Wicked theorising: Theory building to address complex problems
Trefwoorden:
Action research; engaged scholarship; research methodSamenvatting
As scholars, many of us aspire to use our research to help solve wicked societal challenges, and believe in the power of theory to do this. However there has long been criticism of the commonly used qualitative and quantitative research methods to make meaningful impact on solving complex problems. There have been a number of scholars spanning many generations of research who have been developing alternative methods, not to replace, but to expand the academic toolkit in situations where the mainstream methods reach their limits. We represent three generations of scholars who have found these methods, with some adaptations, are also well suited to help address complex or wicked problems. The aim of the paper is to outline the challenges in conducting research to address wicked problems, and outline a method we term “wicked theorising”. The intent is to honour the legacy of the scholars who have preceded us, to outline the potential and limitations of wicked theorising, and share the techniques and strategies we have developed to address some of the practical challenges.
Referenties
Abend, G. (2008) The meaning of ‘theory’. Sociological Theory, 26, 173-199.
Allison, C. R. & Saint-Martin, D. (2011) Half a century of “muddling”: Are we there yet? Policy and Society, 30, 1-8.
Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. (2007) Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1265-1281.
Alvesson, M. & Sandberg, J. (2013) Constructing research questions: doing interesting research. SAGE Publications.
Arbib, J. & Seba, T. (2020) Rethinking humanity: Five foundational sector disruptions, the lifecycle of civilizations, and the coming age of freedom, RethinkX.
Argyris, C. (1980) Making the undiscussable and its undiscussability discussable. Public Administration Review. 40, 205-213.
Argyris, C. (1982) Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (1993) Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (2004) Reflection and beyond in research on organizational learning. Management Learning, 35, 507-509.
Barge, J. & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2008) Engaged scholarship and the creation of useful organizational knowledge. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 36, 251-265.
Bourne, L. & Walker, D. H. (2005) Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Management Decision. 43(5), 649-660.
Bourne, L. & Walker, D. H. (2008) Project relationship management and the Stakeholder Circle™. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 1(1), 125-130.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2022) Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology. 9, 3-26.
Burns, D. (2007) Systemic action research. Bristol University Press.
Butler, D. (2008) Translational research: Crossing the valley of death. Nature News, 453, 840-842.
Cechvala, S. (2024) Systems thinking for management practitioners and scholars: Strengthening the tools to analyze “wicked problems”. Business Horizons, Article in Press.
Champion, D. & Stowell, F. (2003) Validating action research field studies: PEArL. Systemic Practice and Action Research. 16, 21-36.
Checkland, P. (1985) From optimizing to learning: A development of systems thinking for the 1990s. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 36, 757-767.
Checkland, P. & Holwell, S. (1998) Action Research: Its Nature and Validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research. 11, 9-21.
Checkland, P. & Holwell, S. (2007). Action research. In Information systems action research. Ned Kock (Ed.) Springer, pp. 3-17.
Checkland, P. & Poulter, J. (2006) Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioner, teachers, and students. Chichester, Wiley.
Checkland, P. & Poulter, J. (2010). Soft systems methodology. Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. London, Springer Science and Business Media.
Checkland, P. & Tsouvalis, C. (1997) Reflecting on SSM: the link between root definitions and conceptual models. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research. 14, 153-168.
Chiasson, M., Germonprez, M. & Mathiassen, L. 2009. Pluralist action research: A review of the information systems literature. Information Systems Journal. 19, 31-54.
Christensen, C. & Raynor, M. (2003) Why hard-nosed executives should care about management theory. Harvard Business Review. 81, 66-75.
Christensen, C. & Sundahl, D. (2001) The process of building theory. Harvard Business School Working Paper [Online]. 02-016.
Colquitt, J. A. & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007) Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal. 50, 1281-1303.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2005) Mixed methods research: Developments, debates, and dilemmas. In Swanson, R.A. & Holton, E. Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Pp. 315-326.
Crowlet, K. & Head, B. W. (2017) The enduring challenge of ‘wicked problems’: revisiting Rittel and Webber. Policy Sciences. 50, 539-547.
Davison, R., Martinsons, M. & Kock, N. (2004) Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal. 14, 65-86.
Denzin, N. (2012) Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 6, 80-88.
Dick, B. (1997) Rigour and relevance in action research. Available: http://www.aral.com.au/resources/rigour.html.
Dick, B. (2002) Postgraduate programs using action research. The Learning Organization. 9, 159-170.
Dick, B. (2012) Sources of Rigour in Action Research: Addressing the issues of trustworthiness and credibility. Available: http://www.aral.com.au/resources/rigour3.html.
Dick, B. (2016) Convergent interviewing essentials. Available: http://www.aral.com.au/resources/coin.pdf.
Dickinson, J. & Griffiths, T.-L. (2023) Professional Development for Practitioners in Academia: Pracademia. Springer Nature.
Driedger, S., Gallois, C., Sanders, C. & Santesso, N. (2006) Finding common ground in team-based qualitative research using the convergent interviewing method. Qualitative Health Research. 16, 1145-1157.
Edwards, J. R., Berry, J. & Kay, V. (2014) Bridging the great divide between theoretical and empirical management research. Paper presented at Academy of Management Proceedings, Philadelphia.
Emery, M. (1989) Participative Design for Participative Democracy. Australian National University.
Flick, U. (2004) Triangulation in qualitative research. In Flick, U, von Kardoff, E. & Steinke, I. A companion to qualitative research. Sage Publications. Pp. 178-183.
Gardner, B. (2003 ) The Wright brothers, Bernoulli and a surprise from Upper East Tennessee. Freshman Seminar, Fall 2003 US. East Tennessee State University.
Gehman, J., Glaser, V., Eisenhardt, K., Gioia, D., Langley, A. & Corley, K. (2017) Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry. 27, 284-300.
Ghoshal, S. (2005) Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 4, 75-91.
Gioia, D. (2022). On the road to hell: Why academia is viewed as irrelevant to practicing managers. Academy of Management Discoveries. 8, 174-179.
Gioia, D., Corley, K. & Hamilton, A. (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods. 16, 15-31.
Glaser, B. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity. California, University of California.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Glenn, J., Gordon, T. & Florescu, E. (2024) State of the future - Version 20.0. The Millenium Project [Online]. Available: https://www.millennium-project.org/publications-2/state-of-the-future-version-20-0/.
Gregor, S. (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly. 30, 611-642.
Hollenbeck, J. R. (2008) The role of editing in knowledge development: Consensus shifting and consensus creation. In: Baruch, A., Konrad, H., Aguinis, W. & Starbuck, W. (Eds.) Opening the black box of editorship. Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan.
Holwell, S. (2004) Themes, iteration, and recoverability in action research. In: Kaplan, B., Truex, D., Wastell, D., Wood-Harper, T. & Degross, J. (Eds.) Information Systems Research: Relevant theory and informed practice. Boston, Springer.
Ison, R. (2017) Systems practice: How to act in a climate-change world. London, Springer.
Kacmar, K. M. & Whitfield, J. M. (2000) An additional rating method for journal articles in the field of management. Organizational Research Methods. 3, 392-406.
Kennedy, B. & Thornberg, R. (2018) Deduction, induction, and abduction. In: Flick, U. (Ed.) The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection. SAGE Publications. Pp. 49-64.
Klein, G. (2008) Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors. 50, 456-460.
Klein, G. (2016) The naturalistic decision making approach - What we have learned by studying cognition in the wild [Online]. Available: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/seeing-what-others-dont/201602/the-naturalistic-decision-making-approach [Accessed].
Lawrence, M. G., Williams, S., Nanz, P. & Renn, O. (2022) Characteristics, potentials, and challenges of transdisciplinary research. One Earth. 5, 44-61.
Lee, S. & Geum, Y. (2021) How to determine a minimum viable product in app-based lean start-ups: Kano-based approach. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 32, 1751-1767.
Lewin, K. (1952) Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, Harper and Brothers.
Lindbolm, C. (1959) The science of "muddling through". Public Administration Review. 19, 79-88.
Lindholt, E. & Axelsson N. K. (2021) The logic and integration of coproductive research approaches. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 14, 13-35.
Lorenz, E. (1972) Predictability: does the flap of a butterfly's wing in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? Washington, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Lynch, E. A., Mudge, A., Knowles, S., Kitson, A. L., Hunter, S. C. & Harvey, G. (2018) “There is nothing so practical as a good theory”: a pragmatic guide for selecting theoretical approaches for implementation projects. BMC Health Services Research. 18, 1-11.
Martínez-Mesa, J., González-Chica, D.A., Duquia, R.P., Bonamigo, R.R., Bastos, J.L. (2016) Sampling: how to select participants in my research study? Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia. 91, 326-330.
Mathiassen, L., Chiasson, M. & Germonprez, M. (2012) Style composition in action research publication. MIS Quarterly. 36, 347-363.
Mathiassen, L. & Nielsen, P. (2008) Engaged scholarship in IS research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems. 20, 3-20.
McKelvey, B. (2006) Van De Ven and Johnson's “engaged scholarship”: Nice try, but…. Academy of Management Review. 31, 822-829.
McNiff, J. (2013) Action research: Principles and practice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Midgley, G. (2000) Boundary critique. Systemic Intervention. Springer.
Mingers, J. & Rosehead, J. (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Okoli, C. (2023) Inductive, abductive and deductive theorising. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy. 16, 302-316.
Patton, M. (2014) Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. SAGE publications.
Pettigrew, A. (1990) Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science. 1, 267-292.
Piggot-Irvine, E. & Zornes, D. (2016) Developing a framework for research evaluation in complex contexts such as action research. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244016663800.
Pitts, M. & Miller-Day, M. (2007) Upward turning points and positive rapport-development across time in researcher—participant relationships. Qualitative Research 7, 177-201.
Polanyi, M. (1962) Tacit knowing: Its bearing on some problems of philosophy. Reviews of Modern Physics. 34, 601.
Riege, A. & Nair, G. (2004) The diversity of convergent interviewing: Applications for early researchers and postgraduate students. The Marketing Review. 4, 73-85.
Rittel, H. W. & Webber, M. M. (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 4, 155-169.
Robinson, V. M. (1996) Problem-based methodology and administrative practice. Educational Administration Quarterly. 32, 427-451.
Sætre, A. & Van de Ven, A. (2021) Generating theory by abduction. Academy of Management Review. 46(4) 684-701.
Sandberg, J. & Alvesson, M. (2011) Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or problematization? Organization. 18, 23-44.
Sandelowski, M. (1995) Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health. 18, 179-183.
Sankaran, S. & Dick, B. (2015) Linking theory and practice in project management research using action-oriented methods. In: PASIAN, B. (ed.) Methods, designs and practices for research into project management. Aldershot, U.K, Gower Publishing.
Sankaran, S., Rowe, W. & Cady, P. (2017) Developmental progress in conducting action research. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 34, 609-617.
Schneberger, S., Pollard, C. & Watson, H. (2009) Theories: For academics and practitioners. Information Systems Management. 26, 52-60.
Schön, D. (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York, Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1995) Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 27, 27-34.
Secretary-General (2021) Our common agenda. Report of the Secretary-General. New York, United Nations.
Sheffield, J., Sankaran, S. & Haslett, T. (2012) Systems thinking: Taming complexity in project management. On the Horizon. 20, 126-136.
Snowden, D. & Boone, M. (2007) A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review. 85, 68-77.
Snowden, D. & Rancati, A. (2021) Managing complexity (and chaos) in times of crisis. A field guide for decision makers inspired by the Cynefin framework. European Commission: Joint Research Centre Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/353.
Strübing, J. (2007) Research as pragmatic problem-solving: The pragmatist roots of empirically-grounded theorizing. In Bryant, A & Charmaz, K. (Eds) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Sage Publications.
Susman N, G. & Evered, R. (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly. 23, 582-603.
Van de Ven, A. (2007) Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford, U.K., Oxford University Press.
Volpe, M. R. & Chandler, D. (1999) Resolving conflicts in institutions of higher education: Challenges for pracademics. Available at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/seedgrant/8.
Weber, R, R. (2003) Editor's comments: The problem of the problem. MIS Quarterly. 27(1), iii-ix.
Westhues, A., Ochocka, J., Jacobson, N., Simich, L., Maiter, S., Janzen, R. & Fleras, A. (2008) Developing theory from complexity: Reflections on a collaborative mixed method participatory action research study. Qualitative Health Research. 18, 701-717.
Williams, W. & Lewis, D. (2005) Convergent interviewing: a tool for strategic investigation. Strategic Change. 14, 219.
##submission.downloads##
Gepubliceerd
Citeerhulp
Nummer
Sectie
Licentie
On submission authors agree to share 50% copyright with Action Learning, Action Research Association Ltd (ALARA). On receipt of payment for public access to papers authors who are members of ALARA will receive 50% of the fee. The remaining 50% will be returned to ALARA.
ALARA is publishing both a hard copy and an electronic copy. There may be a delay in receiving the hard copy, as it is printed by an external print-on-demand publisher.
