The knowledge used to deconstruct a problem comes from a number of
sources; and it is important to recognize that, although the product of
the analysis is a heuristic, it is still informed by empirical sources.
Sources for this knowledge are captured with the acronym LODES:
Literature, Observation, Dialogue, Experience, and Survey. Each of these
sources can be used to amass information for deconstructing a problem
(see Figure 2).
Of these sources, deconstruction naturally begins endogenously, with the
researcher’s personal experience and existing schema about the problem
\citep{deGrave}. This initial understanding will inevitably
affect choices about further sources. To this, the remaining exogenous
sources such as literature, observation, dialogue, and survey may be
added. It should be noted that, of the exogenous sources, literature
will likely not provide contextually situated information, but will
provide broader perspectives into the problem; whereas observation,
dialogue, and survey will provide contextually-grounded details but may
lack a broader perspective on the problem. Given the relative strengths
and weaknesses of each source, a combination of literature review and in situ data collection is recommended.
Throughout this phase, the researcher should keep two considerations in
mind. First, this is not an exhaustive study of the problem, it is
merely a pause to gain further clarity before committing to a research
initiative. Concise and targeted investigation of the problem using a
few of the LODES sources should prove sufficient. Second, it is
important to remember that this phase of the analysis is highly
iterative as the researcher moves between collecting new information,
synthesis of that information, and updating schema. Through this
iterative process, new knowledge intermingles with existing schema and
opaque layers of the problem begin to give way to clearer understanding
\citep*{Clarke}.
Prioritize the Drivers
Once a problem has been deconstructed, the identified drivers should be
prioritized. The purpose of analyzing a problem is to identify its root
causes so the problem can be more effectively addressed; and effectively
addressing a problem involves, in part, making informed decisions about
where to focus efforts to achieve maximum effect with minimum
expenditure of resources. Prioritization helps the researcher make these
decisions by scoring each of the identified drivers on three criteria:
Impact, Influence, and Time.
Impact (IM) estimates the potential effect that a driver has on the
overall problem. Although all drivers are expected to have some impact
on the problem, some will have more effect than others. Influence (IN)
designates the perceived amount of control the researcher has over a
given driver. Action research is conducted to affect some desired
change; for this to happen, the driver must be tractable within the
influence of the researcher. Time (T) estimates how long it will take to
address the driver. Drivers contain varying degrees of inertia; and some
simply take more time to address. If the goal of efficiency in research
is accepted, then the time it takes to address a driver becomes an
important consideration.
For each criterion, a value of 1-10 is applied, where one indicates very little , five indicates moderate , and ten indicates considerable . Once assigned, the values are used to calculate an
Overall Priority Rank (OPR) for each driver. The calculation for this
is: OPR = (IM + IN) – T, where IM is the assigned value for the Impact criterion, IN is the
assigned value for the Influence criterion, and T is the assigned value
for the Time criterion.
This formula summarizes the criteria values
assigned to each driver and provides a relative numerical ranking (OPR
range -8 to 19) that can be used for decisions about prioritization.
Problems addressed in action research are situationally-dependent and
often complex \citep*{Berwick}; and the values applied to these criteria
are sensitive to researcher interpretation and contextual factors \citep*{Polkinghoime}. Variation would be expected if these were
generated for the same problem by different researchers or for different
locations.
Plan for Research
The final step of the analysis process is to plan for upcoming research
to address the problem by developing a theory of action. Solutions to
problems are often proposed and implemented without a clear
understanding of the situation or larger strategic vision \citep*{Williamsa}.
An effective theory of action provides this strategic vision by
establishing a process for addressing the problem, and a rationale that
is situationally grounded in the problem framing and identified
contextual factors. This is not a hypothesis nor an explication of
methods; rather, a theory of action provides a broad argument for why a
problem should be addressed in a particular way given its current
framing and deconstruction.
This analysis process is grounded in the belief that research is more
actionable when addressing problems that have been deconstructed into
their root causes. Prioritization of these identified root causes (i.e.,
drivers) points to those areas of the problem that should be addressed
first; therefore, priority should be given here to drivers with
relatively larger OPRs. A well-developed theory of action summarizes all
steps of the analysis process and can serve as the nexus for follow-on
studies targeting each of the identified drivers.