Validating Action Research Field Studies: PEArL

Systemic Practice and Action Research

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 21-36

  Champion, Donna ^a   Stowell, Frank A ^b  

^a LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Action Research; Authenticity; Validation

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037241981     PISSN: 1094429X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021928511690     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Audi, R. (1998). Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, Routledge, London.
2. Avison, D. E., Wood-Harper, A. T., Vidgen, R. T., and Wood, J. R. G. (1998). A further exploration into information systems development: The evolution of Multiview2. Inform. Technol. People 11(2), 124-139.
3. Avison, D., Baskerville, R., and Myers, M. (2001). Controlling action research projects. Inform. Technol. People 14(1), 28-45.
4. Bargal, D., Gold, M., and Lewin, M. (1992). Introduction: The heritage of Kurt Lewin. J. Soc. Issues 48(2), 3-13.
5. Baskerville, R. L., and Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996). A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. J. Inform. Technol. 11, 235-246.
6. Baskerville, R. L., and Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998). Diversity in information systems action research methods. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 7, 90-107.
7. Beyer, H., and Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.
8. Bødker, S. (1996). Creating conditions for participation: Conflicts and resources in systems development. Hum. Comput. Interact. 11, 215-236.
9. Boland, R. J. (1985). Phenomenology: A preferred approach to research on information systems. In Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R. A., Fitzgerald, G., and Wood-Harper, A. T. (eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 193-201.
10. Borda, O. (2000). Participatory (action) research in social theory: Origins and challenges. In Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage, London, pp. 27-37.
11. Breu, K., and Peppard, J. (1999). Legitimising action research: The participatory paradigm. In BIT 99, Manchester Metropolitan University, 3-4 Nov., ISDN No. 0 905304 30 6.
12. Burchfield, R. W. (1998). The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
13. Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Heinemann Educational, London.
14. Champion, D. (2000). A report on an action research field study. Systemist 22(1), 60-85.
15. Champion, D. (2001). Navigating the Gap Between Purposeful Action and a Serving Information System, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Information Systems and Computer Sciences, De Montfort University, Milton Keynes, UK.
16. Champion, D., and Stowell, F. A. (2001). PEArL: A systems approach to demonstrating authenticity in information system design. J. Inform. Technol. 16, 3-12.
17. Champion, D., and Stowell, F. A. (2002). Navigating the gap between action and a serving information system. Inform. Syst. Frontiers 4(3), 273-285.
18. Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley, Chichester.
19. Checkland, P. B. (1983). O.R. and the systems movement: Mappings and conflicts. J. Operat. Res. 34(8), 661-675.
20. Checkland, P. B. (1985). From optimizing to learning: A development of systems thinking for the 1990's. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 36(9), 757-767.
21. Checkland, P. B., and Holwell, S. E. (1998). Action research: Its nature and validity, Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 11, 9-21.
22. Checkland, P. B., and Scholes, J. (1999). Soft Systems Methodology in Action with a 30 Years Retrospective on SSM, John Wiley, Chichester.
23. Clarke, S., and Lehany, B. (1999). Organisational intervention and the problems of coercion. Systemist 21, 40-52.
24. Dash, D. P. (1999). Current debates in action research. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 12, 457-492.
25. de Zeeuw, G. (1995). Values, science and the quest for demarcation. Syst. Res. 12(1), 15-24.
26. Dunning-Lewis, P. J. (1999). Issues in the conduct of research through intervention in real-world affairs. In Castell, A. M., Gregory, A. J., Hindle, G. A., James, M. E., and Ragsdell, G. (eds.), Synergy Matters: Working with Systems in the 21st Century, Plenum, New York, pp. 175-180.
27. Eden, C., and Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for the study of organizations. In Clegg, S., Hardy, C. and Nord, W. (eds.), The Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 526-542.
28. Elden, M., and Chisholm, R. F. (1993). Emerging varieties of action research: Introduction to the Special Issue. Hum. Relat. 46(2), 121-142.
29. Elliot, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK.
30. Gadamer, H. G. (1989). Truth and Method, 2nd ed. (translated by J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall), Sheed and Ward, London.
31. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time (translated by J. Macquerrie and E. Robinson), Harper and Row, New York.
32. Heron, J., and Reason, P. (2000). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research 'with' rather than 'on' people. In Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage, London, pp. 179-188.
33. Kensing, F., and Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 1, 167-185.
34. Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q. 23(1), 67-94.
35. Maturana, H. R. (1978). Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In Miller, G. A., and Lenneberg, E. (eds.), Psychology and Biology of Language and Thought: Essays in Honour of Eric Lenneberg, Academic Press, New York, pp. 27-64.
36. Mumford, E. (1995). Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis: The ETHICS Approach, Macmillan, London.
37. OED (1998). The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Pearsall, J. (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
38. Park, P. (2000). Knowledge and participatory research. In Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage, London, pp. 81-90.
39. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London.
40. Reason, P. (1993). Sitting between appreciation and disappointment: A critique of the Special Edition of Human Relations on action research. Hum. Relat. 46(11) 1253-1270.
41. Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.) (2000). Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage, London.
42. Reason, P., and Rowan, J. (eds.) (1981). Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research, Wiley, Chichester.
43. Sartre, J. P. (1966). Being and Nothingness, Washington Press, New York.
44. Spaul, M. (1997). Discipline and critique: The case of information systems. In Mingers, J., and Stowell, F. A., (eds.), Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline? McGraw-Hill, London, pp. 63-95.
45. Stowell, F. A. (1989). Change, Organizational Power and the Metaphor: Commodity, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Systems, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK.
46. Stowell, F. A. (2000). Modelling information system requirements for complex systems. In Bustard, D. W., Kawalek, P., and Norris, M. T. (eds.), Systems Modelling for Business Process Improvement, Artech, London, pp. 171-186.
47. Stowell, F. A., and Champion, D. (2000). Interpretivist modelling for information systems definition. In Henderson, P. (ed.), Systems Engineering for Business Process Change, Springer, London, pp. 106-116.
48. Stowell, F. A., and Champion, D. (2002). A unified mechanism for information system definition in action. In Henderson, P. (ed.), Systems Engineering for Business Process Change: New Directions, Springer, London, pp. 138-149.
49. Stowell, F. A., and West, D. (1994). Client-Led Design: A Systemic Approach to Information Systems Definition, McGraw-Hill, London.
50. Stowell, F. A., West, D., and Stansfield, M. (1997). Action research as a framework for IS research. In Mingers, J., and Stowell, F. A. (eds.), Information Systems: An Emerging Disciplined? McGraw-Hill, London, pp. 159-200.
51. Susman, G. I., and Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Admin. Sci. Q. 23(4), 582-603.
52. Tsoukas, H. (1993). Analogical reasoning and knowledge generation in organization theory. Organiz. Stud. 14(3), 323-346.
53. Weber, M. (1949). The Methodology of the Social Sciences, Free Press, New York.
54. West, D. (1995). The appreciative inquiry method: A systemic approach to information systems requirements analysis. In Stowell, F. A. (ed.), Information Systems Provision: The Contribution of Soft Systems Methodology, McGraw-Hill, London, pp. 140-158.
55. Whyte, W. F. (ed.) (1991). Participatory Action Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
56. Winograd, T., and Flores, F. (1987). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
57. Zmud, R. W. (1998). Conducting and publishing practice-driven research. In Proceedings of International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) Working Groups 8.2 and 8.6 Joint Working Conference on Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes, Helsinki, Finland, 10-13 Dec., pp. 21-34.