Action Research into Participative IS
Development
© Peter A. Nielsen
Dept. of Computer Science
Aalborg University
http://www.cs.auc.dk/~pan
Abstract
The paper analyses the similarities and differences between action research
approaches to participation in IS development. This is done using a simple
framework and applying it to four representative examples of action research where
participation plays a role in the outcome of the effort: ETHICS, SSM, Multiview,
and CRA. It is common to assume that because of the collaborative nature of action
research it follows that the research results in experiences, approaches and
methodologies with a strong element of participation. The analysis shows that this
assumption does not hold in general. The analysis identifies two distinctions
between action research approaches to participation: The first distinction highlights
whether the participative element is inherent in the research results or it has emerged
through the research. The second distinction focuses on whether the purpose of the
resulting approach is construction of an IS or it is learning relevant to IS
development.
1. Introduction
The paper analyses four well-known action research efforts all leading to
experiences, approaches and methodologies to IS development in which
participation plays an important role. All four efforts are based on the same
research paradigm and they are focused on the same research issue, but they
exhibit significantly different characteristics. The analysis will explore the
questions:
• What are the distinguishing features of each of the action research efforts?
• How does the applied action research approach affect the results, i.e. the
kind of knowledge and experience that is developed about participation in
IS development?
• How is the research issue, i.e. participation in IS development, reflected in
the specific research approach?
1

Participatory Design and Action Research
The analysis identifies four distinct classes of participative approaches stemming
from action research. Along the one dimension the participative approach is either
inherent or emergent. Along the other dimension of purpose of the participative
approach is either construction of an IS or learning relevant to IS development.
These dimensions are explained further in Section 2.
At the IFIP WG 8.2 conference in Manchester in 1984 action research came up
for one of the first times to be mentioned as an important approach not only to do
social or organisational studies but also to do information systems research.
Wood-Harper (1985) goes through the experience of applying action research in
the development of the Multiview methodology for information systems
definition. Antill (1985) explains some of the frustration and planning of an action
research project. At the IFIP WG 8.2 conference in Copenhagen in 1990 action
research played a role on more equal terms with other research approaches in
information systems. Jönsson (1991) reports from two cases of applying action
research with information systems research and Checkland (1991) acting as the
official opponent criticises the way action research was practised by Jönsson and
his colleagues. Besides that action research approaches are often mentioned
briefly in articles of concerned with interpretivistic or critical research
approaches, e.g. (Olaisen 1991, Ngwenyama 1991).
At the same conference Keen (1991) argued that in information systems
research the question of relevance is primary to that of rigour, and even that “until
relevance is established, rigour is irrelevant” (Keen 1991, p. 27). Action research
is by many rightly seen as a main information systems research approach exactly
to establish relevance. Baskerville (1985), among others, has found that action
research is indeed an appropriate approach to information systems research, yet
very little research that is published is based on action research. According to
Baskerville less than one percent of major published information systems research
in the US is action research (Baskerville 1995, p. 2). It seems as if there is little
understanding of what action research is.
In searching to answer that question one can consult sources from outside
information systems research like (Blum 1955, Clark 1972, Foster 1972, Holt &
Lennung 1980, Rapoport 1970, Susman & Evered 1978) and to some extent
(Warmington 1980) though his perspective is that of systems analysis. This may
indeed provide some insight into the general action research approach as it is
applied in social and organisational studies. It is, however, a basic idea of this
paper that we should instead look carefully at action research in our own field,
information systems research, if we want to understand the role of action research
and the possible affect it may have on IS development.
2

Participatory Design and Action Research
In the information systems literature action research is often mentioned in
taxonomies and classifications. There the focus is on comparing different research
approaches and establishing the relationships between them and not on the
specifics of action research, e.g., (Galliers & Land 1987, Galliers 1991) and in the
underlying assumptions in (Galliers 1992). Or action research is mentioned in
general discussions of its applicability and appropriateness to information systems
research, e.g., (Baskerville 1995, Baskerville & Wood-Harper 1996a, 1996b).
It is very easy to form a simple and superficial opinion about the relationship
between participation in IS development and action research. Already back in
1985 Galliers characterised action research in the following way:
• “Key feature: Applied research where there is an attempt to obtain practical
results of value to groups with whom the researcher has allied him/herself
while at the same time adding to the body of theoretical knowledge.
• Strengths: Practical as well as theoretical research aimed for the most part at
emancipatory results.
• Weaknesses: This approach places a great deal of responsibility on the
researcher who must be aware that in certain circumstances (s)he is aligned
him/herself with a particular grouping whose objectives may well be at
variance with other groupings. The ethics of the research must therefore be
an issue of paramount importance: i.e. potential weakness in the wrong
hands.” (Galliers 1985, present author’s italic)
While it is indeed a strength of much action research that it aims at emancipatory
results, this is not always—as we shall see—the case for all action research.
Emancipatory and participatory design does not automatically follow from action
research approaches. It is the assumption of this paper that if we want to go
behind the surface characteristics we must examine concrete action research
projects to find out how participation in IS development and action research relate
specifically in these projects. From that we may then gain more general insight
into what action research is and, most importantly, what the action research
planner must be aware of in designing an action research project.
Section 2 presents a simple framework to structure the analysis. The analysis
of the action research efforts is done in Section 3. In the end of the section the
attention is drawn to the similarities of differences between the action research
guiding the research efforts in the four examples and between what has been
achieved by these four efforts. In Section 4 two important distinction are
identified and applied to the four representative examples. A conslusion is reaches
in Section 5.
3

Participatory Design and Action Research
2. An Analysis Framework
As already mentioned in the introduction the questions we aim to address in this
paper are:
• What are the distinguishing features of each of the action research efforts?
• How does the applied action research approach affect the results, i.e. the
kind of knowledge and experience that is developed about participation in
IS development?
• How is the research issue, i.e. participation in IS development, reflected in
the specific research approach?
To appreciate these a framework is established. A model of the framework is
shown in Figure 1.
Action
research
includes Action research subject
collaboration approach
between
researchers
and clients
affects
reflected in
IS development
approach
includes Information
participation system
of users
Figure 1: A model of the framework where an approach (an arrow) is directed at a subject (a
circle); in this case the action research subject contains another approach and its subject.
Action research is directed at a subject and the effort results in experiences,
knowledge, approaches and sometimes methodologies relevant to that subject, i.e.
the research has an outcome within the subject. In this particular case it happens
to be that the subject being studied is IS development and in particular IS
development approaches. The subject of an IS development approach is an
information system, its outline, its requirements, its architecture, etc. It is of
paramount importance to distinguish between these two approaches—at least
logically. According to the above citation from (Galliers 1985) there are two
separate goals that is sought fulfilled simultaneously, namely to arrive at some
4

Participatory Design and Action Research
changes of the clients’ situation and to contribute to the research. Rapoport (1970)
calls this the goal dilemma and claims that it is not easy to find a proper balance
between the two. It is the this goal dilemma that is reflected in the framework.
A confusing seems to arise if this distinction is not made clear. It is without
this easy to assume that from the collaborative nature of action research follows
almost automatically a participative approach. For the sake of clarity we shall in
this paper consistently call it collaboration between researchers and clients when
addressing the action research approaches and call it participation of users when
addressing the IS development approaches.
From the three questions above which we aim to answer in this analysis and
from the framework the following analytical questions are derived. The questions
are to be answered specifically for a concrete action research effort.
1 What characterises the action research approach taken?
2 What are the characterising features of the IS development approach?
2.1 What is the role of participation in this approach?
2.2 Which criteria are used to evaluate the results of using the IS
development approach?
2.3 What framework or theory is the IS development approach based
on?
3 What is the character of the relationship between the action research
approach and the IS development approach?
3.1 How has action research affected the role of participation in the IS
development approach?
3.2 How has the issue of participation been reflected in the action
research approach?
To utilise this framework we need to select research efforts to apply it to. Four
examples are chosen.
• ETHICS, Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer-
Based Systems, a methodology developed by Mumford and her colleagues,
e.g. (Mumford & Hensall 1979, Mumford & Weir 1979, Mumford 1983).
• SSM, Soft Systems Methodology, a methodology developed by Checkland
and his colleagues, e.g. (Checkland 1981, Wilson 1989, Checkland &
Scholes 1990).
• Multiview, a methodology developed by Wood-Harper, Avison and
colleagues (Wood-Harper et al. 1985, Avison & Wood-Harper 1990).
• CRA, the Collective Resource Approach, an approach developed by Ehn,
Kyng and colleagues, e.g. (Ehn & Kyng 1987).
5

Participatory Design and Action Research
These four examples of research have three things in common. (i) The research is
declared as action research by the researchers. (ii) The researchers have adapted
the general idea of action research to a specific research approach suited for their
particular needs. (iii) A corner stone in the outcome of the research is
participation.
There are other examples of action research being applied within the
information systems field, but either a cornerstone in the outcome is not
participation or it is, in principles, covered by the four examples. There are other
examples of IS research into participation, but it doesn’t declare itself to be action
research.
3. Four Examples of Action Research
This section addresses questions 1, 2, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. Questions 3, 3.1, and 3.2
are addressed in Section 4.
3.1. ETHICS
The influence from the work of the people at the Tavistock Institute on social
research and information systems research in the UK and the rest of Europe has
been considerable. That in itself makes the Tavistock experiences part of the
intellectual background for action researchers.
Mumford (1987) in her account of socio-technical design and the Tavistock
ideas puts emphasis on the multi-disciplinarity of the Tavistock people:
mathematics, operational research, medicine, social science, psychology. Their
work following the second world war continued to apply academic disciplines to
practice and from this emerged gradually three corner stones of their socio-
technical approach: (1) the complex relationship between the technical system and
the social system as originally experienced by Trist in an early study, (2) the
powerful solution autonomous groups would be to many socio-technical problems
owning some of its first ideas to Lewin, and (3) the application of systems
thinking as once advocated by von Bertalanffy.
By the late 1960’s Rapoport (1970) was able to discuss the approach taken at
Tavistock and some of its inherent dilemmas. Curle’s definition from 1949 had
served them well for many years:
“Action research aims not only to discover facts, but to help in altering certain conditions
experienced by the community as unsatisfactory” (Quoted from Rapoport 1970, p. 500)
6

Participatory Design and Action Research
Rapoport argues that because of the ethical dilemma, the goal dilemma and the
initiative dilemma it is necessary to get a more balanced view on the research
approach. He suggests:
“Action research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate
problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a
mutually acceptable ethical framework.” (Rapoport 1970, p. 499, my italics)
In the Tavistock work the mutually acceptable ethical framework would be one or
more of the above mentioned corner stones.
It was probably Mumford at Manchester Business School who was the first to
apply the Tavistock ideas to information systems development in the work on
ETHICS, see (Olerup 1989, p. 44). Mumford (1987) in her appraisal of the
Tavistock ideas of socio-technical design is very much aware of the research
approach that they have exercised. Building directly on top of the Tavistock work
she continues this research tradition and begins to apply it in information systems
research. During its development ETHICS was applied in a number of UK-
companies and the new lessons learned from this signifies the major difference
compared to the original Tavistock ideas.
ETHICS is a design approach to be used when introducing computers in office
work (Mumford & Henshall 1979, Mumford & Weir 1979, Mumford 1983). It is
basically aimed at socio-technical design which in turn includes design of the
computer-based work and measuring designs in terms of job satisfaction. It
contains four parts: a framework for design of computer-based work systems, a
framework for job satisfaction, a model for socio-technical design, and a
participatory approach. ETHICS is explained in a series of steps (the steps vary
depending on the source):
1 The social system
1.1 Describing the essential organisational system
1.2 Describing the essential human system
2 Discrepancy analysis
3 Future analysis
4 Setting objectives and evaluating strategies
For this design process to succeed a participatory approach is recommended.
During their action research Mumford and her colleagues have found that a
participatory approach is crucial. Mainly from an ethical standpoint she states
“people have a moral right to control their own destinies” (Mumford 1983). But
also more pragmatic reasons are found, e.g. improved designs, resolving disputes
and conflicts, and preparing the ground for implementation. Three participatory
7

Participatory Design and Action Research
approaches have been tried out: consulting users, involving user representatives,
and working for consensus amongst all users. For democratic reasons (according
to Olerup 1989) a consensus approach to participation is taken.
Such a participatory approach fits well into the main theory of ETHICS,
namely socio-technical systems theory. This was originally a theory from the
Tavistock approach that was taken over by Mumford. The theory uses a list of
criteria for evaluating designs so that the social system and the technical system
fit each other. According to Mumford (1987, p. 70) the aim is “to provide a set of
precise guidelines for creating democratic organisations that are excellent in both
human and production terms.” Thus, the criterion for evaluating the changes that
have come about as a result of the application of ETHICS is whether there is a
socio-technical fit, and that includes reduced variance and increased job
satisfaction.
3.2. SSM
Since 1969 Checkland has led a group of researchers at the University of
Lancaster in the development of a methodology, Soft Systems Methodology,
SSM. In their work the group has almost exclusively relied on action research.
It seems evident that Checkland and colleagues were influenced by the work at
Tavistock if not directly then at least indirectly. Checkland (1981, p. 153) cites
(Foster 1972) who refers to (Rapoport 1970). Many of the basic assumptions
about action research are shared. For one, Checkland as many of the Tavistock
people has a very conscious relationship to the application of action research. But
Checkland has gone much further in his utilisation of the potential of the
approach. In hundreds of projects where students at the department in Lancaster
together with their supervisor have the role of researchers doing action research
where they help handling real-world problems in collaboration with all sorts of
clients. In a long-term perspective the research processes can be depicted as in
Figure 2.
8

Participatory Design and Action Research
Learn from
Create the use
methodology
Use methodology
Figure 2: The system to develop SSM (Checkland 1981, p. 254)
Each turn around the cyclic process yielded new lessons learned from the use
which in turn would be part in the re-creation of the methodology. Many lessons
have been minor, some may even have been forgotten because they were not
appreciated at the time, but many lessons have been painful and significant
(Checkland 1981, Wilson 1989, Checkland & Scholes 1990).
The criterion used by evaluate what the clients had gained were according to
Checkland that the approach was to:
“tackle actual problems facing real-world managers; its criterion of success was that the people
concerned felt that the problem had been ‘solved’ or that the problem situation had been
‘improved’ or that insights had been gained.” (Checkland 1981, p. 146)
That indirectly also became the research goal in the following way. The outcome
is a methodology and the usefulness of the research is measured by the usefulness
of the methodology. In the following Checkland is close to explaining action
research as consultancy:
“The criterion by which the research was judged internally was its practical success as
measured by the readiness of actors to acknowledge that learning had occured, either explicitly
or through implementation of changes.” (Checkland 1981, p. 253)
If the ‘actor’ is taken to be the client then there is little difference between action
research and consultancy—to the client (and that is not surprising). If we take the
‘actor’ to be the researcher then the researchers have gone through a learning
process which we may readily name research and not consultancy. In a later
reflection Checkland is particularly clear on the difference between a researcher
being engaged in action (e.g. consultancy) and a researcher doing action research.
In action research a framework and a methodology needs to be declared prior to
taking part in a change process and in particular “a framework is essential in
establishing action research as legitimate” (Checkland 1991, p. 402). The
framework in SSM is soft systems theory and the ultimate goal is to improve the
theory and hence an improvement of the methodology.
9

Participatory Design and Action Research
The early work with SSM did not deal with information systems at all. Later
much of the work have tried to incorporate in SSM the concepts of information
and information system. It is fair to state that SSM and the action research
practised in Lancaster has influenced as large number researchers in information
systems, e.g., as can be seen from a special issue of Journal of Information
Systems, see (Gregory 1993, Lewis 1993, Doyle et al. 1993, Galliers 1993), but
also many other may be mentioned, e.g., (Davies 1991, Lewis 1994). Action
research is the preferred approach for much of this research.
SSM as developed by Checkland is a methodology for learning and problem
solving in organisational settings (Checkland 1981, Checkland & Scholes 1990).
It was not intended to be dealing with information system, and the core of the
methodology has still no notion of information less of an information system.
Nevertheless, as mentioned above, it is by many used as the fundamental
approach supplemented in various ways with concepts and techniques to bring it
closer to information systems development.
It was at least in the outset not a participatory methodology. As it stands now it
is one of the major characteristics of SSM that it embodies a participatory
approach. The stages of SSM which one will go through iteratively are:
1 Problem situation considered problematic
2 Problem situation expressed
3 Root definitions of relevant purposeful activity systems
4 Conceptual models of the systems named in the root definitions
5 Comparison of models and real world
6 Changes: systemically desirable and culturally feasible
7 Action to improve the problem situation
The purpose of formulating systems (3) and building models (4) is to be able to
orchestrate a debate amongst the involved actors (5). It is in this debate that
decisions on changes are made (6). That makes SSM a participatory approach.
Checkland is explicit about this when he writes commenting on a study he took
part in: “In the true spirit of SSM, the study was carried out by three people in the
problem situation in question, not by a professional analyst” (Checkland 1985, p.
822). The expert in the methodology is a facilitator of a participatory learning
process which the actors in the problem situation are going through.
SSM offers little guidance on how to ensure that all relevant interest groups are
heard in the process. Thus it is a participatory process for those which by incident
or deliberate choice by the analysts or their clients are invited to formulate their
10

Participatory Design and Action Research
views in systems and then to debate during the comparison stage. But it is a
decision left with the analysts and the clients.
3.3. Multiview
Multiview combines several methodologies and techniques into a logically
coherent framework of methodologies (Wood-Harper et al. 1985, Avison &
Wood-Harper 1990). The research takes a starting point in the concern or
confusion in choice of IS methodology in effective and efficient development
processes—the development of a framework is seen to be helpful in such a
choice. Wood-Harper argues that:
“Our research consists of trying out the methodology [i.e. the framework] on practical cases
which will, in turn, provide feed-back for theory building. … if real insight is to be gained
from real life situations, we believe there is no other alternative than to use some form of
action research.” (Wood-Harper 1985, p. 178, [my insertion])
The action research approach taken is very similar to the approach behind SSM:
“The similarity between UEA [Multiview research] and Lancaster [SSM research] was that
graduate student ‘problem solvers’ are trained in a particular methodology and are then sent
out to live organisations to analyse their problems, recommend solutions, and evaluate the
usefulness of such solutions as were implemented …” (Wood-Harper 1985, p. 178, [my
insertions])
That is, the approaches are similar, the criterion by which the achieved changes
are evaluated are the same, and the research goals are very much the same,
namely to improve or better the construct being experimented with, i.e. a
framework in the case of Multiview and a methodology in the case of SSM.
The initial Multiview framework contained five views that should be covered
in five stages utilising well-known methodologies in each of the steps:
• Analysis of human activity
• Analysis of information (entities and functions)
• Analysis and design of the socio-technical aspects
• Design of the human-computer Interface
• Design of the technical aspects
Later, after considerable action research, Multiview still contains the same five
steps, but it is now more of a contingency framework (Avison & Wood-Harper
1990).
Analysis of human activity is basically done by the essential parts of SSM.
Analysis and design of the socio-technical aspects is done by the essential parts of
ETHICS. That makes central parts of Multiview participatory. Multiview in itself
is not particularly participatory as it is a framework of eclecticism of
11

Participatory Design and Action Research
methodologies, but there is a role for participation. Avison & Wood-Harper
(1990, p. 266) claims that the matter of participation is contingent on the situation
and the analysts. That is, in some situations it may be chosen to be diminished. In
the word of Avison & Wood-Harper (1990, p. 267): “This contradicts the
arguments of ‘pure’ Multiview … in which it is assumed that it is always possible
to use responsible participation in information systems development:”
3.4. CRA
What has become know as the Collective Resource Approach, CRA, has to a
large extent been influenced by Mumford and other socio-technical research
projects, see (Ehn & Kyng 1987). The first project within this tradition, the NJMF
project in Norway, took nevertheless another path than the Tavistock projects.
They opposed the socio-technical approach and they took a somewhat different
stance towards the action research approach. The researchers worked together
with the Norwegian Iron and Metal Workers’ Union and the outcome of the
research was considered to be the actions taken by the union in matters of
information systems strategy together with the researchers reflections on the
union strategy (Ehn & Kyng 1987, p. 26–30). Though the workers in the local
clubs and the researchers had very different roles it was a project with joint
collaboration. This project was later supplemented by the Swedish DEMOS
project and the Danish DUE project (Ehn & Kyng 1987, p. 30–31). Later again
came the UTOPIA project where researchers worked this time together with the
Nordic Graphic Workers’ Union to formulate a workers’ alternative to the
mainstream technologies advanced by management and employers.
Many other project have taken place and many of these are mentioned by Ehn
& Kyng (1987, footnote 32) and projects are still being carried out within this
tradition very much based on the original ideas. In terms of Rapoport’s definition
above it is fair to characterise all these projects as action research where the
researchers have taken the ‘mutually acceptable ethical framework’ to be that of
democracy of work and thus also the preservation and sometimes even
improvement of workers’ skills.
The CRA is concerned with enabling workers to participate in forming the
information technology that eventually will change their conditions for working
life and then work itself. There is a focus on workers’ skills and how workers may
prevent de-skilling as a result of technological changes to the tools they work
with. The NJMF, DEMOS and DUE projects are early examples of providing
resources to workers by training and education and by creating a position from
which they could exercise power over the decision processes concerning their use
12

Participatory Design and Action Research
of information technology. That is, the idea of participation is not one of harmony
but one of conflict where workers can only influence decisions if they have
sufficient bargaining power. These projects are not well documented in English—
a few pointers are (Nygaard & Bergo 1975, Ehn & Sandberg 1983, Kyng &
Mathiassen 1982).
On top of these projects came the UTOPIA project with its particular
perspective on participation as an approach where workers strove for: quality of
work and products, democracy at work, and education for local development (Ehn
& Kyng 1987). Ehn & Kyng makes the point that the CRA as outlined in the
UTOPIA project is not a participatory approach in the traditional sense. The
purpose was still as in the previous projects to enhance the union’s and the union
representatives’ power in negotiations. In this project it was done by developing
models and prototypes relevant for an alternative vision of computer-based tools
for graphic workers. These tools would build on the skills of the graphic workers
not by encompassing these in the tools, but by supporting the graphic workers in
exercising these skills (Bødker et al. 1987).
Sandberg (1985) explains some of the ideas of their action research approach.
To do this he first gives a critique of the socio-technical action research (of which
the research leading to ETHICS is one example). The CRA action research
approach is called praxis research.
“By praxis research I mean an activity that contains a dialogue, and has an action part
subordinated to an action practice and a conceptual or reflective part subordinate to a scientific
practice. The two parts are clearly separated activities because they are carried out in different
parts of a research organization or over different periods of time.” (Sandberg 1985, p. 89)
There is a particular strong emphasis on achieving changes and Sandberg thus
makes a point of remarking that the researchers have a life of their own after the
action part.
Compared to the other three action research approaches there is a strong focus
on providing changes. The NJMF project giving raise to new Norwegian ‘data
agreements’, an agreement between the Norwegian Trade Union Federation and
the Norwegian Confederation of Employers (Ehn & Kyng 1987, p. 29) is an
example of this. The prototyping techniques developed in the UTOPIA project is
another example (Bødker et al. 1987). The outcome of the research is an
alternative set of ideas of how workers will get to negotiate requirements by
having enabled a stronger position.
3.5. Similarities and Differences
The application of the analysis framework so far is summarised in the following
table.
13

Participatory Design and Action Research
The overall picture that the analysis so far gives is that there is more diversity
that commonality among the four action research approaches applied. The action
research approaches vary as the first row in the table shows though the research
processes leading to SSM and Multiview are very similar. The main differences
are however with respect to the criteria for evaluating development results. These
criteria are closely related to the framework. The criteria can more or less directly
be implied from the framework. The research goals vary slightly less than the
criteria as they all are of the type ‘to develop and improve the approach X based
on framework Y’. The main differences altogether are seen with respect to the
character of the IS development approaches.
ETHICS SSM Multiview CRA
Action research Close to the A circular A circular Praxis research
approach Tavistock process to process to with a particular
(Question 1) research continuously continuously focus on the
approach better the better the achieved
outcome outcome changes
IS development A socio- A systems An eclectic An alternative
approach technical methodology for framework of IS approach to trade
(Question 2) systems unstructured requirements union
methodology for situations methodologies participation in
office IS IS development
requirements
Role of One of four Improvements As in ETHICS A core principle
participation corner stones only by problem and SSM made operational
(Question 2.1) situation actors combined through
prototyping
Criteria to Socio-technical Improved Effective and Real
evaluate fit (reduced problem efficient participation has
development variance and situation (local definition of an taken place or
results increased job criteria) information has been made
(Question 2.2) satisfaction) system possible
Framework or Socio-technical Soft systems Eclecticism of IS Democracy and
theory systems theory theory methodologies preservation of
(Question 2.3) workers’ skills
Table 1: A comparison of the four action research approaches
14

Participatory Design and Action Research
4. Participation in IS Development and
Action Research
This section addresses questions 3, 3.1, and 3.2. In our analysis of how the four
action research efforts relate to their outcome it is found that the following
distinction are useful.
construction
purpose
learning
participation
inherent
origin
emergent
Figure 3: Two distinction between participatory approaches in IS development
First we need to distinguish between whether purpose of the participation is the
construction of an IS or it is to produce learning relevant to IS development. In
construction there a particular focus on arriving at requirements for an IS. In
learning the focus is much more on gaining insight that hopefully will be useful in
a development process, but it is not specifically directed at the IS as any insight
that could influence the development process is considered relevant.
Second we need to distinguish between whether the origin of the participative
element is inherited from the action research approach or it simply emerged as a
practical means for some other goal. If it is inherent it was formed as a basic
assumption that the resulting IS development approach was to be participative and
was then taken directly from the action research approach or the action research
process seems to indistinguishable from the process of using the IS development
approach. If it is emergent it was not part of the initial assumptions behind the
research that the resulting IS development approach should be participative; it just
emerged through the research that there was to be a role for participation; but
typically a role where it is considered to be the means for achieving some other
goal.
In summary, the four representative examples fall into each their class of
participative approaches as is shown in Table 2.
15

Participatory Design and Action Research
Construction Learning
Inherent participation ETHICS CRA
Emergent participation Multiview SSM
Table 2: Four distinct participative approaches
The participative nature of ETHICS and the collaborative action research that led
to ETHICS are intimately related. They seem inseparable; in most places a clear
distinction is not maintained between the research process and the process of
researchers doing socio-technical analysis with ETHICS in a company. It seems
clear in this case that the way researchers collaborate with clients in the research
process is very close to the way designers collaborate with users in the design
process. As mentioned in Section 3 ETHICS is a participative approach mainly
because of an ethical choice. But evidently Mumford has been much influenced
by the Tavistock group’s work on socio-technical systems theory, norms and
values that came with it and their action research approach. And in the Tavistock
work a distinction was not established between the research process and the
clients change process. Based on all this the participative element of ETHICS is
categorised as inherent; it was there from the very first day as an integral part of
the background in terms of experiences, approach and theory. Additionally, it is
almost inconceivable that participation should not be a cornerstone of a socio-
technical approach. Thus, simply because of the underlying theory participation
becomes inherent in ETHICS.
The purpose ETHICS with its strong element of participation is construction. It
is by the resulting IS and the degree of socio-technical fit that the success or
failure is measured. Participation is there to make sure that the resulting IS is a
success.
SSM is a participatory approach if by incident or deliberate choice of the
analysts or their clients the involved actors are invited to formulate their views in
systems and then to be part of the debate during the comparison stage. But it is a
decision left with the analysts and the clients. So while the collaboration between
the researchers and the clients is an integral part of the action research approach,
there is little in SSM itself to ensure participation in a broad sense of the word.
The relationship between the action research approach and the participative
elements of SSM is that they are separate. Participation only has to do with the
problem situation and its actors, not with the research approach. This may also be
explained by looking at the soft systems theory. It says that there are always
several relevant views, but it is left open which views to take into account. It does
not say that all views should be considered. Participation is in SSM not a goal in
16

Participatory Design and Action Research
itself, rather it is a means for something else. We may therefore categorise the
participative element of SSM as emergent; it emerged through the research as a
useful means for bringing about learning. And learning is exactly the purpose of
SSM. Checkland (1985) is particularly explicit about this. In terms of IS
development SSM may be used to bring about learning that could be relevant in
the construction of an IS; but the immediate purpose is not construction of an IS.
In Multiview as in SSM it turns out that the collaboration between researchers
and clients may be seen as separate from the potential participation of users in the
information systems development as by Multiview. Participation is part of
Multiview because ETHICS and SSM is contained in the framework rather than
because of the action research approach. The role participation plays in Multiview
has emerged through the research as a useful means in some situations, i.e. it is
contingent. This is not particularly surprising as participation is not an integral
part of the eclectic framework of methodologies. Further, also as a result of the
framework the purpose of the participative element in Multiview is construction.
The purpose of Multiview as a whole is to define and specify an information
system and participation has a role in this as long as it serves this purpose.
In CRA the action research approach and its collaboration between researchers
and trade-union representatives is in a very direct way participatory design. It is
exactly through the research that the alternative technologies are developed. As an
example, it was a major part of the project to develop a prototype of a computer-
based tool for graphic workers. This tool was designed to preserve their skills in
graphic design. In the design of the prototype participation was an obvious
technique. Hence, CRA is categorised as an inherent participatory approach. The
purpose of the participative approach is learning about the potentials of the
technology, and ways of influencing IS development at large. Kyng (1994)
explicitly addresses this issue in meeting a critique of CRA by Kraft & Bansler
(1994).
5. Conclusions
There is a general common characteristic of the four examples of action research
analysed in this paper, namely that participation plays a considerable role in the
outcome of the research (that is how we chose them). Referring back to the quote
from Galliers (1985) where action research is classified as emancipatory, then
what has emerged through this analysis is that this is only true for some action
research efforts, namely those categorised as having inherent participation. It is
the choice of framework rather than the action research approach that determines
how the action research approach affects the IS development approach. Further it
17

Participatory Design and Action Research
seems as if the chosen framework is reflected back into the action research
approach much more than the action research approach affects the IS
development approach. This is a two-way street of course, but in all four
examples the framework or theory underlying the IS development approach were
the more influential.
The analysis has revealed tremendous diversity in action research approaches,
research outcome, the role of participation, criteria to evaluate development and
framework. This diversity is summarised in Table 1. The analysis has shown that
these features of each of the action research efforts are useful in distinguishing
between them. The juxtaposition is relevant and important in order to understand
what action research into participatory IS development is.
The analysis has also identified two important distinctions. First the distinction
between whether the participative element is inherent in the IS development
approach or it emerged through the research. Second the distinction between
whether the purpose of participation is construction or learning. This is shown in
Table 2. These two distinctions are useful in pointing at the significant differences
between the four research efforts.
Altogether the analysis has shown the similarities and differences of the four
research efforts. It also shows the strength of the framework outlined in Figure 1
to point out these similarities and differences.
6. Acknowledgement
The ideas in this paper has benefited greatly from discussions with Richard
Baskerville and Lars Mathiassen and from comments from the ITEM Group at
Aalborg University and from the three reviewers.
7. References
Antill, L, (1985). Selection of a research method. In: (Mumford et al. 1985, p.
203–215).
Avison, D. E. & A. T. Wood-Harper, (1990). Multiview: An Exploration in
Information Systems Development. Blackwell, Oxford.
Baskerville, R., (1985). Scientific Methodology for MIS Action Research.
Unpublished paper. 18th December.
Baskerville, R. & A. T. Wood-Harper, (1996a). A critical perspective on action
research as a method for information systems research. J. of Information
Technology, July.
Baskerville, R. & A. T. Wood-Harper, (1996b). A taxonomy of action research
methods. Submitted to IFIP 8.2 ‘97.
Blum, F. H., (1955). Action research—a scientific approach? Philosophy of
Science, 22(1).
18

Participatory Design and Action Research
Bjerknes, G., P. Ehn & M. Kyng, editors, (1987). Computers and Democracy.
Avebury, Aldershot.
Bødker, S., P. Ehn, M. Kyng, J. Kammersgaard & Y. Sundblad, (1987). A
utopian experience: on design of powerful computer-based tools for skilled
graphic workers. In (Bjerknes et al. 1987).
Checkland, P. B., (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester,
Wiley.
Checkland, P. B., (1985a). Achieving ‘desirable and feasible’ change: an
application of Soft Systems Methodology. J. Opl. Res. Soc., 36(9):821–831.
Checkland, P. B., (1985b). From optimizing to learning: a development of
systems thinking for the 1990s. J. Opl. Res. Soc. 36(9):757–767.
Checkland, P. B., (1991). From framework through experience to learning:
the essential nature of action research. In: (Nissen et al. 1991).
Checkland, P. B. & J. Scholes, (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Practice.
Wiley, Chichester.
Clark, P. A., (1972). Action Research and Organizational Change. London,
Harper & Row.
Davies, L. J., (1991). Researching the organizational culture contexts of
information systems strategy: a case study of the British Army. In:
(Nissen et al. 1991).
Doyle, K. G., J. R. G. Wood & A. T. Wood-Harper, (1993). Soft systems and
systems engineering: on the use of conceptual models in information
system development. Journal of Information Systems, 3(3):187–198.
Ehn, P. & M. Kyng, (1987). The collective resource approach to systems
design. In (Bjerknes et al. 1987, p. 17–58).
Ehn, P. & Å. Sandberg, (1983). Local union influence on technology and work
organisation. In: U. Briefs, C. Ciborra & L. Schneider, editors. Systems
Design For, With and By the Users. IFIP WG 9.1, North-Holland,
Amsterdam.
Emery, F. E. & E. L. Trist, (1960). Socio-technical systems. In: C. W.
Churchman & M. Verhulst, (editors), Management Science Models and
Techniques, Oxford, Pergamon, Vol. 2.
Foster, M., (1972). An introduction to the theory and practice of action
research. Human Relations, 25(6).
Galliers, R. D., (1985). In search of a paradigm for information systems
research. In: (Mumford et al. 1985, p. 281–298).
Galliers, R. D., (1991). Choosing appropriate information systems research
approaches: a revised taxonomy. In: (Nissen et al. 1991).
Galliers, R. D., editor, (1992). Information Systems Research: Issues, methods,
and practical guidelines. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
Galliers, R. D., (1993). Towards a flexible information architecture:
integrating business strategies, information systems strategies and
business process redesign. Journal of Information Systems, 3(3):199–213.
Galliers, R. D. & F. F. Land, (1987). Choosing appropriate information
systems research methodology. Comm. ACM, 30(11):900–902.
Gregory, F. H., (1993). Soft systems methodology to information systems: a
Wittgensteinian approach. Journal of Information Systems, 3(3):149–160.
Hult, M. & S. Lennung, (1980). Towards a definition of action research: a
note and a bibliography. Journal of Management Studies, 17(2).
Jönsson, S., (1991). Action research. In: (Nissen et al. 1991).
Keen, P., (1991). Relevance and rigor in information systems research:
improving quality, confidence, cohesion and impact. In: (Nissen et al.
1991).
19

Participatory Design and Action Research
Kraft, P. & J. Bansler, (1994). The collective resource appraoch: the
Scandinavian experinece. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems,
6(1):71–84.
Kyng, M., (1994). Collective resources meets puritanism. Scandinavian
Journal of Information Systems, 6(1):85–97.
Kyng, M. & L. Mathiassen, (1982). Systems development and trade union
activities. In: N. Bjørn-Andersen, editor. Information Society, for Richer,
for Poorer. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Lewis, P. J., (1993). Linking soft systems methodology with data-focused
information systems development. Journal of Information Systems,
3(3):169–186.
Mumford, E., (1983). Designing Human Systems for New Technology: The
ETHICS METHOD. Manchester Business School, Manchester.
Mumford, E., (1987). Socio-technical Systems Design: Evolving theory and
practice. In (Bjerknes et al. 1987, p. 59–76).
Mumford, E. & D. Hensall, (1979). A Participative Approach to Computer
Systems Design. Associated Business Press, London.
Mumford, E., R. A. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald & A. T. Wood-Harper, editors,
(1985). Research Methods in Information Systems. North-Holland,
Amsterdam.
Mumford, E. & M. Weir, (1979). Computer Systems in Work Design—the
ETHICS method. Associated Business Press, London.
Ngwenyama, O. K., (1991). The critical social theory approach to information
systems: problems and challenges. In: (Nissen et al. 1991).
Nissen, H.-E., H. K. Klein & R. Hirschheim, (1991). Information Systems
Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Elsevier,
North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Nygaard, K. & O. T. Bergo, (1975). The trade unions, new users of research.
Personnel Review, 4(2).
Olaisen, J., (1991). Pluralism or positivist trivialism: important trends in
contemporary philosophy of science. In (Nissen et al. 1991).
Olerup, A., (1989). Socio-technical design of computer-assisted work: A
discussion of the ETHICS and Tavistock approaches. Scandinavian
Journal of Information Systems, 1:43-71.
Rapoport, R. N., (1970). Three Dilemmas in Action Research. Human
Relations, 23(6):499–513.
Sandberg, Å., (1985). Socio-technical design, trade union strategies and
action research. In: (Mumford et al. 1985, p. 79–92).
Susman, G. & R. D. Evered, (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of
action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(December).
Warmington, A., (1980). Action research: its methods and its implications.
Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 7.
Wilson, B., (1989). Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications.
Wiley, Chichester. 2nd edition.
Wood-Harper, A. T., (1985). Research methods in information systems: Using
Action Research. In (Mumford et al. 1985).
Wood-Harper, A. T., L. Antill & D. E. Avison, (1985). Information Systems
Definition: The Multiview Approach. Blackwell, Oxford.
20