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. Throughout 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 priori understandings about the nature of the problem \citep*{Kratwohl}.
Research done in this tradition usually favors a gestalt approach in
which problems are addressed as an indivisible whole \citet{Mills}. 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
\citep*{Mills}. 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 \citet{Hedges}, ”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.