Collaborative Design - Collaborative Technologies and Applications for Interactive Information Design - page 205

example of a content architecture design project.
Over the life of the three year initiative, these SSM-
enabled projects served to produce organization
wide re-design of work roles and tasks, includ-
ing considerably extended interactions based on
participants' perceptions of enlarged boundaries
of concern and influence. To conclude the paper,
we present and discuss a process model for or-
ganizational leadership, which surfaced during
the project, that aims to use systems thinking to
advance workplace learning.

taking (intervening), followed by evaluating and
reflecting - i.e., learning.
Participatory action research is a form of ac-
tion research that involves practitioners as both
subjects and co-researchers (Agryris & Schön,
1991). This is in contrast to other types of applied
research where the researcher is seen as the expert
(Whyte, et al ., 1991). In contrast, participatory
action research aims to construct an environment
where participants freely exchange information
and make informed choices, thereby promoting
commitment to the investigation results (Agryris
& Schön, 1991). Through co-constructing, testing
and improving theories about particular interpre-
tations and experiences, people learn by interact-
ing with each other that they can better control their
social world (Elden & Levin, 1991). Thus, follow-
ing Checkland and Holwell's (1998b) illustration
of an action research situation, the ideas inherent
in participatory action research, in which research
subjects act as both practitioners and researchers,
are inherent in the framework of ideas that guides
this intervention. In a complementary fashion,
the underlying philosophy of SSM, which is both
interpretivistic and constructivistic, reinforces the
notion that people who want to improve a situa-
tion perceived as problematic can make improve-
ments, or changes, through learning their way. In
this journey of discovery, SSM-enabled systems
thinking guided the dialogue-based (Banathy &
Jenlick, 2005) appreciative inquiry (Checkland
& Casar, 1986; Vickers, 1983a; 1983b) which
furthers organizational learning.
In this case, to encourage the university li-
brary's assumption of a new role as a dynamic
center of instruction, exploration and learning, we
introduced the participants to systems thinking
tools which activated and challenged their prior
understandings. The iterative learning cycle char-
acteristic of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM),
including Rich Picture modeling (Checkland,
1979; 1981; Lewis, 1992), aided librarians to, for
example, (re)design web based pages, portals, and
personas. In a complementary fashion, additional

PArtiCiPAtory ACtion
reseArCh

In the Cal Poly project, systems thinking benefited
from a participatory action research orientation
(Agryris & Schön, 1991; Ghaye, 2007; Heron
& Reason, 2001; Jacobs, 2006; Jansson, 2007).
“Action research aims to contribute both to the
practical concerns of people in an immediate
problematic situation and to the goals of social
science by joint collaboration within a mutually
acceptable ethical framework” (Rapoport, 1970,
499). In other words, action research aims to solve
a practical problem and at the same time increase
scientific knowledge. The usefulness of combining
systems thinking and action research has been
well elaborated by leading systems thinkers (e.g.,
Checkland, 1985; Flood, 1998; Midgley, 2000;
Stowell & West, 1994; Wilson, 2001).
In action research, the researcher's role is to
create organizational change while simultaneously
studying the process (Baskerville & Wood-Harp-
er, 1998; Champion & Stowell, 2003; Checkland
& Holwell, 1998b; Dick, 2004). Hence, the action
researcher becomes part of the study and interprets
the inter-subjective meaning of the observations.
Although there is significant variety among action
research approaches, they have in common a cyclic
process where, following Susman and Evered
(1978), the 'systemic' research cycle consists of
situation diagnosis, action planning, and action