چارچوب مدیریت تغییر برای تحقیقات میدانی ماکرو ارگونومیک
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|24126||2008||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||12360 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Applied Ergonomics, Volume 39, Issue 4, July 2008, Pages 459–474
With the proliferation of macroergonomic field research, it is time to carefully examine how such research should be managed and implemented. We argue that the importance of attending to high-quality implementation of field research is equal to that of methodological rigor. One way to systematically manage the implementation process is to adopt a change management framework, wherein the research project is conceptualized as an instance of organization-level change. Consequently, principles for successful organization-level change from the literature on change management can be used to guide successful field research implementation. This paper briefly reviews that literature, deriving 30 principles of successful change management, covering topics such as political awareness, assembling the change team, generating buy-in, and management support. For each principle, corresponding suggestions for macroergonomic field research practice are presented. We urge other researchers to further develop and adopt frameworks that guide the implementation of field research.
Since Hal Hendrick's 1980 report to the US Human Factors Society, there has been a tremendous proliferation of macroergonomic research (Hendrick, 2002). The resulting broader scope of ergonomic research has advanced large-scale, multi-level, multi-phase field research—research well suited to addressing complex, dynamic systems marked by an ongoing interplay of agents, levels, and organizational units (Karsh, 2006; Karsh and Brown, 2005). How should this macroergonomic field research be designed and carried out? Various volumes and articles on macroergonomic research methods are available (e.g., Haims and Carayon, 1998; Hendrick and Kleiner, 2001 and Hendrick and Kleiner, 2002; Stanton et al., 2005), and a number of traditions, such as participatory ergonomics (Noro and Imada, 1991), have been put forth in response to that question. Furthermore, several volumes have been written on the conduct of longitudinal field research in general (e.g., Huber and Van de Ven, 1995), especially by qualitative fieldwork methodologists (e.g., Patton, 2002; Van Maanen, 1988). Although such publications provide excellent guidance for conducting high-quality macroergonomic field research, their focus is on study design, data collection and analytical methodology. While such content is indeed necessary for rigorous research, macroergonomic field research specifically, and organizational field research in general, require additional guidance. What is lacking is guidance on the implementation and management of the full process of macroergonomic field research. Most methodology texts focus on the content of research in contrast to the research process itself. Although many are likely to discuss process issues such as gaining entrée into an organization (Neuman, 2000), being honest and open when conducting social research (Schutt, 2001), or involving participants throughout critical stages of the research investigation (Lincoln and Guba, 1985), these considerations are not central: they are usually discussed as a side note, and multiple process issues are rarely discussed together. In other words, one might learn how to design research, but not how to implement it. Just as a technology must be well designed and well implemented to achieve desired outcomes ( Karsh, 2004; Karsh and Holden, 2006), so too must macroergonomic research be well designed and well implemented. To facilitate well-implemented macroergonomic field research, an organizing framework can be used to make implementation decisions, to guide research activities, and, generally, to frame the mindset of the researcher and research team. One example of such a framework comes from the international tradition of action research (Reason and Bradbury, 2001), where a number of directions have been generated that may be useful for implementing high-quality, meaningful “real-world research.” Action research blends real-world interventions to address identified problems together with research aimed at studying the intervention and gathering generalizable, scientific knowledge; naturally, this requires a high level of collaboration between the researchers and real-world partners, such as employees within an organization (Israel et al., 1989; Koshy, 2005). Researchers and their real-world partners jointly diagnose and analyze the problem, plan on an intervention, then carry out and evaluate the intervention, with both parties seeking to learn from this process; all this occurs in cycles of feedback and adjustment (Cohen and Manion, 1994; Israel et al., 1989; Koshy, 2005; O’Leary, 2004). This paper outlines another framework, which centers around the concept of change management. In contrast to action research, the change management framework was developed specifically to meet goals related to improving structured macroergonomic field research implementations, although it can be used by any field researcher working in any discipline or domain. This framework applies to not only intervention research but any kind of field research that requires a high-quality implementation process. (Note that this paper focuses on management of research and is not a discussion of macroergonomic methods, per se.) Additionally, the change management framework is made up of many principles and suggestions that are based on firm empirical and theoretical foundations. Considerations of analysis, planning, collaboration with participants, continuity and long-term learning are but some of the principles and suggestions that overlap between action research and our empirical-theoretical framework, although the framework does not stress those particular principles over any others. The goals and foundations mentioned above are described in more detail after a brief introduction of the framework.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The purpose of this paper was to present a new framework for macroergonomic field research, one based on the proposals that (a) such research can be conceptualized as a change in itself, complete with necessary perturbations and a need for adoption and acceptance; and (b) principles derived from the literature on organization-level change management can be applied by field researchers in order to achieve a variety of research implementation goals including adoption, acceptance, and data quality. We have illustrated some of the many ways in which principles of successful organization-level change can be applied. We urge other field researchers to develop their own principle-based research practices and to further explore literature on change management for inspiration. More generally, we suggest that researchers consider developing and adopting research frameworks such as ours in order to guide not only how to design research but also how to implement it successfully.