could constructive empiricism be more useful than critical realism as a foundation for action...
TRANSCRIPT
Could constructive empiricism be more useful than critical realism as a
foundation for action research on information infrastructure development?
Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo
3rd III Workshop, 13th-16th October 2014
Plan for presentation• Real world motivation (5 min.)
– Problem: Difficult to test bootstrap strategy through action research– Possible solution: Use philosophy of science to make action research easier
• Theory: Critical realism (CR) and constructive empiricism (CE) (10 min.)– CR fits with the “trad.” way of doing IS and II action research (critical theory)– CE fits with the “modern” way of doing action research (design science)– Hypothesis: CE is more useful than CR for designing action research
• Experiment: Using CR and CE for designing action research (10 min.)– Testing bootstrap hypothesis in Malawian healthcare institution (CR)– Testing bootstrap hypothesis in Norwegian financial institution (CE)– Discussion: Which philosophy is most useful for improving action?
• Real world conclusion (5 min.)– CR turns action research into ideology, CE turns action research into science– CE should be used for designing action research on II development
How to test the bootstrap algorithm through real world experiments?
Networks of action (Braa et al, 2004) is a way of thinking of action research in terms of portfolio management
Bootstrap algorithm as monopoly strategy (Øgland, 2013) based on knowledge, skill and luck. Computer simulation studies. Difficult to succeed. Most players get thrown out of the game.
Action research thought of as a mixed-methods approach
FINDING A TREATMENTTheoretical reasoning
DIAGNOSISInterviews, observations, document reviews
EVALUATING THE TREATMENTExperiment and statistical reasoning
Action research thought of as a mixed-methods approach
FINDING A TREATMENTTheoretical reasoning
DIAGNOSISInterviews, observations, document reviews
EVALUATING THE TREATMENTExperiment and statistical reasoning
INTERPRETIVISM
Action research thought of as a mixed-methods approach
FINDING A TREATMENTTheoretical reasoning
DIAGNOSISInterviews, observations, document reviews
EVALUATING THE TREATMENTExperiment and statistical reasoning
NON-EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Action research thought of as a mixed-methods approach
FINDING A TREATMENTTheoretical reasoning
DIAGNOSISInterviews, observations, document reviews
EVALUATING THE TREATMENTExperiment and statistical reasoning
POSITIVISM
Action research thought of as a mixed-methods approach
FINDING A TREATMENTTheoretical reasoning
DIAGNOSISInterviews, observations, document reviews
EVALUATING THE TREATMENTExperiment and statistical reasoning
CRITICAL REALISM
Critical realism (Bhaskar, 1975)
What do we want to understand (ontology: realism)
How we can understand(epistemology: discovering the truth)
Constructive empiricism (van Fraassen, 1980)
What do we want to understand (ontology: agnosticism)
How we can understand(epistemology: constructing useful models)
CR and CE as basis for action research
Critical realism (CR)The Marxist model is (is not) a true representation of society
Constructive empiricism (CE)The Marxist model is (is not) a useful representation of society
Example: CR-based action research for testing the bootstrap algorithm
Manda and Sanner (2012) investigate the bootstrap algorithm in a Malawi healthcare institution.
Diagnosis:Interviews, observations and document reviews are used for describing II development challenges.
Treatment:Tool: The bootstrap algorithm is used as a “sensitising device” for analysing development practice.
Evaluation:Some parts of the bootstrap algorithm easy to follow in practice, and some parts were difficult.
Learning:The algorithm is a useful tool.
Example: CR-based action research for testing the bootstrap algorithm
Diagnosis:Interviews, observations and document reviews are used for describing II development challenges.
Treatment:Tool: The bootstrap algorithm is used as a “sensitising device” for analysing development practice.
Evaluation:Some parts of the bootstrap algorithm easy to follow in practice, and some parts were difficult.
Learning:The algorithm is a useful tool.
?
?
?
?
Would this convince somebody who does not see the real world through the lens of complexity theory?
Example: CE-based action research for testing the bootstrap algorithm
Øgland (2013) investigates the bootstrap algorithm in a Norwegian financial institution.
Diagnosis:Interviews, observations and document reviews are used for developing a game model.
Treatment:An operational version of the bootstrap algorithm is deduced by analysing the model.
Evaluation:The bootstrap algorithm is implemented and statistical methods are used for testing the model conclusions.
Learning:Need to improve algorithm.
Example: CE-based action research for testing the bootstrap algorithm
Øgland (2013) investigates the bootstrap algorithm in a Norwegian financial institution.
Diagnosis:Interviews, observations and document reviews are used for developing a game model.
Treatment:An operational version of the bootstrap algorithm is deduced by analysing the model.
Evaluation:The bootstrap algorithm is implemented and statistical methods are used for testing the model conclusions.
Learning:Need to improve algorithm.
Focus on the usefulness of the model and learn from errors
Discussion: How do CR and CE compare in the two examples?
CR approach• Diagnosis is ideologically
motivated• Treatment is intuitively
related to diagnosis• Treatment cannot be
falsified by experiment• Theoretical learning is
conditioned by agreement with ideological beliefs
CE approach• Diagnosis is ideologically
motivated• Treatment is logically
deduced from diagnosis• Treatment can be falsified
by experiment• Learning relates to theory
and is independent of ideology
Discussion: How do CR and CE compare in the two examples?
CR approach• Diagnosis is ideologically
motivated• Treatment is intuitively
related to diagnosis• Treatment cannot be
falsified by experiment• Theoretical learning is
conditioned by agreement with ideological beliefs
CE approach• Diagnosis is ideologically
motivated• Treatment is logically
deduced from diagnosis• Treatment can be falsified
by experiment• Learning relates to theory
and is independent of ideology
Discussion: How do CR and CE compare in the two examples?
CR approach• Diagnosis is ideologically
motivated• Treatment is intuitively
related to diagnosis• Treatment cannot be
falsified by experiment• Theoretical learning is
conditioned by agreement with ideological beliefs
CE approach• Diagnosis is ideologically
motivated• Treatment is logically
deduced from diagnosis• Treatment can be falsified
by experiment• Learning relates to theory
and is independent of ideology
Discussion: How do CR and CE compare in the two examples?
CR approach• Diagnosis is ideologically
motivated• Treatment is intuitively
related to diagnosis• Treatment cannot be
falsified by experiment• Theoretical learning is
conditioned by agreement with ideological beliefs
CE approach• Diagnosis is ideologically
motivated• Treatment is logically
deduced from diagnosis• Treatment can be falsified
by experiment• Learning relates to theory
and is independent of ideology
Discussion: How do CR and CE compare in the two examples?
CR approach• Diagnosis is ideologically
motivated• Treatment is intuitively
related to diagnosis• Treatment cannot be
falsified by experiment• Theoretical learning is
conditioned by agreement with ideological beliefs
CE approach• Diagnosis is ideologically
motivated• Treatment is logically
deduced from diagnosis• Treatment can be falsified
by experiment• Learning relates to theory
and is independent of ideology
Discussion: How do CR and CE compare in the two examples?
CR approach• Diagnosis is ideologically
motivated• Treatment is intuitively
related to diagnosis• Treatment cannot be
falsified by experiment• Theoretical learning is
conditioned by agreement with ideological beliefs
CE approach• Diagnosis is ideologically
motivated• Treatment is logically
deduced from diagnosis• Treatment can be falsified
by experiment• Learning relates to theory
and is independent of ideology
INDOCTRINATION SCIENCE
CONCLUSION: Action research thought of as a mixed-methods approach
FINDING A TREATMENTTheoretical reasoning
DIAGNOSISInterviews, observations, document reviews
EVALUATING THE TREATMENTExperiment and statistical reasoning
CONSTRUCTIVE EMPIRICISM
Summary of presentation• Real world motivation
– Problem: Difficult to test bootstrap strategy through action research– Possible solution: Use philosophy of science to make action research easier
• Theory: Critical realism (CR) and constructive empiricism (CE)– CR fits with the “trad.” way of doing IS and II action research (critical theory)– CE fits with the “modern” way of doing action research (design science)– Hypothesis: CE is more useful than CR for designing action research
• Experiment: Implications of CR and CE for designing action research– Testing bootstrap hypothesis in Malawian healthcare institution (CR)– Testing bootstrap hypothesis in Norwegian financial institution (CE)– Discussion: Which philosophy is most useful for improving action?
• Real world conclusion– CR turns action research into ideology, CE turns action research into science– CE should be used for designing action research on II development