Cited by 1,002Information Systems Theories and ImplementationAppreciative Inquiry and Organizational ChangeInformation Systems Education and Curriculum Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a Method for Information Systems Research

Baskerville, Richard L., Wood-Harper, A. Trevor·1996·Journal of Information Technology

Abstract

This paper reviews the origins, techniques and roles associated with action research into information systems (IS). Many consider the approach to be the paragon of post-positivist research methods, yet it has a cloudy history among the social sciences. The paper summarizes the rigorous approach to action research and suggests certain domains of ideal use (such as systems development methodology). For those faced with conducting, reviewing or examining action research, the paper discusses various problems, opportunities and strategies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/026839629601100305

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Argyris C., 1985, Action Science
  2. Baskerville R., 1991, Information Systems Research Arena of the 90s
  3. Checkland P., 1990, Soft Systems Methodology in Practice
  4. Glaser B.G., 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Strategies for Qualitative Research
  5. Jenkins M., 1985, Research Methods in Information Systems, 103
  6. Jönsson S., 1991, Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, 371
  7. Keen P., 1991, Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, 27
  8. Klein H., 1991, Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, 1
  9. Schein E., 1969, Process Consultation: Its Role in Organizational Development
  10. Straub D., 1991, Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, 103
  11. Warmington A., 1980, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 7, 23

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,002

Metadata

Authors
Baskerville, R. L., & Wood-Harper, A. T.
Affiliations
  • Copenhagen Business School (DK)
  • University of Salford (GB)
Venue
Journal of Information Technology
Published
1996-09
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
235-246
ISSN
  • 0268-3962 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-4437
OpenAlex
W4240661623
Cited by
390
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 24
FWCI
11.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Information Technology (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
  • CBS Research Portal (Copenhagen Business School) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Appreciative Inquiry and Organizational Change
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Systems Education and Curriculum Development
Keywords
action research, information systems research, post-positivism, research methodology critique, system development methodology, history of action research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review