22
The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27 th November 2014

The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research

Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

NEON, 25th-27th November 2014

Page 2: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

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

Page 3: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

Action research fundamental #1: Researcher-Client Agreement (RCA)

Without agreement the action research project can easily become a whistleblower project

Page 4: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

But getting an agreement can be hard

Can we establish an RCA with management for researching how to improve labour conditions through workplace democracy?

Page 5: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

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)

Page 6: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

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

Page 8: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated through the 2009 world championships

Client industry

Research community

Action researcher

Page 9: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

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

Page 10: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

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

Page 11: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated through the 2009 world championships

Action researcher submits grant application.

Page 12: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

The RCA Monopoly at NTAX illustrated through the 2009 world championships

Action researcher believes he is going to be Monopoly champion.

Page 13: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

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.

Page 14: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

Why did it go wrong?

Wrong diagnosis, wrong treatment

Wrong diagnosis, right treatment

Right diagnosis, wrong treatment

Right diagnosis, Right treatment

Page 15: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

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

Page 16: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

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

Page 17: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

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

Page 18: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

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 ?

Page 19: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

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.

Page 20: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

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

Page 21: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

Contribution to CAR theory

How to establish an RCA should be a formal research question in CAR studies.

Page 22: The principle of researcher-client agreement in canonical action research Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NEON, 25 th -27

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