Improve Organizations and People through 4Squared Action Research
1. 4Squared
A Method of Improving Organizations
and People through Action Research
Unit 5
Michael A. Wood Jr.
Kaplan University
GM505 Action Research
and Consulting Skills
Professor: Heidi Gregory
Mina
1/26/2015
3. Introduction
“…by systematically revealing the
reality of people’s experience of
problematic events, and planning
concerted action that deals with the
real issues affecting people’s lives,
you can achieve effective solutions
that improve the quality of those
lives” – E. Stringer
4. Evaluation Model for
the “Look” Phase
Reflect upon the Looking process Ask, How
did the observation feel?
Have alternative methods been utilized
to support information gathering?
Is the Communication-feedback loop
complete?
Has the purpose of the “Look” phase been
fulfilled?
5. Evaluation Model for
the “Think” Phase
Are we focused on a solution-oriented investigation which
is in line with the strategic vision of the organization?
Is our coding complete and understandable?
Is the framework agreeable to other participants?
Has the purpose of the “Think” phase been fulfilled?
6. Evaluation Model for
the “Act” Phase
Is the prioritization accurate?
Have the strengths and weaknesses of
the action plan been resolved?
Are the planed actions future oriented?
Has the purpose of the “Act” phase been
fulfilled?
8. References
Ayas, K. (2003). Managing Action and
Research for Rigor and Relevance: The
Case of Fokker Aircraft. Human Resource
Planning, 26(2), 19-29.
Ballard, S. D. (2015). Action Research.
Knowledge Quest, 43(3), 44-48.
Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M., & Sharbrough, W.
C. (2015). Strategic Vision and Values in Top
Leaders’ Communications: Motivating
Language at a Higher Level. Journal of
Business Communication, 52(1), 97-121.
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action Research, 4th
ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Editor's Notes
Action research is an emerging discipline and it is not easy to conduct. The plan of action research depends entirely on the situation being explored, but we do have some help from Ernest Stringer. Stringer (2014) reminds us that “…by systematically revealing the reality of people’s experience of problematic events, and planning concerted action that deals with the real issues affecting people’s lives, you can achieve effective solutions that improve the quality of those lives” (p. 142). It is in that spirit, which in which the 4Squared series of action research evaluation model questions are formulated.
At the apparent conclusion of any research or significant event, a reflection must take place. This reflection looks for the errors, successes, unexpected results, and more, in order to improve the process the next time around. In action research, we want to this at every phase, so at the conclusion of observation, is shall be asked, “How did the observation feel?”
During this observation, it is easy to trust the observation method being used. If watching the events, we assume that our eyes do not lie. This is a false assumption, our senses are limited, our biases are sneaky, and the mere act of watching changes the variables for the observed. Therefore, alternative methods are important to support the conclusion of information gathering. To answer the question, “Have alternative methods been utilized to support information gathering?” the action researcher is to explore and implement alternative observations such as another researcher’s perspective, different angles, questionnaires, surveys, and more are possibilities.
All of which can be the fruit of a poisonous tree if the researcher is not careful to ensure the completion of the communication-feedback loop. By using methods such as reading back the notes of an interview to the interviewing to assure what the interviewing was attempting to say is an accurate reflection of those responses.
Before moving on from the Look phase it is imperative that the Look phase has actually been completed as much as possible. The ultimate “purpose is to establish the path towards understanding, clarity, and insight (Stringer, 2014). Is the project going the right direction to fulfill the project’s purpose? Are there holes in the observations, weaknesses in the perspective, misunderstanding of intent, and so forth? Until the answers to all of these questions are clear and on track, steps should be taken to do so before moving on.
One of the challenges for an action researcher is to not interject their interpretations, ideas, jargon, biases, et cetera into the feedback, input, and perspective of the participants in the project (Stringer, 2014). In the Think phase, we must ask ourselves that very question, “Are we conceptualizing the project and participants from our own perspective?” As was recently stated by Ballard (2015), action research is to be a solution-oriented investigation. It is critical that the research does not get bogged down in thinking about questions which do not propose or encourage a solution. For example, if a problem is that the organization is staffed and led by religious practitioners who insist on conducting a daily ritual, the solution cannot be to change the religion.
Action research can reveal startling epiphanies which may conflict with the leadership’s philosophy for the organization. The goal of leadership’s vision is for engaged workers, growth, efficiency, environmental harmony, loyalty, and so forth (Mayfield, Mayfield, & Sharbrough, 2015). So the action research must ask at this point, if the research is revealing any conflicts with the strategic vision of the organization. If so, which hold priority, the vision or the question being explore?
In order for the data, which was extracted from the “Look” phase to be effectively capitalized upon, the data must be categorized and coded. Using identifiable themes and clear groupings, the data is identified, or coded, to present a system which is a rational representation of the information related to the investigation (Stringer, 2014). Like any writing, the author of the writing can make false assumptions about clarity because of the information in the writer’s mind which make it all clear. Just how that writer needs and editor, the action researcher needs to ensure clarity of the coding from other means. This clarity applies to the framework of the project as well. Who, what, where, why, and when questions shall be explored for thoroughness as well as an organizational review.
The perpetual step at the conclusion of every phase is then asked once again. Has the “Think” phase actually been completed as much as possible? Keeping in mind that the ultimate “purpose is to establish the path towards understanding, clarity, and insight (Stringer, 2014). Is the project going the right direction to fulfill the project’s purpose? Are there holes in the thinking, weaknesses in the communication, misunderstanding of the framework, and so forth? Until the answers to all of these questions are clear and on track, steps should be taken to do so before moving on.
Priorities are an element of action research which can derail a project of not properly ordered. Stakeholders and participants are to be on the same page with the priorities of the project before continuing on. The focus of the priorities should be that they makes sense, identify the major issues, account for concern and issues which have resulted from the research so far, and that they are properly ordered based upon importance and difficulty (Stringer, 2014).
The areas available to explore for strengths and weakness could be overwhelming if taken in too much detail, the idea of answering the question, “Have the strengths and weaknesses of the action plan been resolved?” is to perform a quality check on project. To do this, each stakeholder shall review their functions for understanding and to ensure that they meet the larger goals of management to increase, pride, dignity, identity, control, responsibility, unity, place, location, relationships, communication, participation, inclusion, reflection, conflict resolution, and so on (Stringer, 2014).
As we move on to ask if the project is future oriented, it is important to note that action research has an overall goal of future success, but future success is marked by and encouraged with milestones. Short-term achievement, such as the successful completion of stepping stone goals, imply high productivity and lead to long-term capability. Establishing the ability to succeed encourages a sense of capability in the project organization which leads an increase the likelihood of overall success (Ayas, 2003). As we answer these questions and improve upon our action research, it is easy to forget that perpetual question from every step.
Has the “Act” phase actually been completed as much as possible? Keeping in mind that the ultimate “purpose is to establish the path towards understanding, clarity, and insight (Stringer, 2014). Is the project going the right direction to fulfill the project’s purpose? Are there holes in the thinking, weaknesses in the priorities, misunderstanding of the action plan and so forth? As always, until the answers to all of these questions are clear and on track, steps should be taken to do so before moving on.
While conducting action research, the focus is upon the “key features of such research [to] include collaboration, incorporation of local knowledge, diversity, case orientation, emergent process, and a link between scientific understanding and social action” (Ayas, 2003). This is a little different from traditional research and action research is conducted a little differently as well. Success is dependent upon a different set of outcomes which focus on relationships, organization, teamwork, constructive criticism, future success, and questions which look to narrow in on the root causes of problems. Because there is so much to conceptualize with action research, it is necessary to develop a system to keep the researcher focused. That system is the 4Squared system.
