Managing Action Research: The PEArL Framework

Abstract

Abstract

The impact of contingency factors on validation of problem structuring methods

“…Champion (2007) also points out that action taken as a result of PSM guided inquiry often impacts upon those in the wider environment and so when working within a PSM framework it is also important to establish the legitimacy and authenticity of the inquiry process itself and not just focus on any tangible outcomes (Champion and Stowell, 2001;Champion, 2008). The concept of legitimacy refers to the need in PSM to establish that the way an inquiry process was undertaken can be justified.…”

“…How will this influence the need for validation? Experienced modellers will be able to ensure that the necessary aspects of validation are implemented, but this will more be in the hands of the facilitator than the stakeholders, an issue raised in Champion (2007), where she argues for more inclusive evaluation tools to be developed that can be applied by stakeholders themselves.…”

“…There are no set rules when applying PSM, each situation is unique. One role of the facilitator in PSM ought to be managing expectations (Champion, 2007), so that if the time for exploration is cut short due to imposed time constraints, the group accepts that this will increase the risk of the outcome not being as carefully explored and considered.…”

“…Rosenhead (2006) has suggested that a wider acceptance and exploitation of PSM is important if the potential of soft OR is to be realised in practice. Applying some of the lessons learnt from applying PSM would suggest that the unique characteristics of problem structuring in complex organizational settings requires a holistic approach to validation that is rigorously based on theory, but that is also practical and easy to use for practitioners in the field (Champion, 2007;Champion et al, 2005). Validation approaches for PSM also need to offer some means of establishing the legitimacy of the process of inquiry, as many of the outcomes of such inquiry are subjective in nature and not amenable to quantitative analysis or measurement (Champion and Stowell, 2003;Midgley, 2000).…”

“…It is widely accepted that PSM are useful in addressing complex messy problems but Dash (1999) has criticised SSM for evading the longer term consequences of any intervention and this criticism can be extended to other PSM frameworks too. Champion (2007) suggests that when validating PSM (which will include establishing the legitimacy of the PSM process), it is important to consider the longer term consequences and for the validation process not to be a single, one-off event, but an ongoing collaborative process involving stakeholders.…”