This document proposes an extension to the canonical action research (CAR) model to increase its flexibility. It summarizes a study that used CAR to implement social media in a microbusiness but encountered limitations due to CAR's rigid structure. To address this, the study adopted a trial-and-error problem-solving approach. Based on these findings, the document proposes an extended CAR model that allows iterations between stages to increase flexibility while maintaining CAR's cyclical nature. This extended model is presented as having theoretical and practical implications for conducting action research.

1. Debashish Mandal - University of Waikato dm110@waikato.ac.nz
Chief Supervisor: Prof. Robert J McQueen
Supervisor: Dr. Stuart Dillion and Dr. Karyn Rastrick
Title
Extending canonical action research model to implement social media in microbusinesses
Abstract
This paper points out the limitation of Canonical Action Research (CAR) during the adoption
process of social media by microbusinesses. CAR is found rigid since it does not permit to
iterate within its stages. A CAR project is used to demonstrate the need for such flexibility.
Pragmatism leads to a trial-and-error problem solving approach defying the fixed stages of a
cycle. Rigidity issue with CAR is observed in the literature leading to development of Action
Design Research (ADR) model. ADR has two problems: (a) consulting orientation with no
philosophical standpoint, focused on development of IT artefact; and (b) definition of IT
artefact. ADR treats IT artefact as technology as structure restricting its use in other views of
technology. This paper proposes a versatile CAR with elements of design research to be used
in volatile, diminished theory driven situation wherein the primary focus is theoretical
development arising from solving problems of the participants.
Key words
Action research, Design Science, microbusiness

2. CAR is used to implement social media in microbusiness using a planned two-cycle
intervention. The intervention is designed using existing adoption theory. The purpose of the
intervention is twofold (a) to examine the efficacy of the adoption theory and (b) to examine
the utility of CAR in a diminished theory driven situation. This paper recounts the result of
the second purpose identifying limitation in the CAR. These limitations of CAR have been
highlighted by others, which is first examined in the literature review. Within the literature
review alternatives to overcome this limitation is examined and criticised for its
shortcomings. The remainder of the paper is structured by first setting the stage with
propositions and method of conducting an investigation to test the limitation and propose
suitable alternatives to overcome it.
Second, in the process of conducting the first cycle of CAR breakdown is observed leading to
adoption of a trial-error method, which is reported in the result section. Finally, in the
discussion section an extended CAR is proposed to overcome the inherent difficulties in the
classical CAR. Finally, the implication of this method its validity and reliability is established
for researcher intending to use this method. The limitation of the method being based on a
single case study is highlighted and justified. Practitioners can use this method in real-life
situation and report the results in academic journals leading to enrichment of the information
systems field.
Literature review
Action research in IS has gained popularity in the last ten years. This is evident from
Orlikowski & Baroudi (1991) who have reported one action research investigation against 63
investigations reported by Chiasson, Germonprez, & Mathiassen (2008) and 83 by
Mathiassen, Chiasson, & Germonprez (2012). Most investigation have been undertaken in the

3. last ten years as pointed out by Williams, Dwivedi, Lal, & Schwarz (2009).This is not
surprising since top IS journals (Information Technology & People Vol.14 Issue 1 2001 and
MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 Issue 3 2004) have published special issue on action research. The
focus of IT&P is on dual masters in action research and the MISQ primarily give importance
to the pragmatic nature of action research. Besides the two special issues Information
Systems Journal and Journal of Association of Information Systems has been publishing
influential articles related to action research.
A review of the research articles indicate that CAR is the most widely used form of action
research. Despites its popularity a pragmatic focused MISQ special issue criticise CAR for its
rigidity. Two papers Braa, Monteiro, & Sahay (2004) and Lindgren, Henfridsson, & Schultze
(2004) specifically highlight the flexibility issue of CAR in two different context. The former
highlight spontaneity and simultaneity in large-scale cross-country projects and the later
highlight difficulty in maintaining the stages of CAR. Davison, Martinsons, & Kock (2004)
specifically insist on maintaining a unidirectional flow between the stages of CAR. They
acknowledge that there might be requirement for moving between the stages but this should
be categorically justified. Articles by Braa et al. (2004) and Lindgren et al. (2004) reject this
requirement stating that spontaneity along with focus on solving problem of the participant
takes precedence rather than maintaining the stages of CAR.
Sein, Henfridsson, Purao, Rossi, & Lindgren (2011) considers the problems faced by
Lindgren et al. (2004) in using the CAR. They propose ADR by bringing elements of design
research. The ADR is based on Hevner, March, Park, & Ram (2004) design research model
and Davison et al. (2004) CAR. ADR is contextual as it is derived for solving problems by
incorporating design principles in CAR. ADR accepts the ensemble view of technology as

4. structure, which focuses on enmeshing of IT artefact based on conditions of its use. An
alternative to this situation would be ensemble view of technology where an IT artefact is
embedded in an organisation. The use of the IT artefact is then dependant on a dynamic
situation leading to continuous evolvement of its use.
ADR has a consulting feel since its primary focus is on problem solving and developing
highly relevant solution with no philosophical standpoint. CAR with its long diversified
pedigree in theory building is a powerful and validated method for theoretical development.
Identification of dual cycle by McKay & Marshall (2001) and proposition of pluralistic
method in action research by Chiasson et al. (2008) has further extended theoretical
development capabilities of action research. Despite the limitations of CAR the literature
does not reveal any research based investigation to examine and extend the CAR. ADR is an
alternative model based on CAR. This paper proposes to address the literature gap by
undertaking a research approach to investigate the limitations of CAR.
Proposition development
To address the literature gap it is proposed to conduct an investigation by introducing an IT
artefact (Facebook business page) using CAR to test the viability of CAR in the context of
diminished theory situation. The IT artefact is different from ADR since it “is that of an
evolving system embedded in a complex and dynamic social context” (Orlikowski & Iacono,
2001 p. 126). Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) is chosen to
drive the adoption of the IT artefact. The choice is based on its capability to explain
technology adoption with 70% variance leading to wide use (Dwivedi, Rana, Chen, &
Williams, 2011).

5. The IT artefact Facebook business page is embedded in a microbusiness using two planned
cycles of CAR undergoing the unidirectional flow of stages. UTAUT mandates that
facilitating condition will be the primary factor affecting behavioural intention during cycle
one. The microbusiness owner will instantly recognise the benefits of the IT artefact and
engage in an intensive use of the same.
Cycle one will lead to the understanding that usefulness is the primary indicator of adoption
and cycle two can be initiated to embark on advanced use of the IT artefact. The advanced
use would normally comprise of undertaking social climbing, obtaining domain name, and
active marketing of the business page. On completion of cycle two, the researcher can
effectively withdraw from the microbusiness. The reporting style of this paper follows the
recommendations by DeLuca, Gallivan, & Kock (2008)
Method
A single case CAR with its five stages of diagnosing, planning, action taking, evaluating, and
specifying learning is undertaken over two-cycle basis. Prior to the execution of the first
cycle, a researcher client agreement is executed exemplifying the nature of intervention,
duration, and role of the researcher and the participant. Since it was predetermined to
introduce Facebook business page within the microbusiness the diagnosis stage in cycle one
involved understanding of the nature of problems and solving privacy concerns of the
microbusiness.
The participant a speciality retail food outlet is selected based on two primary criteria. First, it
has to be microbusiness and second the researcher must have a comparative business using
Facebook business page successfully. By successful use, it is implied that the business

6. updates its page on a daily basis and has more than 200 “likes” on its page. Two parallel
microbusinesses are found meeting the criteria. This criterion is specifically important in this
context since it proves that Facebook business page can be used by microbusiness in that
specific industry category successfully. Though gender is not the matter of comparison it is
appropriate to point out that including the participant, all of them are women in the same age
group.
Data collection is in the form of unstructured interview undertaken during execution of
cycles. Simple quantitative measures such as number of likes on the participant business
page, frequency of posting, time allocated for use of the page will be captured to indicate use
of the page. The unstructured interviews will lead to a semi-structured interview focused on
understanding the researcher’s involvement and the quality of intervention performed. Data
analysis will be performed using simple quantitative indicators and following the deductive
logic as pointed out by Baskerville (1999)
Results
A complete breakdown as pointed out by Alvesson & Karreman (2007) is observed after
undertaking cycle one. Cycle one is performed with the intended consequences but UTAUT
theory led to poorly planned intervention. The microbusiness owner could not be motivated
to use the Facebook business page despite understanding its usefulness. The intervention
breakdown requires new ideas to keep the owner engaged.
A trial and error method is adopted abandoning cycle two, which involves a series of action
taking and evaluation to estimate “what will work” and “what will not work”. Specifying
learning is not a separate stage but a parallel on-going effort.

7. Out of the various trial and error methods, a report prepared from post of the parallel
microbusinesses provides a valuable input for the participant. It acts as a guideline for them
to use the Facebook business page.
Discussion
CAR has been an unchallenged model besides variations such as spirals of action proposed
by Kemmis & McTaggart (as cited in Davison et al., 2004, p. 72) or multiple iterations
suggested by Kock, McQueen, & Scott (1997). Recently alternative modes of CAR has been
proposed by Mårtensson & Lee (2004) called as the dialogical action research. This form of
action research relies on canonical action research for its basic framework but recommends
back and forth interaction between the participant, researcher, and the real world problem to a
series of action and reaction.
The breakdown of the planned cycle indicates that CAR is not effective when undertaken in a
situation where the researcher has poor theoretical knowledge. The lack of knowledge is due
to incorrect choice of theory to plan the intervention. In this case two contextual factors (a)
microbusiness and (b) social media technology play an undermining role for UTAUT. This
theory has not been tested for both the technology (social media) and category
(microbusiness). Nevertheless, it provides a starting point to use CAR as a problem solving
approach highlighting the problems with CAR in a diminished theory situation.

8. Figure Extended Canonical Action research model
1 Problem Formulation
3
Action Planning
Researcher Specifying 4
Client Formalization of
Learning
Agreement Learning
2
Action taking
Evaluating
The present investigation sheds light on an improvised theory driven poorly planned
intervention situation and illustrates the complete breakdown of CAR. The trial-and-error
method undertaken replicates the mode of design theory (Hevner et al., 2004). As posited by
Hevner et al “Because design is inherently an iterative and incremental activity, the
evaluation phase provides essential feedback to the construction phase” (p. 85). The CAR is
made iterative by modifying its structure while maintain it rigorous cyclical nature. The
iterative CAR is called the extended CAR, which is presented in the figure above.
The stages merge the activities of canonical action research into three blocks. The first is
problem formulation (diagnosing) and action planning second, building, action taking, and
evaluating, and third specifying learning. Each block of activity is conducted simultaneously
and can iterate with the other block. This is a major departure from the classical canonical
action research model. The trial and error method undertaken during this research mimics the

9. stages. After the breakdown of the planned cycle learning from stage 3 is a continuous
activity which informed the action taking, planning and diagnosis.
The dual arrow from stage 1 to stage 2 and stage 2 to stage 3 indicate that specifying learning
is an on-going process. This is a major departure from the canonical action research model
where learning takes place at the end of a cycle. The role of researcher client agreement has
been retained in the synthesised model. The researcher client agreement performs in a similar
manner as pointed out by Davison et al. (2004) taking a central role influencing all the three
stages of the model. A fourth stage has been added as formalised learning. This is in line with
the ADR model and targets at generalising the results of a multiple case study. In this
manner, the multiple case studies can be considered as a part of a single large experiment in
which each mini-case study feeds the formalised learning leading to a generalised learning at
the end of the experiment. Ideally, multiple case studies can be undertaken sequential or
parallel depending on the nature of starting theory.
Individually Sein et al., (2011) model and Davison et al., (2004) model prescribe a set of
stringent criteria. The criteria of both the models apply to the extended CAR model. Since
this model is similar to CAR McKay & Marshall (2001) dual cycle principles and Chiasson et
al. (2008) pluralist method can be easily used with the extended CAR. The philosophical
standpoint of the modified model is consistent with the classical CAR as proposed by Susman
& Evered (1978). This is a major drawback of the ADR since it does not discuss and neither
prescribes a philosophical standpoint.

10. Theoretical contributions
This is the first attempt to augment CAR to increase its flexibility. The extended CAR can
address the issues pointed out by Braa et al. (2004) and Lindgren et al. (2004) providing the
flexibility and spontaneity in face of uncertain environment and designing innovative
solutions.
The ADR is contextual since it focuses on the structure of the enmeshed IT artefact such that
it draws its conditions of use from the structure. The extended CAR model is based on
enmeshing of an IT artefact within the organisation. With the pay per use model based on
cloud computing and software as a service concept on the rise microbusinesses and small
businesses will move towards these models. They will be attracted by the low capital and
infrastructure cost along with its pay per use feature.
Such IT artefact will need to be enmeshed (introduced) in the organisation leading to a wider
applicability of the extended CAR model. The model will also help in development of
adoption methodology using a trial and error method for a variety of software as service and
pay per use services.
Implications for research
The modified CAR provides a realistic model over the classical CAR, which can be used in a
diverse, IS related situation. Since the model follows the entire stringent criterion specified
by the earlier models researcher has to be careful in selecting and justifying deviation from
the criteria. The broad based criterion provides the researcher with enough flexibility and
spread to cover large spectrum of investigation.

11. Researchers now have an alternative to CAR while undertaking action research that enjoys
the philosophical strength and time based validation. Along with the benefits of CAR the
model incorporates flexibility and agility by bringing in elements of design research.
Strengths and limitations
The model provides a powerful medium to perform real life research extending the classical
CAR with elements of design research. The extended model is highly relevant in the present
scenario where smaller businesses are looking to outsource their IT requirements along with
IS services. The model has been tested and developed out of a practical trial, which makes it
extremely relevant in the context, and system where it has been experimented.
Rigour may be compromised since the model has been developed using one case study. This
is acceptable since the ADR has been proposed and published in MISQ journal based on a
single case study. Moreover, the ADR is developed out of a study, which has already been
published as a CAR report. This makes the ADR an untested theoretical model. In contrast,
the extended CAR model proposed is an extension of the classical CAR empirically tested.
Nevertheless further testing is warranted in similar contextual situations.
Implications for practice
The extended model provides a flexible alternative while undertaking action research in the
field. This is supported by McKay & Marshall (2001) who state that “real life is a much more
messy business” than adhering to the linear sequences of the canonical action research stages
(p. 52).

12. Managers are free to concentrate on making the IS project a success rather than trying to
adhere to the cycles of CAR. Learning is a continuous parallel feature, which constantly feeds
into stage one and two making the process real life oriented. Decision-making will be
undertaken by the implementing team due to this inherent feature. Team members will
benefit from control over the processes leading to a higher possibility of success.
Conclusions
The lack of flexibility, spontaneity, and simultaneity in CAR is experienced in the present
investigation leading to an adoption of trial-and-error method. This method is the hallmark of
design science, which is an iterative activity. The iterative element is introduced in CAR to
incorporate trial-and-error-method, which is necessary in diminished theory driven
intervention. The extended CAR is theoretically (design science) and empirically justified to
resolve its inherent non –iterative nature. The extended CAR provides a powerful method to
be adopted by managers and researchers without undermining problem in hand in its effort to
maintain reliability by adhering to the stages of the cycle.
References
Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory
development. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265–1281. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/login.aspx?direct=true&db=heh&AN
=26586822&site=ehost-live
Baskerville, R. (1999). Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice.
Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 9(1), 1–23.
doi:10.1016/S0959-8022(98)00017-4
Braa, J., Monteiro, E., & Sahay, S. (2004). Networks of action: sustainable health information
systems across developing countries. Mis Quarterly, 28(3), 337–362. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25148643
Chiasson, M., Germonprez, M., & Mathiassen, L. (2009). Pluralist action research: a review
of the information systems literature. Information Systems Journal, 19(1), 31–54.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2008.00297.x
Davison, R., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research.
Information Systems Journal, 14(1), 65–86. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00162.x

13. DeLuca, D., Gallivan, M. J., & Kock, N. (2008). Furthering information systems action
research: a post-positivist synthesis of four dialectics. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 9(2), 48–72. Retrieved from
http://cits.tamiu.edu/kock/pubs/journals/2008JournalJAIS/DeLuca_etal_2008_JAIS.pdf
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N., Chen, H., & Williams, M. (2011). A Meta-analysis of the Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). In M. Nüttgens, A. Gadatsch,
K. Kautz, I. Schirmer, & N. Blinn (Eds.), (Vol. 366, pp. 155–170). Springer Boston.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24148-2_10
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information
systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.
Kock, N., McQueen, R. J., & Scott, J. L. (1997). Can action research be made more rigorous
in a positivist sense? The contribution of an iterative approach. Journal of Systems and
Information Technology, 1(1), 1–23. doi:10.1108/13287269780000732
Lindgren, R., Henfridsson, O., & Schultze, U. (2004). Design principles for competence
management systems: a synthesis of an action research study. MIS quarterly, 28(3),
435–472. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25148646
Mathiassen, L., Chiasson, M., & Germonprez, M. (2012). Style Composition in Action
Research Publication. MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 347–363. Retrieved from
http://www.misq.org/skin/frontend/default/misq/pdf/appendices/2012/MathiassenChiass
onGermonprezAppendix.pdf
McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Information
Technology & People, 14(1), 46–59. doi:10.1108/09593840110384771
Mårtensson, P., & Lee, A. S. (2004). Dialogical action research at omega corporation. MIS
Quarterly, 28(3), 507–536. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25148648
Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations:
Research approaches and assumptions. Information systems research, 2(1), 1–28.
Retrieved from http://www.mendeley.com/research/studying-information-technology-
organizations-research-approaches-assumptions-1/
Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the
“IT” in IT Research--A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact. Information Systems
Research, 12(2), 121–134. doi:10.1287/isre.12.2.121.9700
Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design
research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56. Retrieved from
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2017487
Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action
research. Administrative science quarterly, 23(4), 582–603. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2392581
Williams, M. D., Dwivedi, Y. K., Lal, B., & Schwarz, A. (2009). Contemporary trends and
issues in IT adoption and diffusion research. Journal of Information Technology, 24(1),
1–10. doi:10.1057/jit.2008.30