Cole, R. , Purao, S., Rossi, M., Sein, M. 2005. Being Proactive: Where Action Research meets Design Research. International Conference on Information Systems. (ICIS) Las Vegas, NV, December 11-14. Originally presented at ICIS.
Booking open Available Pune Call Girls Nanded City 6297143586 Call Hot India...
The overlaps between Action Research and Design Research
1. BEING PROACTIVE: WHERE ACTION RESEARCH MEETS DESIGN RESEARCH Robert Cole School of Information Sciences and Technology Penn State University University Park, PA U.S.A. [email_address] Matti Rossi Department of Management Helsinki School of Economics Helsinki, Finland [email_address] Sandeep Purao School of Information Sciences and Technology Penn State University University Park, PA U.S.A. [email_address] Maung K. Sein School of Management Agder University College Kristiansand, Norway [email_address] Presentation at ICIS 2005, Nevada, Las Vegas
7. Considered reflection and learning allow a researcher to make both a practical and theoretical contribution. 5. The Principle of Learning Through Reflection Action and change are indivisible research elements related through intervention focused on producing change. 4. The Principle of Change Through Action Theory must play a central role in action research. 3. The Principle of Theory The CPM consists of the stages diagnosing, action planning, action taking, evaluating, and specifying learning. 2. Principle of Cyclical Process Model (CMP) The RCA provides the basis for mutual commitment and role expectations. 1. Principle of Researcher-Client Agreement (RCA) Description Criterion Canonical Action Research Criteria (Adapted from Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., and Kock, N. “Principles of Canonical Action Research,” Information Systems Journal (14:1), 2004, pp. 65-86.)
8.
9.
10.
11. Applying AR Criteria to DR Exemplar No explicit evidence of progress reporting but evidence of strong client engagement; reporting of research outcomes 5. The Principle of Learning through Reflection Behavioral change evident at both the individual and organizational levels 4. The Principle of Change through Action Theory played central role in artifact development and theoretical contribution was made 3. The Principle of Theory Iterative design/evaluate process followed 2. The Principle of Cyclical Process Model (CPM) No explicit RCA but clear evidence of motivational factors 1. The Principle of Researcher-Client Agreement (RCA) Evidence found in the DR Exemplar AR Criterion
12.
13.
14.
15. Applying DR Criteria to AR Exemplar Results were communicated to both practitioners and researchers 7. Communication of Research Four CPM cycles executed before the risk management approach was evaluated as stable and usable 6. Design as a Search Process Explicit discussion of adherence to canonical criteria and logic behind SPI 5. Research Rigor Several theoretical contributions present 4. Research Contributions Evaluation based on utility to practitioners 3. Design Evaluation Clear evidence of relevance due to high resource commitment by organizations involved 2. Problem Relevance Instantiation of SPI models and methods (implicit) 1. Design as an Artifact Evidence found in the AR Exemplar DR Criterion
16.
17.
18.
19. DR1 - Identifying a need AR1 - Diagnosing a problem Problem Definition DR2 - Building AR2 - Action planning AR3 - Action taking DR3 - Evaluating AR4 – Evaluating reflecting AR5 – Specifying learning DR4 – Learning DR5 - Theorizing Intervention Evaluation Reflection and Learning An Integrated Research Process
20.
21. BEING PROACTIVE: WHERE ACTION RESEARCH MEETS DESIGN RESEARCH Robert Cole [email_address] Sandeep Purao [email_address] Matti Rossi [email_address] Maung Sein [email_address] Presentation at ICIS 2005, Nevada, Las Vegas Questions? Frågor? Kysymyksiä? Vragen? ¿Preguntas?