Integration is a main purpose of the International Institute of Informatics and Systemics (IIIS), and it is a main feature of "Action Research," Action-Learning," and Action-Design."

Among the objectives of the IIIS are the following:

• Integration of Academic Activities: Research, Education, and Consulting/Real life Problem solving.
• Integration among Academy, Industry, and Society.
• Integration among disciplines: Inter-Disciplinary Research, Education, and Communication.

Read more...

Because of the integrative potential of Action-Research in the three dimensions indicated above, the IIIS is organizing a special track on Action Research and Action Learning (ARAL 2024) in the context of its multidisciplinary conferences, and collocated with three other related events (figure 1), with the hope that this special track can grow into a Symposium on action-Research, Action-Learning, and Action-Design.

Our perspective on Action-Research is a systemic-cybernetic one which is 1) a comprehensive one because it include, in an integrative way, the many approaches that might be found on Action-research, and 2) based on a Pluralist Epistemology¹ stance or a Scientific Pluralism². Consequently, our purpose in organizing this Special Track on Action-Research is to bring together scholars, academics, professionals, and practitioners from plural perspectives, diverse disciplines, inter-disciplinary approaches to present specific cases, theories, conceptual structures, models, and methodologies related to Action-Research. Real life special cases approached via Action-Research will certainly be related to other contributions to be made to special tacks being organized on: 1) Case Studies and Methodologies, 2) Integration of Research, Education, and Problem Solving, and 3) Inter-Disciplinary Research, Education, and Communication. This kind of relationships might generate synergic communications among the respective authors.(Figure 1)

A Systemic-Cybernetic Perspective of "Action-Research"

There are several approaches to Action-Research, many of which are opposite to each other. Both opposites are intellectually legitimate, socially useful, managerially practical, and epistemologically valid³. In its origins, action-research was mainly meant to do research via action, and lately it mostly means to take action via research. With the first perspective, research is the purpose and the action was one of the main means. With the second perspective the principal purpose is action and one of the means used is research. Kurt Lewin⁴, one of the pioneers of Action Research, conceived this kind of research as doing research in the field rather than in a laboratory. On the other side Operations Research has been since its origin oriented to research (basically in mathematical optimization) oriented to support operational decisions to be made before the respective actions. Lewinian approach is an example of theory-driven action, oriented to generate knowledge, while Operation Research is (at least in its origin) an example of practice-driven research, where knowledge is generated as means of supporting decisional processes oriented to take actions.

The difference is basically related to what is sought as an end and what is used as a mean. Figure 2a and 2b schematically visualize of both opposite approaches found in the literature and in the practice of Action-Research. Practitioners and professional tend to prefer doing-through-knowing and theoretically oriented academics and researchers tend to prefer knowing-through-doing. Both complement each other. This is why, in our opinion, several different approaches emerged between these two opposite perspectives, especially in the case of scholars who are trying to integrate academic activities: Research, Education, and Consulting or Real Life Problem Solving.

These two linear approaches have been explicitly referred to in theory and in practice. But, implicitly a non-linear situation happened in many applications of Action-Research to real world situations or problematic situations. Making explicit what actually we observed happening in several real world situations would increase the effectiveness of action-research enquiry for both 1) the generation of new knowledge and/or 2) for supporting more adequate decision making processes and, hence, more effective action.

Figure 3 shows a more suitable model for action-research processes. It is a cybernetic perspective of the relationship between both basic components of Action-Research. It makes explicit the possibilities of 1) co-regulation processes between both components via negative feedback and feedforward, as well as 2) the generation of synergies and emergent properties via positive feedback.

The cybernetic model shown in figure 2 does not exclude any of the opposite perspectives with regards Action-Research because it includes the possibility of figure 1a and figure 1b, as special cases, as well as the case of relating both of them in cybernetic loops.

Notes

• Concepts, Theories, and Methodologies of Action Research
• Specific cases of Action Research, Action Learning, or Action Design
• Cases Studies and Action Research
• System Approach and Action Research
• Information Systems and Action Research
• Operations Research and Action Research
• Soft Operations Research
• Action Research in Production and Operations Management
• Systems Methodology and Action Research
• Soft Systems Methodologies
• Ethnography and Action Research
• Collaborative Action Research
• Interdisciplinary Action Research
• Inter-Cultural Action Research
• Action Research, Critical Thinking, and Reflective Student Engagement
• Action Research and Community-Based Organizations
• Action Research and Student Learning
• Action Research and Social Change
• Development of Action Researchers
• Participatory Action Research (PAR)
• Action Research for Sustainable Development
• Qualitative Research and Methodologies