the principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research petter Øgland, department...
Post on 25-Dec-2015
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research
Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo
NEON, 25th-27th November 2014
Plan for presentation• Motivation (3 minutes)
– Problem: RCA is important for CAR, but sometimes difficult to achieve– Possible solution: Use NoA approach for developing RCA
• Monopoly model and bootstrap algorithm (7 minutes)– Explanatory theory: The RCA context can be understood as a Monopoly game– Norm. theory: The Bootstrap Algorithm (BA) tells us how to win at Monopoly – Hypothesis: The BA tells us how to establish an RCA
• Testing the hypotheses in a NTAX action research study (7 minutes)– Researchers and clients in NTAX action research as Monopoly game players– The BA is used for establishing the RCA, but ultimately fails– Discussion: What was the reason for failure? Normative theory (BA), explanatory
theory (Monopoly game), both, or none?• Conclusion (3 minutes)
– How to establish an RCA in non-trivial situations has to be seen as a formal research question to be answered through the initial cycles of CAR
Action research fundamental #1: Researcher-Client Agreement (RCA)
Without agreement the action research project can easily become a whistleblower project
But getting an agreement can be hard
Can we establish an RCA with management for researching how to improve labour conditions through workplace democracy?
Reaching agreement (RCA) is like winning Monopoly
2. Academic researchers try to build monopolies of knowledge (streets, houses & hotels)
1. Industry clients try to build monopolies of practice (streets, houses & hotels)
3. Action researcher tries to build monopolies of knowledge about practice (streets, houses & hotels)
Reaching agreement (RCA) is like winning Monopoly
Bootstrap algorithm (Hanseth & Aanestad, 2003; Øgland, 2013):
Phase 1: Invest in all research opportunities
Phase 2: Negotiate to establish monopolies (define domain of expertise)
Phase 3: Develop properties (become a domain authority)
Phase 4: Positive feedback; the rich get richer, the poor get thrown out of the game
How to test the Monopoly strategy through real world experiments?
Networks of action (NoA) is an action research strategy used for investigating the BA hypothesis in the real world (Braa et al, 2004) .
The Bootstrap Algorithm (BA) is based on knowledge, skill and luck (Bewersdorff, 1994; Øgland, 2013) .
The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated through the 2009 world championships
Client industry
Research community
Action researcher
The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated through the 2009 world championships
Action researcher develops research proposal
Client requests external funding (even though action researcher is employee in client organisation)
Action researcher tries to get funding and struggles
Client refuses research before funding exists
The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated through the 2009 world championships
Client is defeated. He accepts research proposal.
Action researcher presents funding source and research proposal to client
The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated through the 2009 world championships
Action researcher submits grant application.
The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated through the 2009 world championships
Action researcher believes he is going to be Monopoly champion.
The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated through the 2009 world championships
Application gets rejected. No action research can be done.
Action researcher believes he is going to be Monopoly champion.
Why did it go wrong?
Wrong diagnosis, wrong treatment
Wrong diagnosis, right treatment
Right diagnosis, wrong treatment
Right diagnosis, Right treatment
Why did it go wrong?
Unlikely that the action researcher was completely incompetent as the proposed research was an extension of recently completed PhD research.
Wrong diagnosis, wrong treatment ?
Wrong diagnosis, right treatment
Right diagnosis, wrong treatment
Right diagnosis, Right treatment
Why did it go wrong?
Perhaps industry client and/or research community were not interested in further action research, but communicated this in a vague manner? Perhaps the RCA game was impossible to win?
Wrong diagnosis, wrong treatment
Wrong diagnosis, right treatment ?
Right diagnosis, wrong treatment
Right diagnosis, Right treatment
Why did it go wrong?
According to Mintzberg (1994) it is not uncommon that there are differences between intended and emergent strategies. Perhaps the action researcher did not do exactly as he intended?
Wrong diagnosis, wrong treatment
Wrong diagnosis, right treatment ?
Right diagnosis, wrong treatment ?
Right diagnosis, Right treatment
Why did it go wrong?
Monopoly is a game of chance, skill and strategy. Sometimes loss can be due to back luck.
Wrong diagnosis, wrong treatment
Wrong diagnosis, right treatment ?
Right diagnosis, wrong treatment
Right diagnosis, Right treatment ?
Why did it go wrong?
Wrong diagnosis, wrong treatment
Wrong diagnosis, right treatment
Right diagnosis, wrong treatment
Right diagnosis, Right treatment
Seems like best explanation, but does not produce learning.
Why did it go wrong?
Wrong diagnosis, wrong treatment
Wrong diagnosis, right treatment
Right diagnosis, wrong treatment
Right diagnosis, Right treatment
Seems like best explanation, but does not produce learning.
Not necessarily best explanations, but produce interesting questions for further investigations
Contribution to CAR theory
How to establish an RCA should be a formal research question in CAR studies.
Summary of presentation• Contributions to CAR theory and implications for CAR practice
– How to establish an RCA should be a research question for each CAR study• Why should the establishment of an RCA be defined as an RQ?
– Action failure: Using the BA as method for establishing an RCA– Discussion: What was the reason for failure? Normative theory (BA), explanatory
theory (Monopoly game), both, or none?– Unless the RCA is easily established, it becomes an RQ by default
• How did we expect the RCA to be established?– Explanatory theory: The RCA context can be understood as a Monopoly game– Norm. theory: The Bootstrap Algorithm (BA) tells us how to win at Monopoly – Hypothesis: The BA tells us how to establish an RCA
• Why was the BA interesting?– Problem: RCA is important for CAR, but sometimes difficult to achieve– Possible solution: Use BA/NoA approach for developing RCA
top related