Methodology and Methods of Inquiry
In Shani and Pasmore (2010 as cited in Coghlan, 2019), Coghlan and Shani (2018 as cited in Coghlan, 2019), a comprehensive framework of the action research process was presented in terms of four factors: context, quality of relationships, quality of action research process itself, and outcomes. Context is defined as how action research takes place within a local situation and context and as to how it aims to contribute to the development of the organization in that context. Meanwhile, quality of relationships refers to how the action research was conducted with people instead of on or for them. The relationship needs trust, concern for equality of influence, and common language, among others. The quality of the action research process itself is based on a dual focus on the inquiry and the implementation processes. The outcomes are then defined as the dual outcomes of action research as some level of sustainability in terms of human, social, economic, and ecological aspects, and the development of self-help and competencies out of the action. Likewise, the creation of new knowledge from the inquiry is expected.
Figure 5
Comprehensive Framework of Action Research (Coghlan, 2019)
As Coghlan (2019) reiterates, regarding methodology, researchers must consider that they utilize a normal and natural research paradigm including a long tradition and adequate rigor that is suitable for the project they have chosen. I adhered to the action research cycle framework by Coghlan (2019).
Figure 6
Action Research Cycle (Coghlan, 2019, p.9)
As indicated in the action research cycle, it is comprised of a pre-step, context and
purpose, and four basic steps: constructing, planning action, taking action, and evaluating action.
The action research cycle unfolds in real-time and begins with seeking an understanding of the context of the project (Coghlan, 2019). Further, in terms of constructing, Coghlan (2019) stresses that it is important that the constructing step is a collaborative venture: that the action researcher engages relevant others in the process of constructing and is not the expert who decides the context apart from others. As for planning activities, it is described as following the exploration of the context and purpose of the project, construction of the issue, and is being consistent with them. In taking action, the plans are implemented and interventions made collaboratively. Finally, as part of the evaluation process, the outcomes of the action, both intended and unintended, are examined. According to Coghlan (2019), the outcomes are examined with the view to seeing: “if the original constructing fitted; if the actions taken
matched the constructing; if the actions were taken in an appropriate manner; and what feed into the next cycle of constructing, planning, and action” (p.11). Seen in the figure below is the spiral of action research cycles:
Figure 7
Spiral of Action Research Cycles (Coghlan, 2019, p.11)
Data Gathering
Being one of the founders, I have direct access to the data needed to ensure that we have gathered enough information to support our action plans. These are available to us through our social media and online properties. Aside from quantitative data, I was able to gather qualitative data through interviews with and general feedback from customers. The initial data gathered has been summarized and presented as the context of the action paper. The below table summarized the data gathered:
Table 2 Data Sources
Method Data Respondent/Source Objective
Data
gathering/reporting
Customer Demographics
&
Customer buying behavior
Facebook and Instagram Insights, Survey
littlehappyboxph.com
Analyze the insights generated through posted social media ads &
website analytics and initial pre-launch survey conducted
Informal talks and team meetings
Insights on the issue
Co-founders Confirm my assumptions and take into
consideration their concerns as we develop our plans to address the issue
Informal survey and interviews
Feedback New customers Non-customers
Understand the customer and evaluate the
effectiveness of our strategies
Content Analysis Meta-learnings and reflections
Viber conversations, emails, personal notes
Understand and delve deeper into the action research process First-Person Inquiry
Throughout the action research, I adhered to the first-person practice as defined by Coghlan (2019): As its core, first-person practice means that our own beliefs, values,
assumptions, ways of thinking, strategies, and behaviors, and so on are afforded a central place of inquiry in our action research practice. This allowed me to pay attention to how I experience myself in inquiry and action. Further, I am guided by the general empirical method in action research (Lonergan as cited in Coghlan, 2008) in which I am required to pay attention to
observable data, envision possible explanations of that data, and prefer as probably or certain the explanations which provide the best account for the data. This is further supported by being attentive, intelligent, reasonable, and responsible; explained as authenticity by Coghlan (2008 as cited in Coghlan, 2019).
Journal-keeping is an important mechanism for developing first-person skills. A learning journal helps the researcher deepen the quality of his or her learning. A journal seeks to capture how the researcher tries to: be attentive to what is going on around him or her, be intelligent in his or her understanding, be reasonable in his or her judgments, and responsible in his or her
actions; following the general empirical method (Coghlan, 2019). I have utilized Shein’s (1999, 2013 as cited in Coghlan, 2019) ORJI model (Observation, Reaction, Judgment, Intervention) to reflect on my observations and assumptions. I, likewise, subscribed to the ladder of inference.
The ladder of inference plots how meaning and assumptions are attributed to selected observable data and experiences, and conclusions and beliefs are adopted on which actions are based
(Argyris et al., 1985; Ross, 1994 as cited in Coghlan, 2019). Moreover, for my reflections, I observed meta-learning in which Mezirow identifies three forms of reflection: content, process, and premise (Mezirow, 1991 as cited in Coghlan, 2019). Specifically, as to how the following are defined: “the content of what is framed, planned, acted on and evaluated is studied and assessed. The process of how constructing is undertaken, how action planning flows from that constructing and is conducted, how actions follow and are an implementation of the stated plans, and how evaluation is conducted, are critical foci for inquiry. Premise reflection is an inquiry into the unstated and often non-conscious, underlying assumptions which govern attitudes and behavior, such as that which might be embedded in language” (p.13). Also, there is Argyris’
technique of right-hand/left-hand column which provides a useful technique to uncover my own privately held inferences and attributions in second-person practice.
Second-Person Inquiry
As Coghlan (2019) expresses, second-person practice addresses the researcher’s engagement in collaborative work in co-inquiry and shared action with others on issues of mutual concern, through face-to-face dialogue, conversation, and joint action. As described by Schein (1999, 2009, 2013 as cited in Coghlan, 2019), there is the first category of pure inquiry.
Pure inquiry refers to an inquiry into the experience of others by listening carefully to their account of their experience of the issues at hand and elicit and explore their stories of what is
taking place. The second type of inquiry is diagnostic inquiry in which one begins to elicit his or her understanding and judgments by exploring reasoning and actions. Lastly, Schein’s third type of inquiry is confrontive inquiry which involves sharing one’s own ideas wherein he or she challenges the other to think from a new perspective. My second-person inquiry is further supported by Fisher et al. (2000) and Torbert (Torbert and Associates, 2004; Efran and Torbert, 2015) Four Parts of Speech as summarized by Coghlan (2019) to be framing, advocating, illustrating, and inquiring. In further consideration, I put into practice Kurt Lewin’s force field analysis. As described by Coghlan (2019) “it is the most useful tool to use for assessing and constructing interventions with respect to organizational political forces” (p.107). It presents forces driving change and forces restraining change and is based on the assumptions that these forces are present. The focus is on reducing restraining forces instead of increasing driving forces; indicated to be more effective. I have also taken into consideration the hypothesis testing (Argyris et al., 1985) described to be part of the learning outcome from action science methods in which I may begin to see what I often accept as fact is an inference and in here, followed the seven rules for hypothesis testing.
Third-Person Inquiry
Third-person inquiry or practice aims at creating communities of inquiry, involving people beyond the direct second-person action. The third person is impersonal and is actualized through dissemination by reporting, publishing, and extrapolating from the concrete to general (Coghlan, 2019). Through the completion of the action research, I have worked through different marketing frameworks and presented related literature, journal articles, and textbooks to provide supported, validated, and founded information in my first and second-person inquiries. The third
person practice promotes the researcher’s contribution to the academe and the society which I aim to provide through the relevance of my project and extrapolation.
Change Management Strategy
Understanding the planned change model has helped us in considering the approach in the action research project. “The planned change approach is based on a “from-to” process, that is, the change involves moving from one situation to another and such a movement involves those who are affected by it…The framework has four phases: determining the need for change, defining the future state, assessing the present in terms of the future to determine the work to be done, and managing the transition” (Coghlan, 2019, p.126).
Figure 8
The Process of Change (Coghlan, 2019)
The planned change approach involves continuous interaction between constructing, planning, action, and review to move a change through a system (Coghlan, 2019).
Role Duality
As a researcher, founder, and someone who has to wear different hats in the business, I am aware of the challenges that I have to face. Building on these challenges, as Nyman et al (2016:229 as cited in Coghlan, 2019) indicates: “To be a change agent and a colleague and a researcher risks role duality or role conflict. It was required by VN to reflexively and actively try to maintain credibility in the eyes of colleagues, both to achieve the planned change in itself and to be able to continue the research study” (p.82). The table below (Coghlan, 2019) outlines the essential tasks and skills required to work with the challenges of role duality:
Table 3
Role Duality in First-, Second-, and Third-person Practice (Coghlan, 2019, p.84)
Task Process
First- person
Holding and valuing both sets of roles simultaneously Catching internal responses to conflicting demands and dealing with them
Second- person
Holding and managing demands of both roles, particularly in situations of conflicting role demands
Role negotiation with significant others
Third- person
Developing practical knowledge of how dual roles impact on action research and contribute to insider action research role identity theory
Linking experience of role duality with theory
Organizational Politics and Ethical Considerations
Based on Coghlan’s (2019) examination of the ethics and politics of doing action research, I subscribed to the following tasks and processes. Through these and with my first- person inquiries, I sought to enact the general empirical method by being attentive to my experience, intelligent in my understanding, rational in my judgment, and responsible in my actions. The tasks and processes are further summarized in the table below:
Table 4
Ethics and Politics in First-, Second-, Third-person Practice (Coghlan, 2019, p.92)
Task Process
First- person
Learning to act politically in a mode within the ethics of action research
Acting politically and authentically
Second- person
Surviving and thriving in the political dynamics of an organization Performing and backstaging
Third- person
Articulating knowledge our of action that is actionable politically;
contributing knowledge of what organizations are really like
Linking political experience with theory
Lastly, in ensuring quality in my action research project, I adhered to Coghlan and
Shani’s (2014, 2018) discussion of quality in terms of context, quality of relationships, quality of the action research process itself, and outcomes.
