A research design is a formal plan used to conduct a study and it specifies exactly how the study will be conducted (Mertler, 2009). It is critical to carefully conceptualise the design of a study prior to its commencement, considering all aspects of the study and how they fit with the paradigm of the researcher, as well as the nature of the research question. The research design aspects include not only how data will be generated and analysed but also primarily how the study will be planned (Mertler, 2009). The research design selected for the current study is presented in the following discussion.
The researcher selected action research (AR) as a methodological paradigm for this study because besides being a methodology, it is also a paradigm, based on values that promote
60
the social good (Zuber-Skerritt, 2011). In the course of an investigation, action research allows participants to experience insightful, emotional moments and personal growth akin to the transformational moments that occur in action learning (O’Neil et al., 2003). Action research emphasises cognitive and operational changes in participants, which results in a better understanding of social reality, rather than the researcher making assumptions about how things are and how action and attitudes may be adjusted (O’Neil et al., 2003). It is by its nature, directive and interventionist, trusting that people as social beings are generally motivated to self-organise and to work collaboratively, contributing all they can in unpretentious ways to the common good (O’Neil et al., 2003).
Another reason why the researcher chose action research is because it links with critical theory as it also places a high value on the democracy of the research process, allowing for free and full participation of the participants (Stringer, 2008). It became relevant for the researcher to use action research for this study because it enabled the researcher to work collaboratively with the participants, regarding them as co-researchers, raising their awareness of the need for change and helping them to visualise and actualise change. The epistemology and the ontology of critical theory resonate with the participative and democratic assumptions of action research (Kindon et al., 2010). Some scholars view action research as a research methodology which combines research, education and action (Collins, 1999; Kindon et al., 2010). Action research is a form of participative, person-centred inquiry which allows the researcher to conduct research with people, as opposed to research on them or about them and also helps them to change and grow through the process (Wellington and Szczerbinski, 2007). It is viewed as an emancipatory approach to knowledge production and utilisation, aiming to actively involve oppressed people in the collective investigation of reality, in order to transform their knowledge (Collins, 1999; Creswell, 2008; Kindon et al., 2010).
As indicated in Chapter 1, the intention of the researcher was to facilitate an improvement in the successful delivery of projects within the project success criteria of time, cost and quality and implement project management strategies to improve risk management which accounts for many challenges on construction projects. In order to achieve this, the researcher adopted dialogical, dialectical and hermeneutic approaches in the interaction
61
with all relevant stakeholders who were participants as propagated by Collins (1999), Creswell (2008) and Kindon et al. (2010). The dialogical and hermeneutic approaches in research refer to a more democratic empowerment approach which seeks full participation and it also engages participants as equals (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Stringer, 2008). These approaches require them to think critically as action research provides a simple but powerful framework which engages people in critical thinking (Kindon et al., 2010). Figure 3.3 below indicates the process followed in this study.
6
5 Evaluation
Continual Cycles Implementation
4 Action Plan 3 Analysis 2 Vision Building 1 Team Building
Figure 3.3: The Action-research process (Zuber-Skerritt, 2011)
The stages within the action research process depicted in Figure 3.3, which is the action- research process were adopted in this study to facilitate the interaction between the researcher (Project manager) who in the above scenario is the facilitator and the participants. While stages 1, 2 and 6 in Figure 3.3 are not covered by the usual action research cycles as depicted by some scholars in their spiral of cycles, these stages are important in the action research process (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Stringer, 2008). In terms of the current study, stage 1 involves creating a good relationship between the researcher and the participants and among the participants themselves. Stage 2 involves the development of a common vision by the team and this will carry them through to stage 6 which involves the evaluation of the achievements of the research. The action research process constitutes a spiral of cycles, each cycle consisting of four phases (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Stringer, 2008) indicated by stages 3, 4, 5 and 6. Stage 3 which is planning and context
62
analysis, involves the identification of the problem; stage 4 involves the development of a strategic plan to improve the situation; stage 5 involves the implementation of the plan and stage 6 involves the evaluation of the action plan as well as critical reflection of its impact and significance for further change.
At the completion of each cycle (stages 3-6), participants reconsider the situation for a review, reflect for reanalysis, and re-act to transform their actions (Wellington and Szczerbinski, 2007; Stringer, 2008; Turesky and Gallagher, 2011). The participants continue to reflect on, and re-act their situation, proceeding from one cycle to the next, until all stakeholders led by the project manager / researcher are satisfied that the desired change has been achieved in accordance with Figure 3.3 (Kindon et al., 2010). The spiral nature of the process undertaken in this study is depicted in Figure 3.4. The illustration presented shows that the action taken in this study will take the form of a spiral cycle where stimulating action will be introduced and the outcome observed. Where the outcome is not in accordance with the intended result, the process will be repeated until the desired outcomes are realised. During the first process within spiral 1, the researcher plans the intervention, then, acts on it, observes the outcome and reflects on the process. When the outcome is not in accordance with the intended result, the process is repeated until the desired result is achieved at process number 3.
Figure 3.4: The spiral nature of Action Research (Zuber-Skerritt, 2011)
63
The entire research process necessitates that participants reflect on and experientially learn from their actions and draw from their own experiences (Turesky and Gallagher, 2011). In order for this to happen, participants are engaged in reflective and dialogical conversations (McIntosh, 2013). The project manager, who is also the researcher in this study engaged in collaborative dialogues, through which all stakeholders gained access to overall vision of the project through which wider opportunities for understanding could unfold (McIntosh, 2013). The project manager requires to collaboratively work on issues that are potentially risky to the project by using the phases of the action research cycles. This will require the project manager to define issues, ideas and government policies about the roles of different stakeholders on the project, so that they are all able to develop a deeper understanding of how their respective roles fit into the overall project success picture (Collins, 1999; Creswell, 2008; Kindon et al., 2010). The Project manager collaboratively identified problems which accounted for risks on the project which had the potential to hinder the ability to achieve project success within time, cost and quality. This framework, where participants were required to look or observe, think and act in working out their situation demanded full commitment by the participants from the beginning of the project to the end (Kindon et al., 2010).
In traditional research, learning is assumed as an outcome which in reality is rarely reflected upon by participants and opportunities to learn are restricted to the findings of the data analysis (Mertler, 2009; Kindon et al., 2010). In action research, participants learn throughout the research process (Kindon et al., 2010). This framework promotes the values of democracy, equality and liberty, which are the social values of action research. This value- based design implies that participants’ views are respected, they are equals and they participated freely and fully in the investigation, looking into the situation that needed to be changed, thinking of solutions, and acting together to implement solutions to bring about change. Compliance of the participants to the set standards by the project manager or researcher was a requisite in order for the desired outcomes to be achieved.