Discussion
Problems addressed in action research are complex, defying simple
understanding and objective interpretation \citep*{Sagor}.
Some forms of action research are conducted with the purpose of
clarifying a problem \citep{Putman}. These clearly do not
require pre-study analysis of the problem given that the purpose of the
study itself is to provide a better understanding of the problem.
However, practical forms of action research, that are conducted to test
the effectiveness of an intervention, do require a degree of pre-study
clarity about the problem. This latter form of research is what we had
in mind when developing the proposed method of problem analysis.
Problems can be articulated any number of ways depending on the
researcher’s schema and the context in which the problem is situated
\citep{deGrave}; therefore, a systematic and transparent process
for analyzing the problem helps the researcher be clear about what is
being addressed, prioritize research efforts, and communicate that
articulation with others. We propose that a systematic and transparent
problem analysis conducted as a pre-study task would enhance the rigor
and transferability of findings from action research just as a thorough
description of research methods currently does. Although we anticipate
some resistance to adding another task to the already daunting process
of action research, consider this: a thoroughly analyzed problem
contextually framed and deconstructed into its root drivers can serve as
a nexus for multiple action research projects, each addressing a
specific driver. In this way, the expenditure of time with pre-study
analysis may return the drivers that can each become the impetus for
multiple interrelated research projects.
Analysis Method
Progenitors
Several processes already exist for clarifying problems; and the
Heuristic Analysis method draws on, combines, and builds upon elements
from these other processes. Among these, the driver diagram and failure
modes and effects analysis (FMEA) have been the most influential; and
readers familiar with them will recognize their influence on the
presented method. A full discussion of other methods is beyond the scope
of this article, but a few words about each is warranted.
The driver diagram sees frequent use in the field of medicine,
particularly medical practice and delivery \citep{Reed,White}. Its strength is the
ability to break down a complex problem into constituent levels (i.e.,
level 1 and level 2 drivers). This helps reveal the root causes of the
problem, which encourages more targeted research. The FMEA, of which
several different variations exist, sees frequent use in engineering and
programming \citep{Arabian-Hoseynabadi,Ben-Daya}. Its strength is the ability to identify and prioritize
points of failure within a system so the developer can address them
during design and testing.
Both of these techniques can be effective for deconstructing or
prioritizing a problem; but individually they fall short of fully
analyzing the problem in a way that: a) recognizes the hermeneutic and
situated nature of problem analysis, and b) provides sufficient clarity
for contextually-situated action research. In other words, they do not
individually generate a high-resolution problem: one with
sufficient detail about the ambit, composition, and tenacity in a way
that informs time and resource sensitive action research.
Opacity and inertia around a problem can be overcome through careful
analysis that reveals its root causes \citep*{Whitehead}. Disentangling
symptoms from root causes requires systematic investigation into, and
analysis of, the problem so research efforts can be maximally efficient.
Efficiency here means generating a practically important effect with
minimal effort over the shortest period of time. To make this concrete,
a high school principal working to address high drop-out rates cannot
wait years for the findings from a research study before taking action
to address the problem. Conversely, implementing an intervention and
hoping for the best is equally untenable. What’s required is a thorough
and contextually-situated understanding of the problem that clarifies
its root causes.
Limitations and
Conclusion
It is important to acknowledge that no clinical trials of the Heuristic
Analysis process have been conducted at the time of writing. Current and
earlier iterations of the process have been used in the field, but its
ability to provide enhanced analysis of a problem relative to a control
condition or another analysis process has still not been empirically
tested. Despite their ubiquity, there is a surprising lack of efficacy
or even effectiveness research for any of the common analytic methods
such as those mentioned in this section. The efficacy and application of
the Heuristic Analysis method and other analysis models is an area that
requires further research.
In this article, we proposed a method developed to enhance problem
analysis and transparency within action research. At the core of our
argument is the belief that practical action research can be made more
effective and leveraged for advances within the field if the analytic
logic trail is clearly articulated and made transparent to other
researchers and stakeholders. This requires that researchers acknowledge
the subjectivity inherent in the act of analyzing a problem \citep*{Bryk}, even when that analysis is done in preparation for
interventionist action research conducted from a positivist orientation.
The Heuristic Analysis method was designed to fill this need and provide
a living process that can be adopted outright or adapted to meet the
needs of the study.