Could constructive empiricism be more useful than critical

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 3 rd III Workshop, 13 th-16 th 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? 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. Networks of action (Braa et al, 2004) is a way of thinking of action research in terms of portfolio management

Action research thought of as a mixedmethods approach DIAGNOSIS Interviews, observations, document reviews FINDING A TREATMENT Theoretical reasoning EVALUATING THE TREATMENT Experiment and statistical reasoning

Action research thought of as a mixedmethods approach DIAGNOSIS Interviews, observations, document reviews FINDING A TREATMENT Theoretical reasoning INTERPRETIVISM EVALUATING THE TREATMENT Experiment and statistical reasoning

Action research thought of as a mixedmethods approach DIAGNOSIS Interviews, observations, document reviews FINDING A TREATMENT Theoretical reasoning NON-EMPIRICAL RESEARCH EVALUATING THE TREATMENT Experiment and statistical reasoning

Action research thought of as a mixedmethods approach DIAGNOSIS Interviews, observations, document reviews FINDING A TREATMENT Theoretical reasoning POSITIVISM EVALUATING THE TREATMENT Experiment and statistical reasoning

Action research thought of as a mixedmethods approach DIAGNOSIS Interviews, observations, document reviews FINDING A TREATMENT Theoretical reasoning CRITICAL REALISM EVALUATING THE TREATMENT Experiment and statistical reasoning

Critical realism (Bhaskar, 1975) How we can understand (epistemology: discovering the truth) What do we want to understand (ontology: realism)

Constructive empiricism (van Fraassen, 1980) How we can understand (epistemology: constructing useful models) What do we want to understand (ontology: agnosticism)

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 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. Manda and Sanner (2012) investigate the bootstrap algorithm in a Malawi healthcare institution. 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. ? Would this convince somebody who does not see the real world through the lens of complexity theory? 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: CE-based action research for testing the bootstrap algorithm 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. Øgland (2013) investigates the bootstrap algorithm in a Norwegian financial institution. 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 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. Øgland (2013) investigates the bootstrap algorithm in a Norwegian financial institution. Focus on the usefulness of the model and learn from errors Evaluation: The bootstrap algorithm is implemented and statistical methods are used for testing the model conclusions. Learning: Need to improve algorithm.

Discussion: How do CR and CE compare in the two examples? CR approach CE 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 • 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 CE 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 • 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 CE 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 • 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 CE 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 • 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 CE 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 • 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 CE 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 • 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 DIAGNOSIS Interviews, observations, document reviews FINDING A TREATMENT Theoretical reasoning CONSTRUCTIVE EMPIRICISM EVALUATING THE TREATMENT Experiment and statistical reasoning

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