This paper examines the use of responsibility charting as a structured communication tool within a healthcare-focused action research project. It identifies four key stakeholders — including organizational co-owners, a CFO/CIO, and a Vice President of Government Services — and maps their roles across ten project responsibilities using a RASI framework (Responsibility, Authority/Veto, Support, Inform). The paper explains the rationale for each stakeholder's assignments based on their experience, expertise, and organizational authority. It also reflects on the importance of intentional participant selection, arguing that defaulting to convenience undermines the rigor of action research. The paper concludes by emphasizing how thorough preparation and thoughtful charting build participant confidence and support successful implementation.
The use of a responsibility chart facilitates communication about the roles participants play in an action research project, and it ensures that important steps or tasks are not inadvertently omitted from the implementation. An additional benefit is that the responsibility charting process provides an opportunity for deep thinking about the match between the skills of the participants and the tasks and activities that must be accomplished in order to conduct the project. The overarching goal of an action research project is to resolve a practice or policy problem through critical thinking and ongoing in situ testing.
There are four main stakeholders involved in this action research project, as indicated in the Responsibility Chart (Appendix I). The responsibilities listed in the chart include the following: identify project staff; provide project orientation to staff; identify action research questions; develop and pilot interview protocol; identify interview participants using respondent-driven sampling (RDS); conduct participatory research; review and synthesize data from multiple sources; develop recommendations; implement recommendations; and evaluate implementation.
The decisions about which responsibilities are key, and who should lead or support each one, were based on the experience, education, talents, and aptitudes of the primary stakeholders. The primary stakeholders, in addition to the author, are as follows: Person A, co-owner and co-founder of the organization; Person B, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Information Officer for the organization; and Person C, the Vice President of Government Services for the organization.
Person A is designated as someone who must be informed about three responsibilities: the initial identification of staff, the development and piloting of the interview protocol, and the review and synthesis of data gathered from multiple sources. Person A has the authority to approve or veto any or all of the responsibilities in the project — as does Person B. However, two responsibilities are explicitly identified for the approval of both Person A and Person B: providing the project orientation to staff, as this demonstrates top-down organizational support, and the implementation of recommendations, which gives both leaders a final review of the project before it is carried out.
When needed, both Person A and Person B will provide support in the form of suggestions and guidance to project staff as they identify the action research questions, confirm the participants identified through the respondent-driven sampling (RDS) process, and oversee and stay informed about the evaluation of the project.
Person C will participate heavily in the action research, as she has experience as a scientist and researcher in the healthcare field. Her support responsibilities include helping to identify the action research questions and helping to conduct the participatory research, stepping in as needed to provide guidance and insight. The responsibilities for which Person C holds a primary position include the identification of project staff, providing an orientation to project staff, identifying interview participants via the RDS process, reviewing and synthesizing data gathered from multiple sources, developing recommendations, implementing recommendations, and evaluating implementation.
"Critique of convenience-based selection and rigor in action research"
This paper serves as a consideration of the responsibilities of action research participants and staff with regard to the tasks and activities addressed during the preparation, implementation, and evaluation stages of an action research project. The selection of stakeholders is explained as it relates to organizational buy-in within the healthcare organization. The match between the stakeholders and their assigned responsibilities is also explained with regard to the inherent skills, knowledge, and proclivities of each stakeholder against the background of the entire action research project.
You’re 58% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.