Action research as a strategy was approached per Greenwood (2007, p. 131), who argues that action research is neither a single technique nor a method but a strategy for living in the world that uses multiple methods and techniques. Greenwood (2007, p. 147) summarises action research as “a commitment to living in the world as it is in hopes of helping to make it somewhat better in the future.” Accordingly, Greenwood (2007) applies action research pragmatically as a research strategy and terms it pragmatic action research following Dewey’s pragmatism. Pragmatic action research emphasises reflection and the pragmatic application of methods and techniques in a manner that supports the tangible needs of people and circumstances (Greenwood, 2007, p. 131). Nevertheless, action research does not have one distinct and definitive form but is an ongoing cycle of knowledge creation cogenerated through combinations of action and research, reflection and action (Greenwood, 2007).
106 According to Greenwood (2007), accepting action research as a method is axiologically limiting as it reduces the ability of action research to bring about “democratic, just, fair, and/or sustainable human situations” (Greenwood, 2007, p. 133). Greenwood considers all theories, methods, or techniques valid for action research providing they are pragmatically valid. This resonates with Susman and Evered (1978), who observe a range of philosophical viewpoints that legitimise action research where each viewpoint provides suitable methods and techniques. Although this fits the pragmatist stance, it highlights its practice-based nature and potential for limiting knowledge generation beyond the research context.
However, the use of action research has been contentious in information systems research due to a lack of methodological rigour (Davison et al., 2004). Davison et al. (2004) propose canonical action research to overcome this criticism and limit the confusion of academic research with consulting practice. Davison et al. (2004, p. 69) propose five principles for action research: the principle of the researcher–client agreement; the principle of the cyclical process model; the principle of theory; the principle of change through action; and the principle of learning through reflection. While each principle is necessary, this study's interest is in the fifth principle, learning through reflection. The researcher-client agreement positions research and ensures validity, and the cyclical process model provide reliability for the research process. Theory is important for academia and practical use in the future, while change through action is essential for a practical outcome. Principle five, learning through reflection, is pivotal as reflection holds the potential to act as a mediator between action and research (Levin & Martin, 2007). Consequently, action research can be used to mediate the struggle between action and research (Davison et al., 2004). This is reminiscent of Peirce’s thirdness (Peirce, 1905). Individually, action and research represent the firstness of qualities that hold potential but have no substance. The often awkward relationship between action and research represents a struggle between the quality (research) and existential facts (action). According to Peirce (1905), this necessitates a mediator to provide cognitive generalisation or general principles towards the future.
Action Research and the Cyclical-Process Model
In the 1940s, Kurt Lewin introduced action research to produce theory while modifying the social system. Lewin’s concepts originated from a critical social perspective during the latter parts of World War II. Lewin conceived of a spiral of planning, action, and evaluation to
107 improve a specific situation that produces a theory useful in similar situations (Susman &
Evered, 1978). Lewin makes specific reference to action, research and training as “a triangle that should be kept together for the sake of any of the corners” (Lewin in Susman & Evered, 1978, p. 588) and thus exhibits a Peircean triad.
Susman and Evered (1978, p. 588) promote a five-phase cyclical process model of diagnosing, action planning, action taking, evaluating and specifying learning. In its simplest form, action research is a cycle of look, think and act, sometimes stated as plan, act, observe and reflect (Dick et al., 2009). Heeks et al. (2019) propose a four-phase applied pragmatist-critical-realist action research methodology cycling through planning, acting, observing and reflecting.
Planning comprises four steps: clarify the problem; identify the purpose of an intervention;
propose mechanisms for the intervention, and design the intervention and methods. These steps correlate to the approach of Susman and Evered (1978). Clarify and identify the problem equates to diagnosis, where the potential generative mechanisms are added to the traditional action research cycle and include retroduction. The term intervention is preferred over taking action by Davison et al. (2004), who also use reflection instead of specifying learning. Design an intervention equates to action planning, acting equates to intervention and observing to evaluation. Reflecting is the equivalent of the specifying learning step of Susman and Evered's (1978). Reflection is central to action research and this study, although, for Heeks et al. (2019), reflecting is active and indicates reflexivity.
The action planning phase of the cyclical-process model resembles the critical-realist retroductive approach, which Dick et al. (2009) describe as hovering “uncertainly and eclectically somewhere between a Rortian pragmatism and critical realism” (p.8). Dick (2003) poses questions in the action planning phase that resonate with the retroductive approach.
Dick (2003) asks what salient issues exist and why they are significant. Assuming that the identified issues are valid, what would the desired outcome be and why, and what actions could bring about this outcome and why? This resonates with the retroductive approach in asking what mechanisms exist in the actual domain that could generate events in the empirical domain (Heeks et al., 2019). Critical realism digs deeper to identify the potential mechanisms' ontology and how the mechanisms may impact the broader society in the research context (Johnson & Duberley, 2000). The iterative retroductive process (Bygstad et
108 al., 2016; Fletcher, 2017) can be considered reflexive. Reflexivity is evident in the reflecting step of Heeks et al. (2019) when evaluating outcomes against emancipatory purposes. This form of reflexivity fosters praxis which combines practice and theory (Dick et al., 2009).
Susman and Evered (1978) take a narrower view of praxis when separating practice from theory and techne. They trace praxis back to the Aristotlean meaning, which refers to acting in a manner that brings about change in conditions and includes changes in the person bringing about the change.
The action research approach shown in Figure 4.1 was inspired by Davison et al. (2012). Steps one through four indicate the iterative action research cycle from project start to project end.
Central to the diagram is the theoretical components which are linked to steps one, two and four. A dotted line between the focal and instrumental theories boxes indicate that the theories can influence one another.
Figure 4.1. Enhanced cyclical pragmatist-critical realism action research model. (Adapted from Davison et al. (2012)).