This section starts with an introduction to qualitative and quantitative methods before I give a thorough explanation of action research in general.
Further, action research and case studies used in IS context is outlined.
Techniques such as interviews, observations, surveys and experiences can be used in all types of research approaches described below (e.g. Braa &
Vidgen 1996).
Qualitative and quantitative methods
A qualitative method aims at understanding social phenomena on the background of rich data about persons and situations. The process is based upon collection methods such as interview, observation, analysis of documents and pictures (Thagaard 1988). While the quantitative method searches for a deeper and contextual insight into the area of investigation, quantitative methods focus on quantifiable objects. Properties and incidences are considered independent phenomena in relation to the greater totality (Hellevik 1999).
4.1.1 Action research
“AR is social research carried out by a team encompassing a professional action researcher and members of an organization or community seeking to improve their situation. AR promotes broad participation in the research process and supports action leading to a more just or satisfying situation for the stakeholders.”
(Greenwood & Levin 1998) The basic idea is that the researcher and the stakeholders interact and work closely together to define and solve the problems. During the process they learn and execute social research techniques, take action, and interpret the results of actions based on what they have learned. In the action research approach, social problems are not only studied, they are actually attempted
to be resolved. One thought in action research is that all people accumulate and use complex knowledge in everyday life. An example of this is that in any action research project, the first thing the involved actors do, being researcher or stakeholders, is defining a problem to be solved. In this process, they combine their knowledge, and this close interaction and collaboration democratizes the relationship between the professional researcher and the local parties involved (Greenwood & Levin 1998).
In order to be identified as action research, there are three elements that must be present, namely research, action and participation. By research it is proposed that action research is one of the most powerful ways to generate new knowledge. Participation promotes democracy, which means that it enables the communities or organizations to mobilize their diverse and complex internal resources to the fullest. Stakeholders are involved in the decision making process, which gives them the opportunity to take charge over their own situation. Action research is a participatory process in that trained social researchers function as facilitators for the stakeholders (members of local communities or organizations), and together they establish the action research agenda, generate the knowledge necessary to transform the situation and put the result to work. In this way everyone involved take some responsibility. Action research is also participatory in that it aims to alter the initial situation of the group or organization in the direction of a more self-managing, liberated state, where the practitioners function as democratic reformers. Hence, action is a sensible way to generate and test new knowledge. As Greenwood and Levin say:
“..AR is a form of research that generates knowledge claims for the express purpose of taking action to promote social change and social analysis.”
(Ibid, p. 6) The social change implies that the involved members increase their ability to be in charge and manage their own future. Action research does not share the traditional view of social research that thought and action is separated.
(Greenwood & Levin 1998) state that even if projects fail in reaching desired action, they still produce rich learning opportunities. Learning is an important aspect in action research, and the mutual learning situation that takes place between researchers and local group members affects both the research and actions (ibid.).
Action research can be both qualitative and quantitative research; in fact there are no restrictions for what methods to use as long as the participants find it meaningful. Different contexts and situations call for different methods. Action research is not a discipline, but involves members from both academic and non-academic practices, among others anthropology, engineering and psychology (Greenwood & Levin 1998).
There are several thoughts and practices of action research in IS. One of them is stated by Brown (1993), who considers the geographical location of the action research site, and distinguishes between the ‘Northern’ and
‘Southern’ tradition, in participatory action research:
“The ‘Southern’ tradition is committed to community transformation through empowering disenfranchised groups; the ‘Northern’ tradition is concerned with reforming organizations through problem solving”
(Brown 1993, p.249) Conventional social scientists criticize action research in being unsystematic and atheoretical, but action research is usually involved in more complex problems than the conventional social sciences. Action research is context sensitive/bound and addresses real-life problems, focusing on experience, with its complexity, historicity and dynamism. The problems are solved through a democratic inquiry where participants and researchers cogenerate knowledge through collaborative communicative processes. In this process action research specifically engages in systems-informed, pragmatic social science. The diversity of experiences and capacities amongst the local group is considered as valuable in the research-action process, and there are no separation between theory and action. The inquiry process creates meanings, and the meanings lead to social action. New meanings can again be produced from the reflections on action. The credibility-validity of action research knowledge is measured according its workability, which is whether or not the solution resolved the initial problem (Greenwood & Levin 1998).
4.1.2 Research methods within the IS field
This section outlines to commonly used research methods within IS in the organizational laboratory; action research and case studies.
Action research in the IS field
Action research has been characterized as a way to build theory and knowledge by engagement with the world in the context of practice itself (Braa & Vidgen 1996). Braa & Hedberg (2000) employ action research in order to involve the wider social system in the design and development of ISs.
Braa et al. (2002a) base their study on “networks” on action research:
“..action research interventions need to be conceptualized and approached as but one element in a larger “network” of action in order to meet the grave challenges of making localized action scale (i.e. spread) and be sustainable (i.e. persist over time, also after the researchers leave).”
(ibid.)
As outlined in section 3.2, pilot projects, which usually are initiated through donor funding, focus on issues in a limited scale. That is, they concentrate on one health program or health model, without taking the overall complexity into account. The other problem concerns keeping the initiatives sustainable, that is when the researchers leave or the funding has stopped.
Engelstad & Gustavsen (1993) states that the challenge for action research is to shift focus from “single organizations and workplaces … to networks”.
Braa et al. (2002a) address the problems with scale and sustainability focusing on the aspects of control and institutionalization. Control, or management is important for large-scale action research e.g. in order to align with the existing political, institutional and technical networks.
Sustainability has several different meanings in the context of action research, e.g. from the life of the systems and processes developed as interventions, and to the question of how the research and practical efforts co-exist over time. Taking all the different issues into account, Braa et al.
(2002a) focuses on the role of learning in supporting these processes.
Case studies
Kitchenham et al. (1995) label case studies as “research in the typical”.
Case studies offer a possibility of an in-depth understanding of one particular case or development project. Braa & Vidgen (1996) also find that although the researcher acts only as an observer, without intervening in the situation being observed, the researcher will affect the situation.
Organizational actors may change their behaviour if they know that they are observed.