Knowing by doing: Action research as an approach to HCI

Ways of Knowing in HCI

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 49-68

  Hayes, Gillian R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACTION RESEARCH; NUMBER OF METHODS;

EID: 84955564491     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_3     Document Type: Chapter

References (36)

1. Allen, M., & Foth, M. (2011). Research in action for community informatics: A matter of conversation. TheJournalofCommunitylnformatics. 7(3).
2. Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (1999). Grounded action research: A method for understanding IT in practice. Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 9, 1-23.
3. Blackman, L., Hayes, R. L., Reeves, P., & Paisley, P. (2002). Building a bridge: Counselor educator- school counselor collaboration. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 243-255.
4. Braten, S. (1973). Model monopoly and communication: Systems theoretical notes on democratization. Acta Sociologica, 16(2), 98-107.
5. Carroll, J. M., Horning, M. A., Hoffman, B., Ganoe, C. H., Robinson, H. R., & Rosson, M. B. (2011). Visions, participation and engagement in new community information infrastructures. The Journal of Community Informatics. 7(3).
6. Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Dewey, J. (1976). Essays on logical theory. 1902-1903. In A. Boydston (Ed.), Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
8. Dewey J. (1991/1927). Thepublic and itsproblems. Athens: Ohio University Press.
9. Foth, M., & Axup, J. (2006). Participatory design and action research: Identical twins or synergetic pair? In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (pp. 93-96).
10. Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (Eds.). (1992). Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Assoc. Inc.
11. Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research 2e. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Grundy, S. (1988). Three modes of action research. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggert (Eds.), The action research reader (3rd ed.). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
13. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Judging the quality of fourth generation evaluation. In E. G. Guba & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Fourth generation evaluation (pp. 228-251). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14. Hayes, R. L., Paisley, P. O., Phelps, R. E., Pearson, G., & Salter, R. (1997). Integrating theory and practice: Counselor educator - school counselor collaborative. Professional School Counseling, 1, 9-12.
15. James, W. (1948). Essays inpragmatism. New York: Hafner.
16. Kock, N. (1998). Can communication medium limitations foster better group outcomes? An action research study. Information and Management, 34(5), 295-305.
17. Kohli, R., & Kettinger, W. J. (2004). Informating the clan: Controlling physicians costs and outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 363-394.
18. Lassiter, L. E. (2005). Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
20. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper.
21. Light, A., Egglestone, P., Wakeford, T., & Rogers, J. (2011). Participant making: Bridging the gulf between community knowledge and academic research. The Journal of Community Informatics. 7(3).
22. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23. Masters, J. (1995). The history of action research. In I. Hughes (Ed.), Action research electronic reader The University of Sydney, Retrieved from March 3, 2012, from http://www.behs.cchs. usyd.edu.au/arow/Reader/rmasters.htm.
24. McCutcheon, G., & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory into Practice 24(3): Summer.
25. McKernan, J. (1991). Curriculum action research. A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. London: Kogan Page.
26. Muller, M. J. (2007). Participatory design: The third space in HCI (revised). In J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), Mahway, NJ, USA: Erlbaum.
27. Paisley, P. O., Bailey, D. F., Hayes, R. L., McMahon, H. G., & Grimmett, M. A. (2010). Using a cohort model for school counselor preparation to enhance commitment to social justice. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 35(3), 262-270.
28. A. A. Singh & C. F. Salazar (Eds.), Social justice in group work: Practical interventions for change. London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
29. Paisley, P. O., Hayes, R. L., & Bailey, D. F. (1999). School counselor practice and preparation: A local partnership for change. Georgia School Counselors Association Journal, 1(6), 52-57.
30. Palen, L. (2010). Better ODDS than “Snowballs in Hell?” - or - What might action research do for HCI?. Presented at Human-Computer Interaction Consortium. Fraser, CO, USA, Retrieved February 27, 2010.
31. Rapoport, R. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research. Stronger Families Learning Exchange Bulletin, 23(6), 499-513.
32. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflectivepractitioner: Howprofessionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
33. Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Smith, D. E. (1989). Sociological theory: Methods of writing patriarchy. In R. A. Wallace (Ed.), Feminism and sociological theory (pp. 34-64). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35. Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 55-65.
36. Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.