David Avison, Francis Lau,

Michael Myers, and Peter Axel Nielsen

Action
Research
To make academic research relevant, researchers should
try out their theories with practitioners in real
situations and real organizations.
At the International Federation for Information Processing conference last
year in Philadelphia, presenters generally agreed that qualitative approaches to information sys-
tems research are finally gaining acceptance. Such approaches include grounded theory, ethnog-
raphy, and case study. At the conference, Lynne Markus of Claremont Graduate University, who
for years has advocated qualitative research method is unique in the way it associates research
and practice, so research informs practice and prac-
methods, declared, “We have won the war, let tice informs research synergistically.
Action research combines theory and practice (and
us celebrate.” She did not mean, however, that researchers and practitioners) through change and
reflection in an immediate problematic situation
quantitative research, in the form of, say, math- within a mutually acceptable ethical framework.
Action research is an iterative process involving
ematical modeling, statistical analysis, and researchers and practitioners acting together on a par-
ticular cycle of activities, including problem diagno-
laboratory experiments, represents an enemy sis, action intervention, and reflective learning.
We use information systems as the exemplar of
or is bad research and is now defeated, but that qual- how to benefit from action research methods, though
itative approaches are now accepted as equal in value software engineering and systems science, among
to quantitative approaches when used appropriately. others, could be used because their application
Whether or not an approach is appropriate domains also include real organizations. For develop-
depends on the research topic and the research ques- ing information systems, action research has already
tions being addressed. A particular strength of qual- made five key contributions:
itative methods is their value in explaining what
goes on in organizations. • The Multiview contingent systems development
Here, we want to celebrate and recommend action framework [2];
research, because this particular qualitative research • The soft systems methodology [5];

94 January 1999/Vol. 42, No. 1 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM

• The Tavistock School’s sociotechnical design [7]; not enough. In action research, the researcher wants
• Scandinavian research efforts intended to to try out a theory with practitioners in real situa-
empower trade unions and strengthen the bar- tions, gain feedback from this experience, modify the
gaining positions of users in systems development theory as a result of this feedback, and try it again.
[4]; and Each iteration of the action research process adds to
• The Effective Technical and Human Implementa- the theory—in this case a framework for information
tion of Computer-based Systems (ETHICS) par- systems development—so it is more likely to be
ticipative and ethical approach to information appropriate for a variety of situations.
systems development [7]. This cycle of action research is exactly what has
happened in the development of Multiview. The
These efforts all yield observable effects on practice. Multiview framework has been applied in a number
For example, action research encourages researchers of situations (see [2] for six examples). None describes
to experiment through intervention and to reflect on Multiview working perfectly in an organization
the effects of their intervention and the implication according to prescription, but all have delivered
of their theories. lessons furthering Multiview development. Multi-
Conventional systems analysis approaches, such as view includes tools and techniques blended into a
structured analysis and data analysis, emphasize the common approach, each used on a contingency basis,
“hard” aspects of the problem domain, that is, the that is, as appropriate for each problem situation.
certain and the precise. A hard approach is prescrip- Even after some 15 years of refinement, Multiview’s
tive and might be applied fairly consistently between authors still view it as a framework, not a step-by-
organizations and within organizations. Yet Peter step methodology, and its use as an “exploration of
Checkland, a professor at Lancaster University, who information systems development,” not a prescriptive
is influential among Multiview authors, argues that approach. Indeed, a new vision statement about Mul-
systems analysts need to apply their craft to prob- tiview was published in [1] earlier this year. Each new
lems that are not well defined [5]. Moreover, application leads researchers and practitioners to
researchers need to understand the ill-structured, adapt rather than adopt the framework for new situa-
fuzzy world of complex organizations. People are tions, but each application yields more lessons.
what make organizations so complex and different, By emphasizing collaboration between researchers
and people are far different in nature from data and and practitioners, action research would seem to rep-
processes. People have different and conflicting resent an ideal research method for information sys-
objectives, perceptions, and attitudes. People change tems. Such systems represent an applied discipline,
over time. And systems analysts have to address the and the related research is often justified in terms of
fundamental human aspects of organizations. Failure its implications for practice. Action research can
to include human factors may explain some of the address complex real-life problems and the immedi-
dissatisfaction with conventional information sys- ate concerns of practitioners. Yet, paradoxically, the
tems development methodologies; they do not academic community has almost totally ignored
address real organizations. action research. Only one of the 155 articles in a sur-
We might view this dilemma through the analogy vey of 19 journals in 1991 describing research theo-
of two problems. The first is a punctured tire. We ries and methods used in information systems
know how to deal with a punctured tire, as there is a covered action research [6].
standard repair process and therefore a clear solution. Another survey, in 1997, included 29 articles on
The second concerns world poverty. The solution is action research, spanning 25 years, 1971–1995.
not clear; any approach to addressing the problem is Using a key-word search, the articles were found in
complex, and winning the agreement of all inter- 20 leading journals covering business, education,
ested parties is quite difficult. engineering, health, and public service. However, it
Businesses are nearer the world-poverty problem found only one article on action research in the four
than they are to the punctured-tire problem. There- mainstream systems journals surveyed. It also noted
fore, an applicable methodology for designing sys- a deeper complexity, that is, different types of action
tems can be developed in a professor’s office without research, categorizing them into four types:
trying it out in many real-world situations. The pro-
fessor may have read a lot about the subject; observed • Action research focusing on change and reflection;
a lot of systems development in organizations, build- • Action science trying to resolve conflicts between
ing up a series of case studies; and even devised a the- espoused and applied theories;
ory for systems development, but this approach is • Participatory action research emphasizing partici-

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM January 1999/Vol. 42, No. 1 95

 pant collaboration; and method is as true for action research as it is for any
• Action learning for programmed instruction and other research approach. If researchers are not
experiential learning. explicit in following the tenets of action research
when working in real-life situations, their work
This categorization of action research adds not only might be better described as consulting. Alterna-
further complexity but, perhaps, confusion, thus tively, interviewing and observing people in these
arguing against the wider adoption of action research situations without the insight associated with inter-
in general. vention is also not action research. It might be
Nevertheless, the situation regarding the results described instead as case study research. Such
of action research may be less bleak. For example, a research frequently reports what practitioners say
look at Communications of the ACM finds numerous they do. In action research, the emphasis is more on
articles discussing the lessons learned from particu- what practitioners actually do.
lar projects, variously described as case studies, sys- Action researchers should explain their approach
tems design, software engineering projects, and and its application, bearing in mind that the
more. This stream of work might loosely be classi- research will be evaluated in part by its ability to
fied as of an “action research type,” even though the explain practice; for example, proper documentation
term “action research” is never used in the articles. of the research process is important. The action

In action research, the emphasis is

more on what practitioners do
than on what they say they do.
The value of such articles might be enhanced if the researcher may experiment on improving such writ-
cycle of action research were adhered to and ings through diaries and concept maps while giving
described explicitly in the context of the particular full consideration to the audience being addressed,
projects being discussed. whether it includes academics or practitioners.
Another factor mitigating against the use of action Explicit criteria should be defined before performing
research is that much of it is published in books rather the research in order to later judge its outcome, as
than in articles. Action researchers have large and should ways to manage alterations in these criteria as
complicated stories to tell. It is notable that the refer- part of the process of problem diagnosis, action
ences for the examples of action research programs intervention, and reflective learning. Otherwise,
mentioned earlier—Multiview, the soft systems what is being described might be action (but not
methodology, the Tavistock School, the Scandinavian research) or research (but not action research).
approach to participation, and ETHICS—were all Another potential problem is that researchers and
published in books and are all European. Action practitioners working together in this way need to
research will not be recognized unless the approach is share a mutually acceptable ethical framework—and
made explicit in the research literature. We hope we is part of our definition of action research. Successful
are starting that process. The Web site on qualitative action research is unlikely where there is conflict
research [8] is an online resource that should help find between researchers and practitioners or among prac-
the literature and spread the word about qualitative titioners themselves. For example, problems may well
research approaches. We hope too that the content on arise if the research could lead to people being fired.
action research will grow to be as large as, say, case This result can conflict with the researchers’ principles
study research. but be acceptable to practitioners (or vice versa).
Although there are examples of action research
Problems, Issues, Suggestions articles [3], there is still a lack of detailed guidelines
Researchers should be explicit about their approach, for novice researchers and practitioners to under-
clarifying their research aim, theory, and method at stand and engage in action research studies in terms
the outset and all the way through its application, as of design, process, presentation, and criteria for eval-
well as at the time of its publication [10]. The uation. Furthermore, there is a need for an action
importance of being explicit about the research research monograph, similar to [11] on case study

96 January 1999/Vol. 42, No. 1 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM

methodology, to serve as a comprehensive framework
and guide for the larger community. The framework
proposed in [6] consists of four dimensions:

• The category of action research used and its focus;

• The tradition and beliefs implied by its
assumptions;
• The research process, including theme, level of
organization involved, extent of change, and the
role of the researcher; and
• The style of presentation adopted.

This framework is a foundation on which the pedagogy

of action research in systems development can be refined
and debated, perhaps helping establish a unifying
framework in systems development. However, it still
has to be supplemented through a comprehensive set of
criteria by which action research might be conceived,
designed, conducted, presented, and evaluated. c

References
1. Avison, D., Wood-Harper, A., Vidgen, R., and Wood, J. A further
exploration into information systems development: The evolution of
Multiview2. Information Technology & People 11, 2 (1998), 124–139.
2. Avison, D., and Wood-Harper, A. Multiview: An Exploration in Informa-
tion Systems Development. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, U.K., 1990.
3. Baskerville, R., and Wood-Harper, A. A critical perspective on action
research as a method for information systems research. J. Inf. Tech. 11,
4 (1996), 235–246.
4. Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., and Kyng, M., Eds. Computers and Democracy.
Avebury, Aldershot, U.K., 1987.
5.Checkland, P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester,
U.K., 1981.
6. Lau, F. A Review of action research in information systems studies. In
Information Systems and Qualitative Research, A. Lee, J. Liebenau, and J.
DeGross, Eds. Chapman & Hall, London, U.K., 1997, pp. 31–68.
7. Mumford, E. Job satisfaction: A method of analysis. In Designing Orga-
CT 99 3rdCognitive
International
Technology Conference
networked minds

nizations for Satisfaction and Efficiency, K. Legge and E. Mumford, Eds.

Gower Press, Teakfield, U.K., 1978, pp.18–35.
8. Myers, M. Qualitative Research in information systems. ISWorldNet
Web site (1997); see www.auckland.ac.nz/msis/isworld/.
9. Orlikowski, W., and Baroudi, J. Studying information technology in
organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems
Research 2, 1 (1991), 1–28.
10. Robey, D. Research commentary: Diversity in information systems
research—Threat, promise, and responsibility. Information Systems
Research 7, 4 (1997), 400–408.
11. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd Ed. Sage Publi-
cations, London, U.K., 1994.
August 11 – 14, 1999
David E. Avison (DEA@socsci.soton.ac.uk) is a professor in the
School of Management at the University of Southampton, England, a
visiting professor at ESSEC in Cergy-Pontoise, France, and vice chair Call for papers
of IFIP8.2 and president of the UK Academy for Information Systems.
Francis Lau (flau@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) is an assistant professor Submit an extended abstract to:
in the Department of Accounting and MIS at the University of Kevin Cox (kcox@spirit.com.au)
Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Michael D. Myers (m.myers@auckland.ac.nz) is a senior lec- Deadline: Feb. 15, 1999.
turer in the Department of Management Science and Information
Systems at the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Peter Axel Nielsen (pan@cs.auc.dk) is an associate professor
of information systems in the Department of Computer Science,
HTTP://
mindlab.msu.edu/ct99/
Aalborg University, Denmark.

© 1999 ACM 0002-0782/99/0100 $5.00

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM January 1999/Vol. 42, No. 1 97