberg and
Wallo, 2013);
Idea 1.2.
“Drawing upon emancipatory
educational and social transformation movements, action research is focused on
addressing issues through inquiry into human problems in the real context … in
order ‘to liberate the human body, mind and spirit in the search for a better,
freer world’ (Reason and Bradbury, 2001, p. 2)….” (Aziz et al., 2011);
Idea 1.3.
“…a
criterion of ‘success’ of an action research process is the politicization of
the participants. Thus I perceive the role of the action researcher as an
activist who must be critically reflective of her own activist position, being
careful not to impose her own ‘liberatory’ agenda … on those with whom she
researches and works….” (Fisher and Phelps, 2006);
Theme 2: Related to participants, roles and their relationship
Idea 2.1.
“The researcher is
challenged to keep a balance between distance and proximity, to approach
situations open-mindedly and to value and see clearly the beliefs and values of
oneself and those of others” (Snoeren, 2011);
Idea 2.2.
“…action research with practitioners always
includes practitioners as partners in the work of knowledge creation”
(Bradbury-Huang, 2010);
Idea 2.3.
“If we wish to promote
participation and engagement [of stakeholders] we should establish open,
trustworthy and reciprocal relationships. This requires the formation of
‘communicative space’ (Wicks & Reason, 2009), which follows three phases.
The 1) inclusion phase ….. 2) control phase. …. …. 3) intimacy phase”….”
(Snoeren, 2011);
Idea 2.4.
With insider action
research, “…the insider action researcher …. needs to be prepared to
work within the political system such that the research project will yield the
optimal results for both the system and the scientific community ....” (Snoeren, 2011);
Idea 2.5.
“….insider
action researchers augment their normal organizational roles with the
researcher role … This very act is likely to create role conflict where the
insider action researchers find themselves caught between organizational
loyalty, past and present role relationships, and problem identification.…” (Snoeren, 2011);
Idea 2.6.
“Engagement is seen as an important characteristic of action
research. The term is often used to refer to the participation and involvement
of the research participants….. the involvement and ‘closeness’ of the
researcher, although necessary within action research, can also have a darker
side as people have the tendency to get trapped in their own beliefs and
prejudices” (Snoeren, 2011);
Theme 3: Related to research process and actions
Idea 3.1.
“….Action
research is not seen as a collection of principles, with distinct theories and
methods, but more as a perspective on how to conduct research…” (Sandberg and
Wallo, 2013);
Idea 3.2.
“Action
researchers do not readily separate understanding and action, rather we argue
that only through action is legitimate understanding possible; theory without
practice is not theory but speculation” (Bradbury-Huang, 2010);
Idea 3.3.
Action researchers “acknowledge that all claims to knowledge
are shaped by interests (consider that knowledge claims are never neutral)”
(Bradbury-Huang, 2010);
Idea 3.4.
The action research notion of actionable is understood as “the extent to which work provides new
ideas that guide action in response to need as well as our concern with
developing action research crafts of practice in their own terms”
(Bradbury-Huang, 2010);
Idea 3.5.
“the concept of reflection has undergone uneven development
across various disciplines under the umbrella of Action Research (AR)” (Chiu,
2006);
Idea 3.6.
“Although the interpretation of critical reflection as an
unmasking of the assumptions underlying oppressive explanations of prevailing
social order appears to be common among action researchers, interpretations of
the ‘who’ and the ‘how’ of critical reflection are diverse” (Chiu, 2006);
Idea 3.7.
Schön (1996) discerned two forms of reflection, namely,
reflection-in-action (RIA) and reflection-on-action (ROA). RIA is “tacit and
spontaneous and often delivered without taking thought” (Schön, 1987: 3) while
ROA is retrospective, being “an intellectual [activity which] requires
verbalisation and symbolisation” (Schön, 1987: 5).
Idea 3.8.
“reflection can be seen as a necessary component of
knowledge production through experience with different aspects: cognitive,
emotive and dialogic” (Chiu, 2006);
By now, action research has been employed
in the social sciences to examine a broad range of issues with a diversity of
approaches. For example, in his literature review of action research, Dick
(2006) discerns a number of topics covered: (i) educational action research,
(ii) community applications, (iii) participatory development applications, (iv)
human services and health care applications, (v) organizational applications,
(vi) appreciative inquiry, (vii) professional and practice development. Dick
(2006) also expressed concern about the “proliferation of action-research-like
processes under different labels”. With a set of action research ideas gathered
from the literature, the paper moves on to examine how these can be related to
the MPSB Research in the next section.
3.
Five observations about enrichment
of the MPSB Research with ideas from the action research literature
From the original conception as a
research programme to review management disciplines in the 1990s, the MPSB
Research has evolved to the present MPSB Research version that embraces the
ambition to create knowledge with high actionable value to the world of
management practices; the contemporary (or the 2010s version) MPSB Research is now
interested in studying how practice- and action-oriented research strategies
such as action research can be incorporated into it (Ho, 2014). From the
literature review reported in the previous section, the following five observations
are made:
Observation 1: action research, possessing
pragmatic, interpretive and critical orientations, is quite compatible with the
theoretical foundation of the MPSB Research, namely, critical systems thinking
(re: ideas 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.6); in particular, it is endorsed by the rationale
of pluralism in critical systems thinking.
Observation 2: action research offers more than
one practice-/action-oriented research programme version or approach for the
MPSB Research to employ (re: idea 3.1);
Observation 3: the action research literature has
accumulated substantial experience on the opportunities and challenges
encountered in the employment of a strongly practice- and action-orientated
research programme (re: ideas 1.3, 2.1; 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6);
Observation 4: action research is attentive to
the close coupling between theory/knowledge and practice; such strong attention
of action research on this coupling is now well recognized in the MPSB
Research; admittedly, the primary source of theories and intellectual ideas of
the MPSB Research is from critical systems thinking (re: ideas 3.2, 3.3, 3.4,
3.5, 3.7, 3.8);
Observation 5: the action research literature
introduces concepts, terms and viewpoints that can be employed in the contemporary
version of the MPSB Research, thus enriching the MPSB Research thinking (re: politicization
of participants (idea 1.3), engagement with participants (idea 2.6), actionable
attribute (idea 3.4), communicative space (idea 2.3) and reflection (ideas 3.5,
3.6).
The five observations thus point to
how the action research literature is able to enrich the MPSB Research. They
indicate further MPSB Research topics to study that are informed by the action
research literature, see also the Multi-perspective,
Systems-based Research Facebook page in the bibliography.
4.
Concluding remarks
Updating the MPSB Research vision to
consider practice- and action-orientated research methods and programmes, as a research
aspiration, is one thing, finding out exactly how this can be done as well as
sorting out the implications of this ambitious research vision adoption by the MPSB
Research are major intellectual challenges. In this respect, this paper, by
reviewing the action research literature to enrich the MPSB Research programme,
directly addresses this intellectual challenge. By doing so, it contributes to
the theoretical development of the MPSB Research. It also shows that a lot of
research works still need to be done to respond to this daunting challenge.
Bibliography
Action research and action learning Facebook page, maintained by Joseph
KK Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Action-research-and-action-learning-1967450773480332/).
Aziz, A., M. Shams and K.S Khan. 2011. “Participatory action
research as the approach for women’s empowerment” Action Research 9(3), Sage: 303-323.
Bradbury-Huang, H. 2010. “What is good action research? :
Why the resurgent interest?” Action
Research 8 (1), Sage: 93-109.
Bryman, A. and E. Bell. 2007. Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press.
Chiu, L.F. 2006. “Critical reflection: More than nuts and
bolts” Action Research 4(2), Sage:
183-203.
Dick, B. 2006. “Action research
literature 2004-2006” Action Research
4(4), Sage: 439-458.
Eden, C. and C. Huxham. 1996.
“”Action Research for Management Research” British
Journal of Management 7(1): 75-86.
Fisher, K. and R. Phelps. 2006.
“Recipe or performing art : Challenging conventions for writing action research
theses” Action Research 4(2), Sage:
143-164.
French, W.L. and C. Bell. 1999. Organization Development: Behavioral Science
Interventions for Organization Improvement, Pearson.
Gill, J., P. Johnson and M. Clark. 2010. Research Methods for Managers, Sage,
London.
Greenwood, D.J. and M.
Levin. 1998. Introduction to action
research: Social research for social change, SAGE, London.
Ho, J.K.K. 1996. Development of Multi-Perspective,
Systems-Based Frameworks July, a thesis submitted to Faculty of
Engineering, University of Hong Kong, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
The University of Hong Kong.
Ho, J.K.K. 2014. “A Review of the Multi-perspective,
Systems-based (MPSB) Research with an MPSB Knowledge Supply Chain Framework” European
Academic Research 2(1) April: 705-729.
Reason, P. and H. Bradbury.
2001. “Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of
human aspiration” in Reason, P. and H. Bradbury (Eds.) Handbook of action research:
Participative inquiry and practice London: SAGE: 1-14.
Reason, P. and H. Bradbury. 2006. “Introduction: Inquiry and
Participation in Search of a World Worthy of Human Aspiration” in Reason, P. and
H. Bradbury (editors) Handbook of Action Research, Sage,
London: 1.
Roth, J., A.B. R. Shani and
M.M. Leary. 2007. “Insider action research: Facing the challenges of new
capability development within a biopharma company” Action Research 5(1), Sage: 41-60.
Sandberg, F. and A. Wallo. 2013. “The interactive researcher
as a virtual participant: A Habermasian interpretation” Action Research 11(2), Sage: 194-212.
Schön, D.A. 1987. Donald Schön’s presentation, Educating
the Reflective Practitioner, to the 1987 meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. Transcribed by J. Carrick,
January 1998 and posted by Tom Russell, Queen’s University, January 1998
(Accessed at 4 January 2005 from: http://educ.queensu.ca/~ar/Schön87.htm).
Schön, D.A. 1996. Educating the reflective practitioner:
Towards a new design forteaching and learning in the professions, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Shani, A.B.R. and W.A. Pasmore. 1985.. “Organization
inquiry: Towards a new model of the action research process” in D.D. Warrick
(Ed.). Contemporary organization development: Current thinking and
applications Glenview, IL, Scott, Foresman: 438-448.
Snoeren, M.MWC. 2011. “Engagement enacted: Essentials of
initiating an action research project” Action
Research 10(2), Sage: 189-204.
The Multi-perspective,
Systems-based Research Facebook page, maintained
by Joseph KK Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/multiperspective.systemsbased.research/).
Weaver-Hightower, M.B.
2010. “Using action research to challenge stereotypes” Action Research 8(3), Sage: 333-356.
Wicks, P.G. and P. Reason.
2009. “Initiating action research: Challenges and paradoxes of opening
communicative space” Action Research 7(3), Sage: 243-262.
No comments:
Post a Comment