Abstract
|
Action Research – AR (Bryman, Bell 2007, Sekaran, Bougie 2013, Saunders, Lewis, Thornhill 2007, Eriksson, Kovalainen 2010, Schindler 2008, Flick 2010, Chrostowski, Jemielniak 2011, Bums 1994, Wallace 1998, Gibbert, Ruigrok, Wicki 2008, Morgan 2001, Greenwood, Levin 1998, Kemmis, McTaggart 2009, Agar 1980/1996, Adelman 2006, Huxham, Vangen 2003, Checkland, Holwell 1998, Reason, Bradbury 2001, Tharenou, Donohue, Cooper 2007) is the effective method for knowledge development and pursuing modifications in an organization..
The aim of AR is to lead to a change within the researched area and to urge their participants to initiate changes diagnosis. AR presupposes cooperation of researchers, practitioners and laymen and consists in the systematic data collection originating from everyday practice and analyzing it in order to decide on its future shape.
The article fills the cognitive gap in the range of the use of the AR test method in public organizations’ research.
The research using AR was conducted in public organization – district court in Gdańsk. We used the AR analysis to examine actions taken by this court. The research was also supposed to answer a question if it is necessary to increase court activity in prosocial actions and if so, in which areas. The district court in Gdańsk has been chosen in the target selection mode, given the fact that it is one of the best courts in Poland (153 judges, over 300 administrative services staff and 82 judge assistants), but also due to a willingness to diagnose real possibilities of the court and subordinate district courts to undertake actions strictly related to social engagement. Firstly, we had to select possible collaboration areas with external stakeholders. Secondly, we needed to diagnose costs and benefits of such collaboration. Thirdly, we should support this court in the process of change in order to increase its legitimacy to the activitiesnot only as part of its basic justice-related activities. Fourthly, we made a selection of collaboration methods which are the most effective and will bring benefits not only to the court, but also to external stakeholders. The studies included time horizon between June 2013 and March 2018 which is the period of more than five years. As part of the ongoing studies successive observation were made.
|
