How the action research literature can enrich the MPSB Research

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.