The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1366-5626.htm

Action design
Action design research as a means research
for organizing workplace learning:
case studies of e-learning platforms
Amir Haj-Bolouri and Christian Master Östlund 405
University West, Trollhattan, Sweden
Received 26 June 2020
Matti Rossi Revised 26 October 2020
7 December 2020
Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland, and Accepted 16 December 2020

Lars Svensson
University West, Trollhattan, Sweden

Abstract
Purpose – Although there is a large body of literature available on the foundations of workplace learning
(WPL), little is known about designated research methods that systematically combine intervention, design
and learning at work. The purpose of this study is to propose action design research as an alternative method
for organizing WPL in general and facilitating pedagogically rich activities in particular.
Design/methodology/approach – This research used a case study approach to focus the action design
research method and exemplify its utility through two case studies that emphasize WPL in general and how
the method can be used to facilitate pedagogically rich activities in particular.
Findings – The results of the case studies indicate that the action design research method had a
significantly positive effect on organizing WPL in organizations systematically, as well as creating a
narrative that structures the research process and its outcomes.
Originality/value – The findings help scholars that are in need of organizing WPL research in a
systematic way. The findings do also help practitioners in organizations to solve real-world problems and
develop new knowledge jointly together with scholars. Consequently, the findings contribute to the existing
literature by exemplifying how to facilitate pedagogically rich activities and disseminate the outcomes of
doing so in a formalized way.
Keywords Workplace learning, E-learning, Action design research, Pedagogically rich activities
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The idea of producing knowledge that is integrated with work activities have occupied
scholars within the domain of workplace learning (WPL) for nearly two decades (Malloch
et al., 2010) and a large body of literature on WPL has been produced (Billett, 2004; Boswell
and Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Perlow, 2012; Engeström et al., 2014; Brown and Martin, 2015;
Sannino et al., 2018; Watson et al., 2018; Lemmetty and Collin, 2020; Bontemps-Hommen
et al., 2020). Such research is rooted in social learning theories, which treat learning as a
situated and socio-cultural phenomenon (Lave and Wenger, 1991), typically facilitated

The authors would kindly like to thank Professor Lena Pareto for encouraging the main author of Journal of Workplace Learning
Vol. 33 No. 6, 2021
this paper to pursue the idea of elaborating the linkage between ADR and workplace learning. Lena pp. 405-425
was also the one explicitly identifying the linkage between ADR and workplace learning during a © Emerald Publishing Limited
1366-5626
formal review of the main author’s dissertation thesis. Thank you Lena! DOI 10.1108/JWL-06-2020-0109
JWL through participation, engagement (Billett, 2001a, 2004; Fenwick, 2001; Vaughan, 2008) and
33,6 formative intervention at the workplace (Engeström et al., 2014; Sannino et al., 2018).
WPL scholars (Billett, 2001b; Skippington, 2002; Fuller et al., 2007; Vaughan, 2008)
discuss the perspectives of participation and engagement as successful factors that shape
the process of WPL by emphasizing the dual features of workplaces that either afford or
constrain opportunities for learning at the workplace. Billett (2001b) in particular argues
406 that the quality of the participation of academics and stakeholders is influenced by their
occupational expertise, which is a key aspect of advancing learning at work (Billett, 2001a).
Consequently, such process of identifying learning opportunities and explicating them at
work through participation and engagement is conceptualized by Billett (2016) as
“pedagogically rich activities.”
However, there are no universal methods for WPL and neither approaches for facilitating
pedagogically rich activities. There are a number of studies where researchers have used
methods that emphasize intervention as the driving force of organizing WPL. Such studies
range from adopting formalized process models, e.g. action research (AR) (Rowley, 2003)
and engaged scholarship (McCormack, 2011), to less formalized approaches such as
communities of practice (Wenger, 1998; Boud and Middleton, 2003), e-learning at work
(Tynjälä and Häkkinen, 2005) or incidental learning scenarios (Berg and Chyung, 2008).
In addition, other research methods, such as the formative intervention research method
elaborated by scholars such as Engeström et al. (2014) and Sannino et al. (2018), stresses
learning through collective efforts among participants (e.g. participatory analyzes). The
collective effort is designed and re-designed by the participants themselves, rather than by
an instructional design intervention, to transform the work activities and redefine the
objectives of the participants’ work iteratively. Sannino et al. (2018) also point out the
challenge of bridging formative interventions with structured approaches toward WPL. In
this paper, we propose action design research (ADR) method by Sein et al. (2011) as a means
to organize for WPL.
The ADR method combines elements from AR with design research and has since its
birth in 2011 been widely applied within the field of information systems (IS) (Mustafa and
Sjöström, 2013; Maccani et al., 2014). The overall philosophy of ADR is to provide a bridge
between academia and practice, by solving real-world problems in organizations together
with stakeholders, practitioners and end-users, through cyclical iterations of building,
intervention and evaluation of information technology (IT) artifacts; and producing and
sharing formalized learning outcomes that are developed through active reflection during
the intervention process (Sein et al., 2011).
We argue that ADR incorporates a continuous learning process that enables a reciprocal
knowledge transfer among scholars, practitioners, stakeholders and end-users within an
ADR project. We address this kind of learning outcome as important for WPL because it is
organized and executed within the working environment of practitioners and stakeholders
through a process of reflective practice, intervention and knowledge development (Schön,
1987; Cole et al., 2005). The purpose of this study is thus to propose and show how and why
the ADR is a sufficient method for organizing WPL. More specifically, our study is
motivated by the following two points:
(1) Collaboration, participation and organizational intervention in WPL: all three
aspects are highlighted in the WPL literature (Billett, 2001a, 2001b, 2004;
Engeström et al., 2014; Sannino et al., 2018) as driving factors that engage
researchers, practitioners and stakeholders, in learning processes at work; and
(2) Collaboration, participation, reflection and learning in ADR: through cyclical
iterations of producing practical outcomes that are bridged with formalized
 learning outcomes. Consequently, ADR emphasizes organizational intervention Action design
and reflection and learning, as key components of an ADR-cycle, which is also research
considered to be important elements of formative intervention (Engeström et al.,
2014; Sannino et al., 2018).

Consequently, our goal is to contribute to the WPL literature by fulfilling the following two
objectives:
407
(1) To show how ADR can be used to organize for WPL; this objective will be
achieved by presenting two illustrative case studies; and
(2) To initiate an explicit discussion about why the ADR is a sufficient method for
organizing for WPL; this objective will be achieved through a discussion about the
implications of ADR for WPL research and the idea of facilitating “pedagogically
rich activities” through participation and engagement in cycles of intervention.

Thus, we seek to contribute to the methodological discussion on WPL by introducing the

ADR method as an alternative for WPL scholars to use. The illustrative case studies will
show how ADR has been used to organize for WPL research and how WPL scholars can
draw inspiration from our cases to organize their own research.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: first, we will discuss WPL from the
perspectives of participation and engagement, as well as current limitations in the literature
regarding methods for WPL. Then, we will provide a detailed presentation of the ADR
method and tie it to the Scandinavian tradition of research in IS. After that, we will
exemplify the usefulness of ADR for organizing for WPL through two cases. Finally, we will
discuss the implications of our findings and chart avenues for further research.

Participation and engagement for pedagogically rich activities: methodological

challenges and limitations
In this paper, we frame our understanding of WPL within the realms of the socio-cultural
theory around knowledge in general and address WPL as a social phenomenon in particular.
Our theoretical framing focuses on learning as something that emerges between humans,
work, their participation, engagement and implications of intervention in practice (e.g.
transformation, skill acquisition) at work. These aspects of learning are strongly related to
the socio-cultural learning theory, with a particular focus on situated problems (Lave and
Wenger, 1991), formative intervention (Engeström et al., 2014) and active participation
(Billett, 2004), which also happens to be key aspects of conducting ADR (Sein et al., 2011).
Hence, for this study, the linkage between ADR and our theoretical framing of WPL focuses:

the socio-cultural theory in general; and

intervention and participation in particular, as essential facets of WPL. We will now
elaborate on these facets as follow.

Starting with the socio-cultural theory, which elaborates learning as a phenomenon that
emerges from sociogeneses comprising history and culture (Cole, 1998), manifested as
situated learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991) within for instance the context of work (Billett,
2001a). Interactions with and in the social world thus become the key bases for learning.
Consequently, learning experiences in workplaces are not without a structure or
organization, but rather, they are formalized and structured by the goals, activities and
culture of the work practice and organization (Billett, 2004).
JWL Billett (2004) stresses the importance of joint participation of researchers, practitioners
33,6 and stakeholders as a fundamental premise for promoting workplaces as learning spaces
that afford opportunities for engagement at work. At the same time, he points out that the
degree and quality of engagement vary depending on pragmatic and selfish decisions
among individuals:
[. . .] individuals will engage in ways that best serve their purposes, such as how it will assist their
408 career trajectory, securing opportunities, or even locating easy work options [. . .]. Therefore, the
kinds of opportunities the workplace affords individuals in terms of activities they engage in and
interactions with others, and how individuals elect to engage are salient to their learning through
participation in the workplace. (Billett, 2004, p. 1)
Understanding how the opportunities to engage at work, the kind of tasks that regulate
individuals’s work and the guidance provided along with the tasks, become key factors of
evaluating how and what individuals are able to learn at work. Consequently, guidance is a
reciprocal process that enables different parties (e.g. researchers and practitioners) to experience
and become familiar with each other’s practices (Billett, 2004). For instance, practitioners guide
researchers into the realms of their practice by showing how tasks are undertaken and completed,
whereas researchers guide practitioners into the space of academia by making concepts and
theories accessible and relevant for practitioners’ work (Van de Ven, 2007). However, the
contribution of this guidance is dependent on learners’ engagement (Billett, 2003).
Moreover, Billett (2004) conceptualizes workplaces as learning spaces, by emphasizing
how active participation can increase levels of knowledge, skills and expertise among
employees. Here, WPL is manifested through gradual and continuous learning processes at
work, which inspires employees to become a part of “pedagogically rich activities” (Billett,
2016). “Pedagogically rich activities” are defined as:
[. . .] pedagogically rich work-tasks (i.e. those with the potential to support a particular lesson),
direct instruction and ‘hands on’ assistance by more experienced[. . .]. (Billett, 2016, p. 128)
Subsequently, Billett (2016) elaborates the following key characteristics of pedagogically
rich activities:

Accessibility: provide practitioners access to a practice’ knowledge domain (e.g.
health care, higher education) through others’ insights and practices;

Permission: permit comparisons and appraisals with what these practitioners know,
can do and value; and

Availability: offer the availability of interactions and access to knowledge, which
might not otherwise be available.

To support pedagogically rich activities, participation and engagement need to be organized

according to the rich pedagogical potential of either presently existing or emerging, workplace
activities (Billett, 2016). It is also important to understand organizations that support WPL
where the outcome of methodological choices, catalyzes persistent organizational development
through active participation and involvement of stakeholders (Billett, 2016). As an alternative
for organizing and supporting WPL research systematically, as well as facilitating
pedagogically rich activities, we propose ADR by Sein et al. (2011).

The action design research method

The ADR method is defined as a “[. . .] research method for generating prescriptive design
knowledge through the building and evaluating ensemble IT artifacts in an organizational
setting” (Sein et al., 2011, p. 40). ADR deals with two seemingly disparate challenges:
 (1) addressing a problem situation encountered in a specific organizational setting by Action design
intervening and evaluating; and research
(2) constructing and evaluating an IT artifact that addresses the class of problems (a set
of interrelated problems) typified by the encountered situation.

Additionally, the ADR method incorporates an explicit dimension of reflection and learning
through, which can be seen in Figure 1. 409
The framework in Figure 1 provides four interrelated stages. Together the stages form a
cycle that is organized by an ADR team consisting of researchers, practitioners,
stakeholders and end-users. Each stage invokes guiding principles that help the ADR team
to organize an ADR cycle sufficiently within the boundaries of an organization. The
intervention has been incorporated via a strong influence from AR (Lewin, 1946; Susman,
1983; Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1998), whereas principles such as “Reciprocal Shaping”
and “Mutually Influential Roles,” acknowledges the underlying philosophy and core of ADR
that is strongly tied to the Scandinavian school of design research in the IS field (Sein et al.,
2011).
The Scandinavian approach (Livari and Lyytinen, 1999) to ISs design started in the early
1970s with the Scandinavian unions wanting more influence over the new technologies that
were being introduced in the workplace (Ehn, 1988; Bansler, 1989). The unions had little
knowledge about computers and the consequences of computing technologies being used in
the workplace. To address this knowledge gap, several large projects were initiated
studying the impact and effect that computers had on everyday work (Gro et al., 1987; Ehn,
1988; Bansler, 1989).
The key insight from the Scandinavian approach was the importance of understanding
analyzing the actual work processes and fitting the managerial data processing needs and
the information needs of the workers performing their tasks were needed to make the
systems work (Gro et al., 1987; Ehn, 1988; Bjerknes and Bratteteig, 1995). The ADR method
is thus a direct descendant of the Scandinavian approach and the abovementioned principles
of “Reciprocal Shaping” and “Mutually Influential Roles” are put in place to guarantee that
an ADR project is governed through mutual co-participation between all members of an
ADR team.

Figure 1.
ADR method: stages
and principles
JWL Reflection and learning through action design research
33,6 A common denominator among prior studies concerns organizing of the reflection and
learning activities, which are considered to be an integral part of conducting an ADR
project in general (Sein et al., 2011). Reflection in ADR is considered as an activity that
augments learning, rather than being a synonym to it. Conscious reflection on the
problem framing, the chosen theories and the emerging outputs from an ADR cycle, is
410 critical to ensure that contributions to knowledge are identified (Sein et al., 2011).
Scholars report how they have augmented the learning process through active reflection,
together with stakeholders and practitioners in organizational settings through a number
of different ways, including: formal workplace training sessions (Hattinger and Eriksson,
2015); workshops for developing multi-tasking skills at work (McCurdy et al., 2016); and/
or internally within the research team through academic retreats and writing sessions
(Veling et al., 2016).
Consequently, the reflection and learning stage of ADR has been conceptualized (Haj-
Bolouri et al., 2016) as a double loop learning experience (Argyris, 2002), where the
evaluation of learning outcomes facilitates active reflection among members of the ADR
team. However, there are currently no strict rules in terms of how to organize and conduct
reflection and learning through ADR, but rather, particular techniques for reflection are
selected depending on the circumstances of the research setting and objectives.

Research approach
For this study, we used the case study approach to address the research purpose and
objectives of this study because the case study approach is considered to be particularly
effective for exploratory research that aims to generate fresh or novel insights about
methods and their implications for a research area (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994). Case
studies do also allow to investigate research objectives and questions that explicate findings
from research projects that have adopted a particular methodology or approach (Klein and
Myers, 1999; Runeson and Höst, 2009). Then although there are plenty of empirical studies
on how ADR has been used in the field of IS (Lempinen et al., 2012; Maccani et al., 2014; Haj-
Bolouri et al., 2016; Keijzer-Broers et al., 2016; McCurdy et al., 2016; Petersson and Lundberg,
2016; de Vries and Berger, 2016; Leinhard and Legner, 2017; Dreyer et al., 2017), very few
have emphasized the use of ADR for WPL (MacKrell, 2016). Hence, we seek to generate new
insights on how and why the ADR method is a sufficient alternative for organizing WPL
research in particular, by focusing on two successful case studies, where ADR was used to
organize WPL. A summary of the case studies is depicted in Table 1.
The cases were conducted in two different settings during different periods of time. We
selected the two cases because two of the authors in this study were principal researchers for
each case and because there are commonalities, as well as differences among the cases (e.g.
designing e-learning platforms, facilitating WPL). Another reason toward why we chose the
given cases is because learning at work was emphasized as a central objective of both cases,
where the whole ADR teams were involved in multiple ADR cycles. Furthermore, the case
study approach enabled us to gain further insights about the objectives of this study
(described in Section 1) by looking into the data and analyzed outcomes from each of the
cases. Table 2 depicts an overview of the research design with respect to the undertaken
methods for data collection and data analysis in each case.
The first case applied chosen data collection methods across four ADR cycles, to increase
problem awareness, evaluate learning outcomes, test design concepts and integrate learning
at work through intervention. For example, a workshop was conducted and a Web
questionnaire consisting of 29 questions was used to establish an initial insight about the
Empirical case Summary
Action design
research
1. Designing a national work- The overall goal of the project was to design, build and implement a
integrated e-learning platform digital platform for work-integrated e-learning on a national basis in
Sweden. The purpose of the platform was to manage and provide the
expertise of municipal authorities in an accessible way for the public.
The WPL activities of this case focused on the development of soft
and hard skills among municipal authorities within 21 different 411
Swedish counties. The project started in 2006 and ended in 2011
2. Designing e-learning platform for The overall goal of the project was to design, build and implement a
civic orientation digital platform for support of the civic orientation program in
Sweden. Civic orientation is provided to newly arrived immigrants
(newcomers) as a part of their establishment program so that they
learn the basic concepts of Swedish society (e.g. laws, regulations
and more). The project was organized and performed at municipality
together with responsible stakeholders of the civic orientation
program and the WPL activities were organized and conducted
through formal training sessions for increasing the stakeholders’ Table 1.
competency development and IT-skills. The project started in Summary of the
December 2013 and ended in January 2017 empirical cases

Data analysis
Case Data collection method (s) method (s)

1. The case of designing a national 1 Workshop with representatives from IT- Open coding
work-integrated learning platform department Categorization
18 Face-to-face interviews
1 Questionnaire with 15 respondents
2. The case of designing an e- 11 In-depth interviews Open coding Table 2.
learning platform for civic 4 Participatory workshops Axial coding Data collection and
orientation 6 Workplace training sessions Analytical data analysis
memos methods

employees expectations, IT-literacy and ambitions, whereas 18 face-to-face interviews were

conducted together with employees’ at the municipalities (e.g. administrators, coordinators
that write newsletters, reports) to evaluate Web lecture applications and how well they fit
into the present IT milieu. The questionnaire was constructed using SurveyMonkey and the
interview process was informed by McCracken’s (1998) four-step method.
The second case applied chosen data collection methods across three ADR cycles, to
establish early problem awareness, identify research problems, incorporate learning at work
through intervention and test design concepts. For example, 11 in-depth interviews were
conducted early on to gather rich insights about the expectations, fears and ambitions that
integration workers (e.g. tutors, coordinators and content producers of learning material)
have for adopting and learning new information technologies at work. Subsequently, four
participatory workshops were conducted together with nine integration workers to in situ
evaluate and re-evaluate e-learning concepts and technologies. Last but not least, six
workplace training sessions were organized and performed together with a total of 12
integration workers. The workplace training sessions served as a means for enabling
pedagogically rich activities to take place, either through hands-on demonstrations of e-learning
JWL tools or through hand-overs of knowledge between experienced and less-experienced integration
33,6 workers.
Data from both cases were analyzed using qualitative techniques such as open coding,
axial coding and categorization to find themes and categories that reveal patterns among
respondents’ answers. Examples of excerpts from in-depth interviews from the second case
is depicted in Table 3 to illustrate one instance of the data analysis process, with a focus on
412 data that informed the problem awareness phase of the project.
Finally, the outlined methods for data collection and analysis were incorporated into the
ADR cycles of each case systematically, by following the ADR stages. Both researchers
adopted and used methods for data collection over a larger period of time because each of
the cases were an integral part of each researchers’ individual research projects. Hence, the
findings which are presented in the next section will only highlight aspects from each case
that has a specific relation to how WPL was organized through the use of ADR. Moreover,
the findings will, due to ethical agreements with representatives from each case, provide
anonymized examples from the collected data (e.g. excerpts from interviews).

Findings
This section outlines our findings in form of two illustrative case studies where WPL was
systematically organized through the use of ADR. The purpose of this section is twofold:
(1) to illustrate how the ADR method, together with its subsequent stages, can be used
to organize and provide a narrative for the research process; and
(2) to highlight the WPL outcomes of each case.

The case of designing a national work-integrated E-learning platform

For this first illustrated case, four ADR cycles where executed between 2006 and 2011,
resulting into design principles for e-training as the main contribution of the cycles (see
Anon, 2017 for more information). Subsequently, the research setting for this case was a
project called the Academy of County Administrations, initiated by the County
administration of Västra Götaland in Sweden. County administration covers issues that
involve most aspects of society, they consequently need a wide range of specialists. Their
employees are generally well-educated and have leading expertise in all their fields of
interest (e.g. law, biology, architecture, engineers and more). For instance, one of the
employees described his/her work as follows:
What I’m working with is contamined areas so I supervise contamined areas and I work with
cases. So my job is about reviewing reports and responding to them.
The overall project goal focused on developing organizational processes (e.g. analysis,
production and implementation) and describing clear roles and responsibilities for producers
and consumers of online competence development. Consequently, the project involved 6 out of
21 county administrations in Sweden and early on in the project, an ADR team was established
consisting of: two senior scholars, the principal researcher (at that being a junior scholar) and
three representatives from the county administration (human resources manager, IT-manager
and an IT-expert). Moreover, organizing WPL through e-training was a major component of the
research project, as will be elaborated through the illustrated narrative below (the narrative
illustrates stages from the executed ADR cycles in the case).
Starting with the problem formulation stage of the project, the county administration
expressed an initial need for an e-learning effort on how to better search the World Wide
Transcripts (excerpts) Analytical memos Emerging insights

Well, I believe that it is a good idea to provide our Expectations on providing sessions through Sufficiency as a key design feature for addressing the
program to as many newcomers as possible. . . but I support of e-learning technologies heterogeneity of integration workers and newcomers,
also believe that it may become difficult for the with respect to sufficient functionality for different
newcomers to use new technology. . . the technology purposes
must be simple for them to use. . ., as well as for us who
organize the sessions. (Tutor)
When we produce content for civic orientation, we do Expectations and beliefs on how IT can support Efficiency as a key design and pedagogical feature for
not share a common set of tools or resources. . . Instead, integration workers to organize and conduct supporting the heterogeneity among integration
we work separately and sometimes we do the same activities of civic orientation through workers
work, without being synchronized. . . this collaboration
causes some overlap in our work and takes time to
adjust. (Content producer)
research

Table 3.

interviews in the
413
Action design

second ADR case

from in-depth
Examples of excerpts
JWL Web (WWW). This effort in the form of a system should be adapted for the conditions of
33,6 workplace training, where employees learn how to sufficiently search the WWW. The
following excerpt from one of the interviews illustrates this further:
“In my job it is crucial to find accurate information fast. Sometimes I feel like I’m somewhat of an
online detective, and the computer is my tool.”

414 Another employee stressed the importance of integrating a structure for their learning
activities at work and have this structure to rely on continuously at work:
One advantage with the local courses we’ve had before, for the most parts it is someone who
comes to us and visits the different offices, then there is a time and a place set aside for the
occasion. Then you book it and it gets done. These types [e-training like ‘searching the WWW’.
Authors note] when it is up to yourself, you need to be disciplined to get it done. Often it is like:
Oh, I don’t have time for this now, it will have to wait. It just never gets done.
As a way to address the need of organizing and informing the learning activities in a
structured way, the ADR stage evolved through a literature review on e-learning and
workplace training. More specifically, authentic e-learning by Herrington and Herrington
(2006) and Herrington et al. (2010) was chosen as a base for the pedagogical design of the e-
learning environment. Subsequently, the authentic e-learning framework has nine central
components: authentic context; authentic activities; expert performance; multiple
perspectives; collaboration; reflection; articulation; coaching and scaffolding; and integrated
assessment. Additionally, frameworks that informed the creation of the digital material and
the graphical user interface were also chosen during this stage (Mayer, 2009; Norman, 1988;
Rogers et al., 2011).
In ADR there is a constantly ongoing refinement of the artifact through active reflection
(Sein et al., 2011), which in this case manifested itself during a demonstration of a prototype
using synchronized multimedia integration language (SMIL) with two representatives from
the county administration academy. After the demonstration, it became apparent that the
application had to be developed so that it did not demand the installation of programs or
plug-ins not already available in the IT-infrastructure of the county administration. As a
consequence of this, a new prototype using HyperText Markup Language with embedded
windows media video files were initiated to be developed in the building, intervention and
evaluation (BIE) stage.
The BIE stage can be characterized as being IT-dominant (Sein et al., 2011), meaning that
end-user involvement increased as the project progressed in each design cycle. As described
above, the first version of the e-learning environment consisted of embedded streamed videos
on how to search the WWW, a discussion board, information on how to contact the teacher and
a list of links with additional resources on how to search the WWW. The e-learning system was
evaluated through an online survey with the 15 users of the pilot study. Most of the users where
satisfied with both the content and the e-learning system. During the test period, none of the
users had used the discussion forum. The reason for this was that they did not feel the need to
collaborate or discuss the subject of study with the other participants.
The reflection and learning stage was organized against the backdrop of evaluation;
when the evaluation was conducted against the goal of authentic e-learning, which is the
objective of the authentic e-learning (Herrington et al., 2010), the evaluation posed a potential
problem as collaboration promotes reflection and critical thinking and the debate board was
incorporated into the e-learning system to address the potential problem. It was thus evident
that reflection still took place as the users stated that they had learned something new and
had changed the way they search after information on the WWW after completing the Web
lecture. The following excerpt illustrates this further by elaborating one of the employee’s Action design
reflections about e-learning in comparison with face-to-face learning: research
The advantage with e-learning systems is that you do not need to be at a certain place, I can take
part of the education wherever I want. I could even be at home. That’s the big advantage, plus
that you can do it at a pace that suits you compared to ordinary education. On the other hand you
can’t make those spontaneous comments, create a discussion from a problem that appears during
the lecture. I miss that to some degree. Another advantage is that you do not have to take notes
like a madman, since you always can return to the lecture
415
Furthermore, others reflected that the learning outcome would be of more relevant if they
were encouraged and coached to collaborate and thereby reflect even more. To address this,
assessing assignments was suggested and to further motivate the completion of the
assignment a certificate was awarded upon conclusion.
During the final ADR stage, formalization of learning, two learning outcomes from the
ADR cycle were formalized based on results from participatory workshops with
representatives from the county administration. The sole purpose of the workshops was to
facilitate active participation and engage the employees in pedagogically rich activities. The
learning outcomes from the workshops are summarized as follows:

Learning Outcome 1: reinforcing gathered insights from the literature review, by
mapping the linkage between prototype features and components of the authentic e-
learning framework, for employees. Here, the pedagogically rich activity was to
provide an access point to a knowledge domain of e-learning, by demarcating the
relevancy of the authentic e-learning framework in accordance with employees’ own
experiences and expectations of using e-learning technologies; and

Learning Outcome 2: increased know-how among employees within the
development team. The increased knowledge the employees understand how the
county administration can integrate outcomes from workshops as direct input for
the development of their e-learning system in a new IT milieu. Here, the
pedagogically rich activity was to offer an availability that merges two knowledge
domains (knowledge from academia on e-learning and knowledge from employees
about the counties’ general IT milieu) and develops a synthesis of IT literacy.

The case of designing an e-learning platform for civic orientation

The setting for this project was a project called proximity and distance at a municipality in
the Western part of Sweden. The overall goal of the project was to digitalize the civic
orientation program by designing, implementing and evaluating an e-learning platform that
supports the work of integration workers (people responsible for working with integration
of newcomers) and subsequently provides civic orientation through e-learning; “civic
orientation” is a part of newcomers’ establishment program where they attend the program
to learn facts about the Swedish society (Vesterlind, 2016 for further details on civic
orientation).
Early on in the research project, the ADR method was used to accomplish the goal and to
organize WPL for the integration workers. An ADR team was consequently established,
consisting of: two senior scholars, the principal researcher (at that time being a junior
scholar), two research assistants and developers and integration workers from the
integration center (manager, coordinators, content producers, tutors/teachers). A total of
three ADR cycles were organized and executed between 2013 and 2017. The subsequent
narrative unfolds the organized activities of the ADR cycles.
JWL Early on during the problem formulation stage, interviews and meetings revealed
33,6 collective anticipation and fear for digitalizing the civic orientation program. A tension
emerged between enthusiastic and sceptic integration workers about the implications of
introducing and working with new technologies. This tension is illustrated through two
different excerpts from interviews with the integration workers, one being the sceptic’s voice
and the other one being the optimist’s voice:
416 Our situation as integration workers is unstable as it is due to the uncertain circumstances of
integration policies. Bringing in new technologies can create more uncertainties, or potentially
resolve some of the current ones. We don’t want more pressure or more things to feel not so reliant
to though.

I believe that technology can help us as long as we (Integration workers; Authors note) can be
included in the decision-making process. I mean, we need to be involved in the process of
decisions regarding the technology, what we want to use it for, how[. . .] you know, these kind of
things [. . .] because it must match our strange working situation.
In an attempt to resolve the tension, the BIE stage emphasized the necessity of building and
evaluating a set of early learning modules that incorporate future intended workplace
training sessions for the integration workers. The modules were consequently created by:

drawing upon WPL literature that emphasizes successful e-learning at work
(Tynjälä et al., 2014); and

engaging the integration workers of the civic orientation program to actively
participate in the building process through workshops and meetings.

A summary of the modules is shown in Table 4.

The overall idea with the modules was to embed and distribute them through the e-learning
platform a period before the workplace training sessions were organized. By doing so, the
integration workers could become familiar with the topics and structure of the training sessions.
The learning modules were thus distributed two weeks before the workplace training sessions.
However, none of the integration workers did actually engage with the learning modules and as a
result, it became difficult for the researchers of the ADR-team to refine the modules before
organizing the workplace training sessions. This issue was diagnosed and addressed as a
problem of not fully engaging the practitioners in the process of defining and constructing the
learning modules, and thus creating a lack of communication and encouraging participation
among the integration workers. To address the identified problem, the researcher of the ADR-
team revisited WPL literature that focuses on workplace training and e-learning (Berge, 2002;
Lee, 2010; Tynjälä et al., 2014), to prepare the workplace training sessions.
In this case, the reflection and learning and formalization of learning stages were executed
at the same time and were incorporated into six workplace training sessions. The sessions
were organized between the beginning of May 2015 and the middle of June 2015 (shown in
Table 5). The overall purpose of the workplace training sessions was to facilitate
pedagogically rich activities through sessions that focused on the relevancy of platform
features mapped with integration workers’ extended roles and competency.
The WPL outcomes of this project were essentially produced and facilitated throughout
the six workplace training sessions, where the first three training sessions focused on
systematically training tutors on how they can use the platform to organize civic orientation
sessions. Here, the researcher demonstrated all of the platform features and invoked on-site
exercises for the tutors; the tutors were basically provided with a tablet or laptop to interact
with the platform features and orient themselves. The approach of this session was inspired
Module Description
Action design
research
Collaborative The first module was defined to support the first set of workplace
features for training sessions. The module was constructed with content that
embedding and concern how to use collaborative features for embedding and
distributing online distributing learning objects as non-standardized online content
content of a course site. Thus, the module was defined and constructed to
support tutors. Consequently, the module was targeted toward 417
features that are implemented and available for the presentation
layer of the platform
Administrative The second module was defined to support the second set of
features for content workplace training sessions. The module was constructed with
production and content that concern the process of producing and coordinating
coordination standardized and non-standardized content. Thus, the module
was defined and constructed to support content producers and
coordinators. Consequently, the module was targeted toward
features that are implemented and available for the production
layer of the platform
System roles and The third and final module was defined to support the third and
responsibilities final set of workplace training session. The module was
constructed with content that concern extended roles and areas of
responsibility among integration workers, with an emphasis on
system roles (e.g. admin, super-admin) and descriptions of these
Table 4.
new roles. Thus, the module was defined and constructed to
support a handful of integration workers that have different roles Supportive learning
(tutors, content producers, coordinators). Consequently, the modules for
module was targeted toward different levels of features that workplace training
concern the WordPress multisite component of the platform sessions

through WPL literature (Berge, 2002; Lee, 2010; Malloch et al., 2010; Tynjälä et al., 2014) that
promote direct interaction between participants and technology and which advocates
reflective thinking through round-table discussions (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Schön, 1983).
Once again, Billet’s (2016) concept of pedagogically rich activities were applied to the
training sessions, to elucidate the following:

Learning Outcome 1: increased skills among tutors about the relation between abstract
e-learning concepts and pedagogical approaches for teaching in various learning spaces
(e.g. classroom, online). Here, the pedagogically rich activity was to introduce concepts
in relation to tangible assignments that assisted their practical training (e.g. testing
administrative features for content sharing) and encouraged them to reflect while doing
the assignment (e.g. through asking questions to the instructors).

The fourth and fifth training sessions focused on systematically training the content-
producers and coordinators by providing them advanced know-how about how to produce,
coordinate, share, maintain, update, distribute and publish civic orientation content. At this
stage, a dichotomy was made between standardized content and non-standardized content,
where standardized content was addressed as the book about Sweden or PowerPoint slides,
whereas the non-standardized content was addressed as content that a unique tutor, in
collaboration with content producers, can create and implement in their unique course sites.
Essential artifact features of this purpose were presented and tested during the sessions. Here,
the pedagogically rich activities were manifested through access ability and permission to
practice knowledge domains such as higher education, e-learning in organizations and
JWL Training session Purpose Period of time
33,6
1, 2 and 3 To demonstrate, test and learn collaborative features for distributing May 2015
and publishing non-standardized online-learning content, together
with underlying teaching pedagogies that support the features. The
objectives of the sessions were provided on a very fundamental level,
with a simple structure and facts about the nature and purpose of the
418 collaborative features. Participants were encouraged to test the
features systematically within the frame of each session and ask
questions sporadically when needed. These three sessions lasted for
3 h per session and ended with roundtable discussions
4 and 5 To demonstrate, test and learn administrative features for May 2015
producing, coordinating, sharing and maintaining civic orientation
content (both standardized and non-standardized). Participants were
encouraged to test the features systematically within the frame of
each session and ask questions sporadically when needed. These two
sessions lasted for 2 h per session and ended with roundtable
discussions
6 To elaborate extended roles of practitioners by introducing and June 2015
explaining new areas of responsibilities. Here, the participants
became familiar with new concepts and words, which help them
Table 5. understand their new responsibilities better. The new roles were
Workplace training introduced as system roles. The session lasted for 3 h and ended
sessions with informal discussions

integration work. The integration workers were provided with a tablet or laptop that provided
them an access point to tutorials and aggregated learning material from the different
knowledge domains. Consequently, the activities generated the following learning outcome:

Learning Outcome 2: increased skills in how to produce, manage and share learning
objects that comprise knowledge from a cluster of knowledge sources across
multiple course sites. Here, the pedagogically rich activity was to show how tutors
can apply and test their new skills in the context of their digital course sites; for
instance, what does it mean to become an owner of a course site, how can a tutor
share content from their course sites to another tutor.

The sixth training session focused on introducing and explaining extended roles and areas of
responsibilities. This concerned extending and re-defining the integration workers’ current
roles with respect to new system roles, which concern new areas of responsibilities for
managing and administrating the instantiated artifact. The new areas of responsibilities
included: adopting system roles that focus on various aspects of maintaining components of
the artifact’s technical architecture, as well as its system layers. The session ended with a
pedagogically rich activity in form of an open-ended discussion that explicated the
organizational implications of introducing new roles and how such implications may affect
the current competency among integration workers. The following learning outcome was
generated as a consequence of the activities:

Learning Outcome 3: integration of new competency and adaptation of professional
roles to expand prior routine knowledge with increased IT-literacy, which
encourages content producers and tutors to co-produce learning material. Here, the
pedagogically rich activity was to increase the sense of permission among
integration workers to cross boundaries and co-produce knowledge that they can
value together (instead of separately only).
Discussion Action design
The purpose of this paper was to propose and show how and why ADR is an applicable research
method for organizing WPL. Our case studies show that researchers and practitioners work
tightly together to identify and solve problems, test and evaluate IT-prototypes at the
workplace and reflect, learn and share knowledge throughout ADR cycles. The “reflection
and learning” stage, in particular, encourages the researchers and practitioners to
participate and engage in co-designed activities. Participation and engagement are also
driving elements of WPL in general and pedagogically rich work-tasks in particular (Billett, 419
2001a, 2004; Vaughan, 2008), which the case studies reinforced through the use of ADR. In
this section, we will discuss the implications of our findings by emphasizing the
implications of using ADR for workplace participatory practices and the implications of
using ADR to mediate pedagogically rich activities in an organized way.

Implications for facilitating workplace participatory practices

Individuals engage actively in the process of determining the worth of what they experience
and how they might engage with it and learn from it (Goodnow, 1990). This is also the case
when individuals co-produce knowledge through co-participation (Valsiner, 2000). Co-
participation at work (Billett, 2001a, 2002) is augmented through workplace participatory
practices (Billett, 2004) that support the development of robust WPL outcomes; e.g. knowledge
that can be generalized and applied elsewhere. Thus, generalizability is an important aspect of
the learning outcomes’ quality (Billett, 2001b). In this study, we identified a set of implications
for facilitating WPL practices. We elaborate on these implications in the context of the
illustrated ADR stages of both cases.
The two first stages of ADR (Problem Formulation, BIE) encourage scholars to facilitate
and create a collaborative space from the beginning, which is a crucial factor to emphasize to
gain early trust from the organizational representatives (Sein et al., 2011; Haj-Bolouri et al.,
2018). After the early trust is established between the different parties, different roles are
delegated within the ADR team to initiate the collaboration process. It is important to define
formal roles to the team members so that everyone is aware of their areas of responsibility
and contribution to the ADR project (Svensson, 2016).
The first case overcame potential issues with workplace regulations and facilitated
continuous participation among stakeholders by inviting all representatives to early meetings,
discussing their current situation, negotiating the needs for adaptable IT solutions to their
infrastructure and testing tangible prototypes continuously. This was appreciated by the host
county administration and resulted in individual engagement, an element that is crucial to
incorporate to encourage stakeholders toward “agentic” actions (Billett, 2014); e.g. actions that
go beyond routine-based behaviors and professional identities, to stimulate the production of
new norms and engagement among employees of a workplace (Billett et al., 2004; Billett, 2006).
The second case stimulated engagement and participation in similar ways, with the
addition of reinforcing the value of engagement, participation and work-integrated learning
for the entire organization and not just a few hand-picked stakeholders. As pointed out in
prior WPL research (Billett, 2004, 2016; Tynjälä et al., 2014), participation may be actively
supported, welcomed, resented or opposed among employees. By formalizing dedicated
sessions with clear and adapted incentives for the participants, integration workers (tutors,
coordinators, content producers) were comfortable with the idea of dedicating their time to
learn new skills, extend their professional roles and areas and responsibilities. Their
participation transcended their pre-conceptions of change and early resistance toward new
ways of thinking and working. Hence, the training sessions enabled them to reflect over
their own practice (integration work) and start re-constructing their workplace pedagogies.
JWL The last two stages of reflection and learning and formalization of learning, emphasize the
33,6 necessity of explicating and consuming workplace affordances to maintain a creative
participatory space (Bratteteig and Wagner, 2012) within the ADR team. Tension arises
between innovative ideas for change in the workplace due to intervention and the intended
continuities of the work practice (Billett, 2004) and those of the personal agency in learning
through and for work (Billett, 2011). Subsequently, mechanisms of power and control to
420 maintain a certain workplace culture can generate detrimental implications that cause inertia in
the collaboration between scholars and stakeholders of an engaged initiative (Van de Ven,
2007). To transcend such mechanisms and surpass the potential inertia, team members are
encouraged to develop a “Researcher-client agreement similar to AR efforts (Davison et al.,
2004)” (Sein et al., 2011, p. 40). In this way, the ADR project becomes an opportunity for the
organization to test and re-evaluate their workplace practices.
The first case introduced theory incrementally in the project to focus on stakeholders’
attention and elaborate their understanding of the situation. This allowed them to cross the
boundaries of their workplace culture; focusing on the linkage between theory and practice
transformed the stakeholders’ views on the added value of academic knowledge for their
workplace practice. Similar outcomes have been reported from other ADR studies (Sherer,
2014) that reinforce the value of theory in practice and transformation of work activities due
to iterative cycles of organizational intervention. However, intervention alone does not
necessarily motivate an incentive for transforming workplace practices (Billett, 2004), but
rather, in the case of using ADR, it is the BIE-cycles that focus collaborative activities
through engagement and participation.

Implications for mediating pedagogically rich activities

The implications of using ADR to allowed the scholars and practitioners to jointly elucidate
and “unpack” (make visible through active reflection and communication) the elements of
the pedagogically rich activities. The learning outcomes of each case illustrated that
participation and a sense of engagement with on-going activities create a space for
identifying and reinforcing pedagogical ideas into the practice of integration workers. In the
WPL literature, we can, for instance, find the key characteristics of pedagogically rich
activities: accessibility, permission and availability (Billett, 2016; Billett et al., 2018). When
these key characteristics are incorporated into pedagogical activities at work, “practice
pedagogies” (Billett, 2016, p. 128) are manifested through activities or interactions that
enrich and augment WPL experiences. This was illustrated through both case studies; e.g.
the first learning outcome of the first case illustrated, the second case study, where early
workshops triggered the integration workers to not only share but to make visible their
pedagogical approaches for organizing civic orientation with a different group of
newcomers (e.g. different nationalities, languages, cultures).
Another example from the second case concerned the last two stages of reflection and
learning and formalization of learning, where one aspect of the training sessions’ underlying
pedagogy was to provide direct instruction and “hands on” assistance by more experienced
participants among the employees. The direct implication of such engagement between the
tutors reinforced permission for the junior tutors to organize and conduct their tasks and
permit comparisons and appraisals with what they learned by following the seniors’ advice.
Consequently, inspired by Billett’s (2014) ideas about mimetic learning at work and other
work that emphasizes learning and teaching in workplaces (Teunissen and Wilkinson, 2011;
Billett and Choy, 2013; Billett, 2015), the concept of handovers in nursing (Billett, 2015) was
“theoretically ingrained’ (Sein et al., 2011, p. 40) into training sessions; meaning that the
concept was used to inform and inspire the training sessions. Here, senior tutors “handed
over” their experiences and knowledge to junior. These activities and interactions inspired Action design
workers to elaborate a reflective mindset (Schön, 1983) into their future training sessions for research
future employees in a similar way as the ones organized in the ADR project.

Conclusion
In this paper, we proposed ADR as a method for organizing WPL. The method incorporates
reflection and learning as integral parts and it stresses principles that support stakeholder 421
participation and different project outcomes for different groups. The ADR method provides
a structured way of organizing pedagogically rich activities which strengthen the learning
potential of everyday work activities in a variety of workplace settings both case settings.
This was exemplified through two different cases where ADR was used to organize WPL in
a systematic way. In summary, we conclude that ADR is a prominent and feasible method
for WPL scholars to adopt because of two main reasons.
First, ADR bridges theory with practice by integrating theoretical knowledge (e.g.
principles, concepts, terminology) with workplace activities. In both of cases, the workshop
and training sessions showed the value of situating abstract concepts in action. WPL
scholars will thus find justifiable means in using ADR for bridging theory with practice in
their projects.
Second, ADR facilitates pedagogically rich activities through iterative cycles of
intervention and formalization of learning outcomes. Both case studies illustrated how ADR
can be used to intervene and change across organizational boundaries with the help of
stakeholders and practitioners. Subsequently, both cases also illustrated that practitioners
become more engaged in learning activities when the goals and implications of those
activities are presented in a clear and pedagogical manner.
We believe that the provided points are beneficial ones for WPL scholars to look over and
consider for future research. Consequently, we acknowledge that this study has limitations
in terms of only emphasizing two cases and hope that future research can overlook some of
the challenges with adopting and using ADR for coming WPL research.

References
Argyris, C. (2002), “Double-loop learning, teaching, and research”, Academy of Management Learning
& Education, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 206-218.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA.
Baskerville, R.L. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (1998), “Diversity in information systems action research
methods”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 90-107.
Bansler, J.P. (1989), “Systems development research in Scandinavia: three theoretical schools”,
Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 1.
Berge, Z.L. (2002), “Obstacles to distance training and education in corporate organizations”, Journal of
Workplace Learning, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 182-189.
Berg, S.A. and Chyung, S.Y.Y. (2008), “Factors that influence informal learning in the workplace”,
Journal of Workplace Learning.
Billett, S. (2001a), “Learning through work: workplace affordances and individual engagement”, Journal
of Workplace Learning, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 209-214.
Billett, S. (2001b), “Co-participation: affordance and engagement at work”, New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, Vol. 2001 No. 92, p. 63.
Billett, S. (2003), “Workplace mentors: demands and benefits”, Journal of Workplace Learning.
JWL Billett, S. (2004), “Workplace participatory practices: conceptualizing workplaces as learning environments”,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 312-324.
33,6
Billett, S. (2006), “Relational interdependence between social and individual agency in work and working
life”, Mind, Culture, and Activity, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 53-69.
Billett, S. (2011), “Subjectivity, self and personal agency in learning through and for work”, The SAGE
Handbook of Workplace Learning, (s 60), p. 72.
422 Billett, S. (2014), “Implications for practice”, Mimetic Learning at Work, Springer, Cham, pp. 83-103.
Billett, S. (2015), Integrating Practice-Based Experiences into Higher Education, Springer Netherlands,
Dordrecht.
Billett, S. (2016), “Learning through health care work: premises, contributions and practices”, Medical
Education, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 124-131.
Billett, S. and Choy, S. (2013), “Learning through work: emerging perspectives and new challenges”,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 264-276.
Billett, S., Harteis, C. and Gruber, H. (2018), “Developing occupational expertise through everyday work
activities and interactions”, The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance,
pp. 105-126.
Billett, S., Barker, M. and Hernon-Tinning, B. (2004), “Participatory practices at work”, Pedagogy,
Culture and Society, Vol. 11 No. 3.
Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T. (1995), “User participation and democracy: a discussion of Scandinavian
research on system development”, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 1.
Bontemps-Hommen, M.C., Baart, A.J. and Vosman, F.J. (2020), “Professional workplace-learning. Can
practical wisdom be learned?”, Vocations and Learning, Vol. 13, pp. 479-501.
Boswell, W.R. and Olson-Buchanan, J.B. (2007), “The use of communication technologies after hours:
the role of work attitudes and work-life conflict”. Journal of Management, 33(4), pp. 592-610.
Boud, D. and Middleton, H. (2003), “Learning from others at work: communities of practice and
informal learning”, Journal of workplace learning, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 194-202.
Bratteteig, T. and Wagner, I. (2012), “Spaces for participatory creativity”, CoDesign, Vol. 8 Nos 2/3,
pp. 105-126.
Brown, T. and Martin, R.L. (2015), “Design for action: how to use design thinking to make great things
actually happen”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 56-64.
Cole, R.E. (1998), “Learning from the quality movement: what did and didn't happen and why?”,
California Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 43-73.
Cole, R., Purao, S., Rossi, M. and Sein, M. (2005), Being proactive: where action research meets design
research. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Las Vegas, NV.
Davison, R., Martinsons, M.G. and Kock, N. (2004), “Principles of canonical action research”,
Information Systems Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 65-86.
De Vries, M. and Berger, S. (2016), “An action design research approach within enterprise engineering”,
Systemic Practice and Action Research, NYP.
Dreyer, S., Olivotti, D., Lebek, B. and Breitner, M.H. (2017), “Towards a smart services enabling
information architecture for installed base management in manufacturing”, Wirtschafts
Informatik.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Engeström, Y., Sannino, A. and Virkkunen, J. (2014), “On the methodological demands of formative
interventions”, Mind, Culture, and Activity, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 118-128.
Fenwick, T. (2001), “Tides of change: new themes and questions in workplace learning”, New Directions
for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 2001 No. 92, pp. 3-18.
Fuller, A., Unwin, L., Felstead, A., Jewson, N. and Kakavelakis, K. (2007), “Creating and using Action design
knowledge: an analysis of the differentiated nature of workplace learning environments”, British
Educational Research Journal, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 743-759. research
Gro, B., Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. (Eds) (1987), Computers and Democracy, Aldershot, Brookfield USA,
Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney: Avebury, 434 pages, Organization Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 131-133.
Haj-Bolouri, A., Bernhardsson, L. and Rossi, M. (2016), “PADRE: a method for participatory action
design research”, International Conference on Design Science Research in Information System 423
and Technology, Springer, Cham, pp. 19-36.
Haj-Bolouri, A., Purao, S., Rossi, M. and Bernhardsson, L. (2018), “Action design research in practice:
lessons and concerns”, Research Papers, p. 131.
Hattinger, M. and Eriksson, K. (2015), “Action design research: design of e-WIL for the manufacturing
industry”, 21st Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2015; El Conquistador
Resort and Convention CenterFajardo; Puerto Rico; 13 August 2015 through 15 August 2015,
pp. 1-14.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C. and Oliver, R. (2010), A Guide to Authentic E-Learning, Routledge,
New York, NY.
Herrington, A. and Herrington, J. (Eds) (2006), “What is an authentic learning environment?”, Authentic
Learning Environments in Higher Education, Information Science Publishing, Hershey, PA,
pp. 1-13, (25) (PDF) Authentic learning: A paradigm for increasing student motivation in an era of
mass education, available at: www.researchgate.net/publication257308678_Authentic_learning_
A_paradigm_for_increasing_student_motivation_in_an_era_of_mass_education (accessed 3
January 2021).
Keijzer-Broers, W. Florez-Atehortua, L. and de Reuver, M. (2016), “Prototyping a health and wellbeing
platform: an action design research approach”, HICSS49, pp. 3462-3471.
Klein, H.K. and Myers, M.D. (1999), “A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field
studies in information systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 67-93.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lee, M.C. (2010), “Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: an
extension of the expectation confirmation model”, Computers and Education, Vol. 54 No. 2,
pp. 506-516.
Leinhard, K.R. and Legner, C. (2017), “Principles in the design of mobile medical apps: guidance for
those who care”, Wirtschafts Informatik.
Lemmetty, S. and Collin, K. (2020), “Self-directed learning as a practice of workplace learning:
interpretative repertoires of self-directed learning in ICT work”, Vocations and Learning, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 47-70.
Lempinen, H., Rossi, M. and Tuunainen, V.K. (2012), “Design principles for inter-organizational
systems development – case Hansel”, DESRIST2012, LNCS 7286, pp. 52-65.
Lewin, K. (1946), “Action research and minority problems”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 34-46.
Livari, J. and Lyytinen, K. (1999), “Research in information systems development in Scandinavia: unity
in plurality," Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 135-186.
McCracken, G. (1998), The Long Interview, SAGE Publications, Inc, Vol. 13.
McCormack, B. (2011), “Engaged scholarship and research impact: integrating the doing and using of
research in practice”, Journal of Research in Nursing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 111-127.
McCurdy, N., Dykes, J. and Meyer, M. (2016), “Action design research and visualization design”, BELIV
‘16 Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Beyond Time and Errors on Novel Evaluation Methods
for Visualization, pp. 10-18.
JWL MacKrell, D.C. (2016), “Win-win-win: reflections from a work-integrated learning project in a non-profit
organization”, Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, Vol. 13, pp. 047-061.
33,6
Maccani, G., Donnnellan, B. and Helfert, M. (2014), “Action design research in practice: the case of smart
cities. DESRIST2014”, LNCS, Vol. 8463, pp. 132-147.
Malloch, M., Cairns, L., Evans, K. and O’Connor, B.N. (2010), The SAGE Handbook of Workplace
Learning, Sage Publications.
424 Mayer, R.E. (2009), Multimedia Learning. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Mustafa, M.I. and Sjöström, J. (2013), “Design principles for research data export: lessons learned in e-Health
design research”, DESRIST2013, LNCS 7939, pp. 34-49.
Norman, D.A. (1988), The Design of Everyday Things, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Perlow, L.A. (2012), Sleeping with Your Smartphone: How to Break the 24/7 Habit and Change the Way
You Work, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Petersson, A.M. and Lundberg, J. (2016), “Applying action design research (ADR) to develop concept
generation and selection methods”, Procedia Cirp, Vol. 50, pp. 222-227.
Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. and Preece, J. (2011), Interaction Design: Beyond Human Computer Interaction,
3rd ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Rowley, J. (2003), “Action research: an approach to student work-based learning”, Education þ
Training, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 131-138.
Runeson, P. and Höst, M. (2009), “Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in
software engineering”, Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 2, p. 131.
Sannino, A., Engeström, Y. and Lemos, M. (2018), “Formative interventions for expansive learning and
transformative agency: [reprint]”, in Cole, M., Penuel, W.R. and O’Neill, K. (Eds), Cultural-
Historical Activity Theory Approaches to Design-Based Research, Routledge, pp. 113-147.
Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M. and Lindgren, R. (2011), “Action design research”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 35-56.
Schön, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner, New York, NY, p. 1083.
Schön, D. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Skippington, P. (2002), Learning@Work. Good Practice in Workbased Learning (Case Studies of
Reframing the Future Projects), Australian National Training Authority, Melbourne.
Susman, G. (1983), “Action research: a sociotechnical perspective”, in Morgan, G. (Ed.), Beyond Method:
Strategies for Social Research, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 95-113.
Svensson, L. (2016), “A resource-based view on collaboration between firms and local partners in a non-
urban Swedish context”, Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente.
Sherer, S.A. (2014), “Advocating for action design research on IT value creation in healthcare”, Journal
of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 12, p. 2.
Teunissen, P.W. and Wilkinson, T.J. (2011), “Learning and teaching in workplaces”, Medical Education:
Theory and Practice, Churchill Livingstone Elsevier, Edinburgh, London, New York, Oxford,
Philadelphia, St Louis, Sydney, Toronto, pp. 193-209.
Tynjälä, P. and Häkkinen, P. (2005), “E-learning at work: theoretical underpinnings and pedagogical
challenges”, Journal of Workplace Learning.
Tynjälä, P., Häkkinen, P. and Hämäläinen, R. (2014), “TEL@ work: toward integration of theory and
practice”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 990-1000.
Valsiner, J. (2000), “Data as representations: contextualizing qualitative and quantitative research
strategies”, Social Science Information, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 99-113.
Van de Ven, A. (2007), Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Vaughan, K. (2008), “Workplace learning: a literature review”, New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Veling, L., Mc Quillan, L., Browne, A.M., Craig, M. and Pinkster, M. (2016), “Use it or lose it: embodying Action design
practice in action design research (ADR)”.
research
Vesterlind, M. (2016), “Knowing at work: a study of professional knowledge in integration work
directed to newly arrived immigrants”, Doctoral dissertation, University West.
Watson, D., Tregaskis, O., Gedikli, C., Vaughn, O. and Semkina, A. (2018), “Well-being through
learning: a systematic review of learning interventions in the workplace and their impact on
well-being”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 247-268.
Wenger, E. (1998), “Communities of practice: learning as a social system”, Systems Thinker, Vol. 9 No. 5,
425
pp. 2-3.
Yin, R.K. (1994), “Discovering the future of the case study. Method in evaluation research”, Evaluation
Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 283-290.

Further reading
Akkerman, S.F. and Bakker, A. (2011), “Boundary crossing and boundary objects”, Review of
Educational Research, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 132-169.
Berg, S.A. and Chyung, S.Y.Y. (2008), “Factors that influence informal learning in the workplace”,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 20 No. 4.
Dingsøyr, T., Moe, N.B., Fægri, T.E., et al. (2018), “Exploring software development at the very large-scale:
a revelatory case study and research agenda for agile method adaptation”, Empirical Software
Engineering, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 490-520, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9524-2
Forgues, D., Koskela, L. and Lejeune, A. (2009), “Information technology as boundary object for
transformational learning”, ITcon Vol. 14, Special issue Technology Strategies for Collaborative
Working, pp. 48-58.
Peterson, A.M. and Lundberg, J. (2016), “Applying action design research (ADR) to develop concept
generation an selection methods”, Procedia Cirp, Vol. 50, pp. 222-227.
Schacht, S. and Mädche, A. (2013), “How to prevent reinventing the wheel? Design principles for project
knowledge management systems”, DESRIST2013, LNCS 7939, pp. 1-17.

Corresponding author
Amir Haj-Bolouri can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]