Abstract
Practical action research is conducted to improve practice and resolve problems of practice. This involves working within complex scenarios that can be difficult to understand. Complexity can confound otherwise well designed research, creating misunderstanding and misinterpretation within the study itself, and indistinct communication about the study. The effects of complexity can be mitigated through
Keywords: Heuristic Analysis, problem analysis, practical action research, transparency, research effectiveness
Analyzing and Prioritizing Complex Problems for Practical Action Research
Interventionist forms of research require that a problem be reasonably well understood before moving to address it (Mertler, 2016). This can be particularly challenging with complex problems that are multifaceted, contextually mediated, and boundary spanning (Kezer, 2000). Complexity increases the difficulty of understanding a problem; and opaque problems are difficult to resolve. This presents a particular challenge for those engaged in research initiatives that involve identifying and resolving problems.
Action research can be classified into two broad categories: a) critical action research conducted to better understand a problem, and b) practical action research conducted to improve some aspect of practice or address an identified problem.11Throughout this article, we use the term “problem” for the focus of action research. This is done for the purpose of consistency. Alternative terms, common in the academic literature on action research, such as “phenomenon” or “topic” are equally applicable to the subject of this article. The former category, critical action research, is typically conducted from an inductive orientation with little need for a prioriunderstandings about the nature of the problem (Kratwohl, 1998). Research done in this tradition usually favors a gestalt approach in which problems are addressed as an indivisible whole (Mills, 2014). When conducted with this purpose, the research process rightly tolerates a relatively high degree of problem ambiguity at initiation.
The latter category, practical action research, is typically conducted from a deductive orientation that requires a problem be understood with a high degree of resolution before initiating research to address it (Mills, 2014). Research done in this tradition typically favors a reductionist approach in which problems are deconstructed into smaller elements. Achieving this requires some form of pre-study problem analysis that separates the whole into constituent parts to better understand the nature and essential features of the problem. The reductionist approach is predicated on the concern that problem complexity can confound otherwise well designed research, creating misunderstanding and misinterpretation within the study itself, and indistinct communication about the study. The effects of complexity can be mitigated through systematic pre-study analysis that clarifies the problem and reveals its root causes.
Central to this pre-study analysis of the problem is the need for transparency. As noted by Hedges (2017), ”A crucial objective of empirical research designs is to ensure the transparency of the research process.…Transparency helps other scholars understand one another’s work, enables it to be subjected to public scrutiny, and enables future research to build on that work (p.25).” Although action research is not usually conducted with the goal of generalizability, the findings from practical action research should contribute to the body of practice knowledge, and therefore should be conducted with clarity and transparency. This begins with ensuring that other researchers and stakeholders share the same articulation of the problem being addressed.
In this article, we present a method for analyzing problems for practical action research. This method, known as Heuristic Analysis, provides a systematic and transparent analysis process that redounds to a clear articulation of the problem that can be used to inform follow-on research. The Heuristic Analysis method has undergone numerous iterations during its development. The presented method is the most current version used for pre-study problem analysis. Importantly, this method is a living process, meaning that it can be adapted to meet the needs of the researcher. The goal here is not to dogmatically follow a particular method, but to simply have a method that facilitates systematic and transparent analysis of the problem at hand before initiating research to address it.