System Dynamics and Action Research
Presentation by
Hans J. (Jochen) Scholl
Center for Technology in Government
University at Albany
December 6, 2001
This ribbon art
was created by
Alan Cohen
Purpose
 Why might Action Research be relevant to the SD
field?
 How can modelers benefit from this methodology?
 Should we and, if yes, how can we incorporate
Action Research into our research approach?
 Can Action Researchers use SD to their benefits?
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Action Research (Introduction)
 Traditional Research
 Emphases and Limitations of Traditional Research
 Historical Roots of Action Research (AR)
 Methodological Principles of AR
 Promises and Limitations of AR
 Summary
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Traditional Research
 Main Characteristics
Orientation on
Reduction
• Problem Definition and Assumptions,
• Piecemeal Analysis (Descartes), and
• Minimum Explanation (Ockham’s Razor)
Objects and Treatments (Complete Control)
Quantification and Measurement
Cause-and-effect Hypotheses (Mostly Few Variables)
Researcher Independence and Impartiality
Repeatability
Generalization
Developed by and modeled after the Natural Sciences
The notion of a “hierarchy” of physics–chemistry-biologypsychology–social sciences)
Mostly Positivist Positions
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Emphases (Limitations) of Traditional Research
 Focus on few variables
 Orientation towards clear-cut linear causal
relationships–difficulty of dealing with ambiguous
causal relationships (for example, as in complex
systems)
 Focus on hard (mostly numerical) data - difficulty of
dealing with soft variables
 Research situation designed to fit literature
 Literature review antecedes study
 Sequential research design
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Emphases of Action Research
 Focus on any number of variables
 Fuzziness of causal (inter)relationships
 Focus on soft data, verbal and non-verbal information
 Research situation designed to increase scientific
knowledge by solving a problem
 Literature review accompanies study
 Circular (iterative) research design
 Theoretical framework emerges
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Historical Roots of Action Research
 Education
Science in Education movement (1890s)
Experimentalists (for example, J. Dewey)
Reconstructionist Curriculum Development
Teacher-researcher movement
 Psychology
Group dynamics movement (K. Lewin)
MIT
Tavistock Institute
 Medicine
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Methodological Principles of AR (1)
 True to label, that is, “action” and “research”
 Developing scientific understanding and theory as a part of
practice, particularly, when
 theoretical foundations are weak,
 causal relationships are fuzzy or controversial, and
 the “problem” is irreducible and irrepeatable
 Alternation between action and critical reflection
 Action is aimed at informing and improving the
understanding about action by iteratively
(1) considering the results of action {reflection} and
(2) understanding the meaning of the action {contemplation}
 Collaboration of researcher and practitioner
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Methodological Principles of AR (2)
 Researcher as co-subject and intervener
 Geared at solving practical problems (mostly within social
settings)
 Iterative research
 Orientation on disconfirmation of findings in subsequent
cycles
 Tension between action and research
 AR as a social process
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
The Action Research Cycle
Diagnosis
Specifying
Learning
Client
Structure
Evaluating
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action
Planning
Action
Taking
Action Research - An Overview
Action Research vs. Consulting
Act i o n Re s ea rc h
Mo tiv a t i o n
Con s u l t ing
Co mme rcia l int ere st
Com m i t m en t
Advan cing sci e n t if ic
und er standing
Acad em ic co mm unity
Fo un d a t i o n of
Re com m e nda t i o n
Th e o r et ical
f r a me wo rk
Ju st i f i c a t i o n
Th e o r et ical
Solu t ion -o r ie n t ed b a s e d
on p re vi o us e xte rnal
e xp er ie nc e
Em pi r ical
Ap p r oa c h
Cyc lic, i te ra t iv e ,
c o llabo r ati ve
Ess en ce o f
Ch ang e
I te ra t iv e (Se lf -)
Exp e r ime nt
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Cli e nt
Se qu e ntia l
(e ngag e -a n aly ze -a cti o ndis e ngag e)
I m p o s e d, ind e p e nd e n t
bas e d o n e xt er nal analy s is
Action Research - An Overview
Flavors of Action Research
 Technical Action Research
 Practical-deliberative Action Research
 Participatory-emancipatory Action Research
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
The Positivist View (1)
 First formulated by French social scientist Auguste
Comte in the 19th century
 Distinction between
Positive Science
Grounded in empirically verifiable research
Repeatability
Principle of vailidity
Metaphysics
Beliefs, hunches, emotions, intuitions, superstitions, etc.
Religion
 Rejection of metaphysics and religion as part of
positive science
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
The Positivist View (2)
Observer
Creating a representation of The World as “the World really is”
as the body of scientific knowledge based on and verified by
empirical inquiry
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
A Post-Positivist View
Bringing forth A world
Observer
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Taxonomy of AR (1)
Type of AR
Type of knowing
Epistemological
underpinnings
Philosophy of
science
Proponents
Technical Action
Research
Knowing-how (techme)
Single, discoverable, &
measurable reality;
knower & known are
separate
Positivist - natural
sciences as model
Lewin
PracticalKnowing-that
deliberative Action (episteme)
Research
Multiple, socially
constructed realities;
knower and known
intertwined
Interpretivist Hermeneutics/
History as models
Argyris & Schön,
Kemmis,
McTaggert, Grundy
Participatoryemancipatory
Action Research
Multiple, socially
constructed realities
based on vested interests
and unequity; knowe &
known intertwined,
societally condiitioned
Ethics-oriented Critical Theory as
model
Habermas
Knowing-why
(phronesis)
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Taxonomy of AR (2)
Type of AR
Mode of
operation
Role of researcher
in the AR study
Research in
Interaction
relation to the
with
researcher's
practitioners
belief and value
system seen
as
Expected
stickiness of
change
brought
about by AR
project
Technical Action
Research
Collaborative
Expert/authority
Independent on
research
hierarchical
low
PracticalMutual-collaborative
deliberative Action
Research
Expert/facilitator
Value bounded
inclusive
medium to long
Participatoryemancipatory
Action Research
Participant
Value oriented
(equity)
equal/egalitarian
long, permanent
Mutualcollaborative/equalfooted
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Taxonomy of AR (3)
T ype of AR
Research
Objective
Research Design
Orientation
Resulting
knowledge
Technical Action
Research
Problem solving and
aimed at
generalizability of
results
Formulated in advance
and maintained
Deductiive / theorytesting
Prescriptive
(uncovering
causes and their
effects)
PracticalIncreased
deliberative Action understanding of both
Research
problem at hand and
participants' mental
models involved
Formulated in advance,
but modifiable as new
insights emerge
Inductive,
exploratory, theorybuilding
Descriptive
(intertwined causes
and effects)
Participatoryemancipatory
Action Research
Modified as necessary
Inductive &
deductive, theorybuilding and
revising
Prescriptive &
descriptive
Enhancement &
conscious change
towards increased
equity
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Limitations of Action Research









Usually no causal explanations are provided
Predominantly qualitative data
Less precise problem definitions than in traditional research
Limited or even no impartiality on behalf of the researcher
Reduced control over the research process
Client/practitioner-need driven research process
Non-standardized research process
No reduction, no or little generalization
Situational
 Few standards or generally agreed criteria
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Does AR Incorporate Scientific Rigor?
 Depends on the definition of both science and rigor
 Science as iterative pursuit of understanding
 Rigor as systematic research on the basis of
skepticism and empiricism
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Names to Know in AR









Kurt Lewin
Chris Argyris, Donald Schön
Peter Checkland
Jürgen Habermas
Stephen Kemmis, Wilfried Carr, Bob Dick, Robin Mc Taggert,
Shirley Grundy
Edgar Schein, G. & R. Lippit
G. Susman & R. Evered, R. Rapoport
William Whyte
Richard Baskerville, D.E. Avison, Trevor Wood-Harper, Robert
Zmud, Michael Myers
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
AR– Substitute for or Complement to Other
Scientific Methods? (Summary)
 Method of choice when
other methods do not produce “relevance”
the problem is “fuzzy”
no theory or only highly controversial theories exist
 AR readily complements other research designs
 AR can also be accompanied by a meta-project
(studying the process by non-participant observers)
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Any Questions so far?
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
The SD Cycle
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
An Initiative at CTG
 A full day AR workshop (schedule: Tuesday, January 29, 2002)
open to all CTG staff and guests
 Assigned readings to teams of two to three
 Each team prepares a 25 to 35-minute presentation of the
reading itself as well as a practical method "tool" derived from it
 Holding the workshop on Jan 29, 2002, giving the
presentations, and discussing how the tools fit together
 Converging all presentations and tools into a CTG AR toolkit
 Making the CTG AR toolkit available on the web
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Questions
 How does AR relate to SD?
 How might we use AR?
 Where can AR benefit from us, vice versa?
 What are practical examples of integration?
 Any other comment or idea?
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
List of Suggested Readings
(grouped by topical orientation) - to be jointly prepared by teams of (at least) two...
(a) The Classics: Blum (1955), Sussman (1983), Sussman & Evered (1978), Rapoport
(1970), Hult & Lenning (1980).
(b) The Consultants: E.H. Schein (1969 & 1987), Lippit & Lippit (1978), Kubr (1986)
(c) The Action Learning/OL & ODC People: Argyris, Putnam, & Smith (1985), Argyris &
Schön (1991), Schön (1983)
(d) The Australian Educators: Kemmis (1991), Kemmis & Mc Taggart (1988), Grundy
(1987), Carr & Kemmis (1986), McKernan (1991)
(e) The Psychologists: Lewin (1947 & 1951)
(f) The System Thinkers: Checkland (1985, 1991), Checkland & Scholes (1990)
(g) The IS Researchers: Baskerville, Myers, Zmud, Jarvenpaa et al, Jønsson)
(h) The Methodologists: Grundy (1982), Morgan (1983), Whyte (1991a & b)
(i) The Philosophers: Positivism, Post-Positivism, Phenomenology, & Constructivism
(underpinnings in terms of the Philosophy of Science)
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview
Presentation Template
 Papers reviewed
 Key ideas
 Methodological framework & idiosyncrasies
 Areas of application
 Cases (if appropriate)
 Elements of a tool
 Summary
Hans J Scholl, CTG/U Albany, December 2001
Action Research - An Overview