Deriving Theories of Action to Improve Policy, Practice, and Research

• In Event: 52.022 - Defining Characteristics and Practices of "Odds-Beating" Elementary Schools Implementing the Common Core Learning Standards and the New Annual Professional Performance Review

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of case study methodology is to articulate theory (Yin, 2014). In addition to descriptive-explanatory theory, our research was designed to derive theories of action.
The purposes of this paper are: (1) To describe our theory of action conceptualization; (2) To describe our methodology; and (3) To present three examples.

Theory

Drawing on Lewin’s (1951) pioneering work, Arygris and Schön (1974; 1996) popularized the theory of action concept. A theory of action earns its name because it embodies “actionable knowledge” (St. John, 2013).

In brief, a theory of action is a pragmatic, cause-and-effect structure for achieving desirable outcomes. Also known in some circles as a theory of change (e.g., Author, et al., 2007, Kerr, Dyson, & Raffo, 2014), it provides a map for a three-phase journey: From intention to action to desirable outcomes (Schön & McDonald, 1998).

Methods

The conventional approach to theory of action derivation and development proceeds in two phases. Researchers start with the espoused or intended theory. Here, researchers complete document reviews, key informant interviews, or both. We completed both.

The second phase entails the identification of the theory-in-use. Here, case study research with multiple methods provides several important data sources (described below), which are akin to theoretical building blocks. The challenge for researchers is to use these empirical building blocks to construct one or more actionable theoretical edifices.

In our conceptualization, the resultant theories of action are ideal types with two defining features (Hearn, 1975). They are empirically grounded, but they also are logically ordered and internally consistent—properties rarely found in real world schools. Framed in this way, theories of action are heuristic mechanisms. While part of their value lies in the figurative mirrors and feedback they provide, their most important contribution resides in the guidance they offer for future practice, policy, and research.

Data Sources and Analytic Procedures.

Theory derivation and development proceeded in two phases: (1) During site visits, researchers were vigilant regarding each school’s theory of action, particularly the extent to which our lines of inquiry corresponded to observed empirical realities; (2) Case descriptions of the sample schools provided thick descriptions for cross-case analyses. These analyses proceeded with inductive and deductive reasoning as structured by template analysis (King, 1998).

To facilitate analysis of how schools proceeded with CCLS and APPR implementation, we modified Greenhalgh et al.’s (2004) implementation framework, analyzing leaders’ actions in “making it happen,” “helping it happen,” or “letting it happen.”

Findings

Our research yielded three theories of action as ideal-types: One each for our rural, suburban, and urban schools. Such variability is unavoidable and predictable. Reasons start with school/district size, including the comparatively limited implementation supports and resources in rural schools. Reasons include school/district organizational ecology and surrounding social geography. We present these theories as logic models and also in tables presenting core characteristics and consequential practices.

Significance

These empirically grounded theories of action have import for policy, practice, research, and professional education. As mirrors, they facilitate self-evaluation and improvement. As maps, they chart the way ahead.

Authors

• Hal A. Lawson, University at Albany - SUNY

• Francesca T. Durand, The Sage Colleges

• Sarah J Zuckerman, University of Nebraska - Lincoln

• Michael A. Lawson, University of Alabama