ciencia y accion

8/12/2019 Ciencia y Accion

1/18

ActionScienceConcepts ,M ethods , and Skillsfor ResearchandInterven t io n


2/18

ChrisArgyrisRober tPutnamDianaM cLainSmith


3/18

ctionScience

Jossey-BassPublishersSan Francisco


4/18

ACTION S C I E N C EConcep t s , Methods,and Skillsfor Research andInterventionby C h r is Argyr is , R ober t P utnam, and Diana McLain SmithCopyright 1985 by: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers35 0 Sansome Street

San Francisco, Cal ifornia 9 4 1 0 4

All rights reserved. N o pa r tof this publicationmay be reproduced, stored in retriev al system,o r transmitted, i n n y f o r m o r b y n y means,electronic,mechanical,p hotocopying,recording, or otherw ise, w ithout the priorw r i t t e n permission of the publisher.

Lib rary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataArgyris ,C h r is (date)Act ion science.

(The Jossey-Bass socialand beh av ioralscience series) (The J oss ey-Bas s ma nagem entseries) Bibliography; p. 451Includes index .1. Social sciencesResearch . 2. SocialsciencesMethodology. 3 . Act ion res earch .I . P u t n a m , R o b e r t (date) . I I . S m i t h ,Diana M c L ain (date) . III . Title.I V . Series. V. Series: Jossey-Bass m a n a g em e n tseries.H 6 2 . A 6 6 3 1 9 8 5 300 .72 85-18054ISBN 0 - 8 7 5 8 9 - 6 65 - 0

M a n u f a c t u r e d in the United States o f America

J A C K E T D E S I G N B Y WILLI BAUMFIRST EDITIONH B Printing 1 0 9 8 7 6 5

Code 8528


5/18

Ajointp ublicat io ninT he Jossey-BassSocial and Behavioral Science SeriesandT he Jossey-Bass Management Series

Consulting EditorMethodologyof Socialand BehavioralR esearchDonald W FiskeUniversity o fC hicago


6/18

our s tudents ,fromwhomwelearnsomuch


7/18

Preface

Creating usable knowledge is becoming an increasingly impor-tant topic in the social sciences. Lindbloom and Cohen (1979),for example, h a v e written about p r o d u c i n g knowledge that canbe used to f o r m u l a t e policies. O u r f o c u s i s o n k n o w l e d g e thatcan beused to produce action, while at the same time contrib-u t i n g to a theory of action. The concept of u s a b l e knowledgeh a s produced a n uneasy mixture o f enthusiasm a n d s k e p t i c i s m .It has generated e n t h u s i a s m because we need more usableknowledge to help manage i n t e r p e r s o n a l , community, and or-ganizational a f fa i rs . M o r e o v e r , technological s p i n o f f s f ro m th ep h y s i c a l sciences suggest that th e social sc iences m i g h t g e n e r a t esimilar benefits for social practice. But there is widespreads k e p t ic i s m a s w e ll . Policies for dealing w ith p o v e r t y , d i scr imina-t i o n , an d u n e m p l o y m e n t b o g down in the c o m p l e x i t i e s o f im-plementation, and in retrospect, some o b s e r v e r s a r g u e that thesep o l i c i es h a v e made th e problems w o r s e . P r o g r am s fo r t r a n s f o r m -in g organizations s u c c e e d e a c h other w i th the s ea s o n s , l e a v i n g int hei r wake the w e ar y wisdom that nothing r e a l ly c h ang e s , Re-s p o n s i b l e social scientis ts m a y r e s p o n d to these d i s a p p o in tm e n t s

IX


8/18

x P refa ceby turning inward to research that s eem s increasingly esoteric topractitioners.

In proposing an action science, we hope to articulate thefeatu r es of a science that can genera te k n o w l ed g e that is use-ful , v a l i d , d e s c r i p t i v e of the world, a nd i n f o r m a t i v e o f h ow w emight change it. This emphasis on a d v a n c i n g basicknowledgew hi le a lso s o lv i n g practical problems has had a long and dis t in-guished career in science. In the natural sciences it is i l lus t ratedby the w o r k of Louis P a s t e u r , w h o d i s c o v e r e d m u c h about th erole of g e r m s in i l lness while trying to so l ve problems of fe r -mentation for French vintners. It is also i l l u s t r a t e d by earlyw o r k in o pe r a t i o n s r e s e a r c h : scholars p u t aside the i r in te res t inba s i c research to help England solve cri t ical practical problemsduring W o r l d War II. In the course of this work, they d i s co v -e r e d exciting intellectual problems whose solution contributedto b a s i c knowledge.In the social sciences this e m p h a s i s on combining scienceand practice is usually entitled action research. We would becontent to use the term action research if it were not for twof a c t o r s . First, o v e r the years action research has o f t e n beenseparated f r o m theory b u i l d i n g and tes t ing . L e a d i n g social sci-entists d i s t inguish action research f r om basicresearchby assert-ing that the intention of action researchis to s o l v e an importantproblem for a client and not necessarily to test features of atheory (Coleman, 1972). W e b e l ie v e there is v a lu e in c o m b i n i n gthe study of practical problems with research that contributesto theory b u i l d i n g andtesting.

Second, many action researchers understandably conducttheir e m p i r i c a l work by f o ll o w i ng the current ideas about stan-dard sc ient if ic r e s e a r c h . The dilemma is that some of the cur-rently accepted i dea s of rigorous r e s e a r c h may be se l f - l imit ing.To attain a certain l e ve l of r igor , the methodology may becomeso disconnected f r o m the reality it is designed to understandthat it is no l onger u s e f u l . For example, the research that fol-lowed and b u i l t on the early studies of Lewin, Lippitt, andW h i t e (1939) on leadership styles and group climates was in-deed more rigorous, yet far less usable by human beings in real-life conditions ( Ar g yr is , 1980) than the or iginal studies.


9/18

Preface xi

Two of the best known e x e m p l a r s of action science re-searchers as we understand them were Kurt Lewin and JohnDewey. Both d e s ig ne d and executed action or d e m o n s t r a t i o ne x p e r i m e n t s whose consequences they studied systematically.Bothwere interested in adding to f u n d a m e n t a l knowledge whilesolv ing practical p r o b l e m s s u c h a s educating youngsters, inf lu-encing eating habits during W o r l d Wa r I I , o r reeducating i n d i -v i d u a l sabout their p r e j u d i c e s .

D e w e y and L e w in w e r e committed to notions of bettersocieties or to what has recently been described as liberatinga l t e r n a t i v e s . In their worlds, c i t ize ns would be held r e s p o n s ib l efor b e c o m i n g i n q u i r y oriented in order to p r o d u c e a societythat was l e a r n i n g oriented and e x p e r i m e n t a l l y minded. Thisorganic mix of descriptive and normative interests also charac-terized the great early social scientists such as Weber (Asplund,1 9 7 2 ) .

Our view of action science builds on the ideas of theseearly practitioners. We maintain that social science should havean important role in generating liberating alternatives. This ob-jective cannot be accomplished w i th o ut challenging the statusq u o .

In social l i fe, the status quo exists b e c a u s e the norms andrules learned through socialization have been internalized anda re continually r e i n f o r c e d . Human b e i n gs le a r n w h i c h skillswork within the status quo and which do not work. The morethe skills work, the more they inf lue nc e individuals se nse ofcompetence. I n d iv i d u al s drawon such skills and j u s t i f y their useby identifying th e values embedded in them and adhering tothese v a l u e s . The interdependence among n o r m s , r u l e s , skil ls ,and v a l u e s creates a pattern called the status quo that becomesso omnipresent as to be taken for granted and to go unchal-lenged. Precisely b e c a u s e th e s e p a t t e r n s are taken for granted,p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e these skills a re automatic, p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s ev a l u e s are internalized, the s t a t u s quo and individuals p e r s o n a lresponsibility for maintaining it cannot be studied without con-fronting it .

In o r d e r to conduct research that includes the option ofchanging the status quo, one must h a v e models of the s t a t u s


10/18

xii Prefacequo and of a d i f f e r e n t u n i v e r s e that can be used to create a dia-lectic. Thus, we are interested in r e s e a r c h that generates andtests propositions concerning (1) the v a r i a bles embeddedin thestatus quo that keep it the status quo; (2) the variables involvedin changingthe status quo and moving toward liberating alterna-t i v e s ; (3) the v a r i a b l e s in a science of intervention that w ill ber e q u i r e d if the p r e v i o u s propositions are e v e r to be tested; andf inal ly (4) the research methodology that w illmake change p o s -sible and simultaneously produce knowledge that meets rigor-ou s tests o f d i s c o n f i r m a b i l i t y .

In our discussions w ith social science colleagues on howto produce va l i d and usable knowledge, we encounter s e v e r a lobjections to research that attempts to alter the status quo.These objections raise valid concerns, but these concerns areo f t e n dealt with in ways that are counterproductive to scienceand to p r a c t i c e .T h e first object ion begins with a p r e m i s e of n o r m a l sci-ence: the primary o b j e c t i v e of science is to des cr i be reality asaccurately as possible. Hence, mainstream scientists f o c u s ondescr ib ing th e w o rld as it exists and not on changing i t . Theparadox is that this approach cannot describe many importantf e a t u r e s of the world as it ex i s t s . Among these f e a t u r e s are thed e f e n s i v e routines that protect the status quo against change.W e w ill probably n e v e r get a va l id description of the res i l iencyof d e f e n s i v e routines by just watching and waiting. Some de-fenses do not even surface until the first layer of defenses hasb e e n engaged (Argyris, 1985).

A corollary to the premise that th e p u r p o s e of science isto describe reali ty is that g e n e r a ti n g k n o w l e dg e about changeis a second s tep , one that m u s t w a i t u n t i l basic d e s c r i p t i v eknowledge has been accumulated. In action science we agreethat it is important to understand the world if we are to changeit. But we also believe, as Kurt Lewin said, that the opposite istrue: one of the b e s t w a ys t o u n d e r s t a n d th e w o rld is to try tochange it. In choosing not to explore ways of changing the sta-tus quo, researchers choose to perpetuate a world in whichthere is little knowledge about the d e f e n s i v e routines that m a i n -tain the status quo.


11/18

Preface xiii

A second objection is that defen s i v e routines may bef u n c t i o n a l and hence should not be c h a l l e n g e d . D e fe nse s doserve to protect individuals and organizations in important re-s p e c t s . B u t w h a t if such defenses a re f u n c t i o n a l and d y s f u n c -tional at the same time? Our data suggest that s o m e d e f e n s e scan s ignif icantly limit an i n d iv i d u a l s and an o r g a n i z a t i o n s ca-pacity to learn an d a d a p t an d h e n c e to s u r v i v e an d f lo u r i s h . T opoint t o t he p o s i t i v e a s p ect s o f d e f e n s i v e routines a s r e a s o n sfor not studying how to cha n ge their n e g a t i v e a s p e c t s may it-self be a d e f e n s iv e routine.

A third and related objection is that attempts to changemight get out of hand and unintentionally harm participants.This is an important concern, one that r e s e a r c h e r s must con-stantly respond to. But what leads researchers to believe thatclients w ill a llow them to create dangerous conditions? Our ex-perience is that social scientists are successfully denied accessby s u bject s who do not trust the r e s e a r c h e r s or do not agreew ith th e research . W e sh ou ld add that our e x p e r i e n c e is b a s e do n a m o d e l o f a c o l l a b o r a t i v e relationship between r e s e a r c h e rand sub je c ts or c l ie nts , one in which c l ients can make an in-f o r m e d c h o i c e about proceeding with the r e s e a r c h . To the de-g r e e that the researcher has unilateral control, subjects may beless able to protect t h e m s e l v e s .

The notion that clients have ways of protecting t h e m -selves leads to a fourth objection: the researcher could bek i c k e d out. C o n f r o n ti n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e f e n s i v e ro u t i n es i n agroup could be dangerous. The group could unite and turnagainst the r e s e a r c h e r who is trying to d iscuss issues that thegroup p r e f e r s to l e a v e undiscussed. We agree that this is a dan-ger, b u t w e be l ieve t h a t th e r e s p o n s e n e e d not be to w i th d r awf r o m such s tu dies . S o m e scientists sh ould consider conduct ingr e s e a r c h to i l l u m i n a t e u n d e r what conditions these dangers canbe o v e r c o m e .

One of the m a j o r contributions that action s c i en ce m a k esto r e s e a r c h e r s is to help them d e v e l o p the knowledge and skillsneeded to reduce the likelihood that they might unintentionallyharm p e o p l e or that p a r t i c i p a n t s might turn ag ains t them and toincrease the clients or subjects commitment to research. The


12/18

xiv Preface

knowledge required is related to additional modes of inquiry,new methods of research, and the interpersonal skills to con-duct this research successful ly . This represents a primary thrusto f our book.

Several f e a t u r e s o f normal science, including in te r suh je c -t i ve ly verif iable data, explicit in fer ences , disconfirmable propo-sitions, and public testing, are also crucial to our approach.These features are designed to create challenging tests that mayd isc onf i r m our ideas. The criteria for validity must be rigorousbecause w e a re s t u d y i n g d i fficult , t h r e a t e n i n g issues that a f fe c tp e op l e s l ives .

W e have written this book with three purposesin mind;these correspond to the three parts of the book. The f i r s t pur-pose is to identify someof the primary issuesin the philosophyof science that relate to action science and have been discussedthrough the years. In Part One we d e s c r i b e the major positionstaken by some of the key protagonists in this dialogue. We in-troduce our position and conclude with a statement of our the-oretical perspective. In doing so, we neither suggest that weh a v e f o u n d the a ns w e r to these age-old questions nor do we im-ply that the answers we provide are complete. The reader fa-miliar w i th th e l i te ra ture on th e philosophy of sc ience kno w sthat these i ssues have a long and distinguished history. We showwhere we b e l i e v e action science f its in this dialogue in order toset the stage for further inquiry and clarification.

The second purpose is to i d e n t i f y s im i lar i t ie s and d i f fer -ences in the methodology of normal scienceand action scienceand to examine the implications of these for the skills that re-searchers may need to be action scientists. In Part Two we ex-plore three research approaches used in contemporary socialscience and compare them to action science. We id e nt i fy thenorms and rules that guide inquiry in each of these approaches,and we discuss how each may be self-limiting. We then describethe methods of action science designed to overcome these l imi-tations and the skills that researchers need to use such m etho ds .These skills bui ld on those that researchers have already learnedin the methodology courses presently taught in most universi-ties.


13/18

Preface xvThe third and probably most important purpose of this

book is to show that a c o m m u n i t y of i n q u i r y can be c reated inwhich the skills needed to conduct action science can be taught.Action science cannot become a science unless its skills can bemade explicit and taught, so that suc c e ssf ul action science re-search is m o r e science than art. I n Part T h r ee w e i l lus t ra te h oww e a re t eaching th e skills of act ion sc ience . Our a p p r o a c h is notnecessari ly the best, and we intend to continueour inquiry intomodes of teaching action science skills . Our hope is to p r o v i d es o m e gu i del i n es for those researchers who may w ish to learnand to teach t h e s e skills and, more importantly, who maywishto conduct e m p i r i c a l research on how they m i g h t teach theskills to young researchers.

Action Science is a product of genuine cooperationamong the three authors. We des i gn ed and executed thebook ase q u a l p a r t n e r s .

W e acknowledge the help of Dianne A r g y r i s , DonaldS c h o n , and E m i l y Souvaine in r eading p a r t s o f t h e m a n u s c r i p t .W e are greatly indebted to Marina M i h a l a k i s , who not onlytyped and retyped chapters, but did so with speed, competence,and with a c a re f u l eye to what statements made or did notmake s en s e . M a r i n a is a g r e a t team member.Cambridge,Massachusetts C hris ArgyrisAugust1985 R o b e r t P u t n a mDiana M c L a in Smith


14/18


15/18

Contents

PrefaceThe A u t h o r s

X

xix

PartOne: Designing a Science of Human Action 11. Philosophicaland Methodological I ssues 42 . Action Science:PromotingLearning fo r

Action andChange 363. T h e o r i e s of Act ion 8 0

PartTwo: Practices, Methods, and Resultsof Normal Science and Action Science 103

4 . B e y o n d the Limitat ions of N o r m a l Science:C o m p a r i n g L a b o r a t o r y E x p e r i m e n t s a ndAction E x p e r i m e n t s 105

XV
http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha2.pdf/http://ascha2.pdf/http://ascha2.pdf/http://ascha2.pdf/http://ascha2.pdf/http://ascha2.pdf/http://ascha2.pdf/http://ascha2.pdf/http://ascha2.pdf/http://ascha3.pdf/http://ascha3.pdf/http://ascha3.pdf/http://ascha3.pdf/http://ascha3.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha4.pdf/http://ascha3.pdf/http://ascha2.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/http://ascha1.pdf/


16/18

xviii Contents5. OrganizationalAssessment Research:Fillingin G a p s That N o rm a l Science O v e r l o o k s 1396 . T h e E t h n o g r a p h i c A p p r o a c h t o I n t e r v e n t i o n

and FundamentalChange 158DianneArgyris

7. T he Social Scientist as P r a c t i ti o n e r :Barriers to T ranslat ing Sc ient if ic Know ledgeintoPractical Knowledge 190

8. Practicing Action Science:M e t h o d s o f I n q u i r y a n d I n t e r v e n t io n 2 2 5PartThree: Developing Skills for

U s e f u l Research and E f f e c t i v e I n t e r v e n t i o n 2 6 79 . Engaging th e Learning Process 2 76

10. Promoting Reflection and Experimentation 31911. Expandingand Deepening the Learning 3681 2 . D e v e l o p i n g N e w F r am e s o f Reference 3 9 4

References 451Index 4 6 7
http://ascha5.pdf/http://ascha5.pdf/http://ascha5.pdf/http://ascha5.pdf/http://ascha5.pdf/http://ascha5.pdf/http://ascha5.pdf/http://ascha5.pdf/http://ascha5.pdf/http://ascha5.pdf/http://ascha5.pdf/http://ascha5.pdf/http://ascha6.pdf/http://ascha6.pdf/http://ascha6.pdf/http://ascha6.pdf/http://ascha6.pdf/http://ascha6.pdf/http://ascha6.pdf/http://ascha6.pdf/http://ascha6.pdf/http://ascha7.pdf/http://ascha7.pdf/http://ascha7.pdf/http://ascha7.pdf/http://ascha7.pdf/http://ascha7.pdf/http://ascha7.pdf/http://ascha7.pdf/http://ascha7.pdf/http://ascha7.pdf/http://ascha7.pdf/http://ascha7.pdf/http://ascha8.pdf/http://ascha8.pdf/http://ascha8.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha10.pdf/http://ascha10.pdf/http://ascha10.pdf/http://ascha10.pdf/http://ascha10.pdf/http://ascha10.pdf/http://ascha11.pdf/http://ascha11.pdf/http://ascha11.pdf/http://ascha11.pdf/http://ascha11.pdf/http://ascha11.pdf/http://ascha11.pdf/http://ascha12.pdf/http://ascha12.pdf/http://ascha12.pdf/http://ascha12.pdf/http://ascha12.pdf/http://asref.pdf/http://asref.pdf/http://asindex.pdf/http://asindex.pdf/http://asindex.pdf/http://asref.pdf/http://ascha12.pdf/http://ascha11.pdf/http://ascha10.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha9.pdf/http://ascha8.pdf/http://ascha7.pdf/http://ascha6.pdf/http://ascha5.pdf/


17/18

TheAuthors

C h r i s Argyris is James B r y a n t Conant P ro fes s o r o f Educationand O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r a t H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y . H e w a sa w a rd ed th e A.B. degree in p s y c h o l o g y f r o m C l a r k U n i v e r s i t y( 1 9 4 7 ) ; th e M.A. degree in e c o n o m i c s and p s y c h o l o g y f r omKansas U n i v e r s i t y ( 1 9 4 9 ) ; and the Ph.D. degree in organizat ionalb e h a v i o r f r o m C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y (1951). From 1951 to 1971,h e w a s a f a c u l t y m e m b e r a t Y a l e U n i v e r s i ty , s e r v i n g a s B e a c hPro fes s o r o f A dminis t ra t i ve S ciences and as c h a i r p e r s o n of theA d m i n i s t r a t i v e Sciences d e p a r t m e n t d u r i n g th e latter p a r t ofth is period.

A r g y r i s s early r e s e a r c h f o c u s e d on the unintended conse-q u e n c e s fo r i n di v i du a ls o f f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s ,e x e c u t i v e l e a d e r s h i p , control s y s t e m s , a n d m a n a g e m e n t i n f o r-mation s y s t e m s a n d on how i n d i v i d u a l s a d a p t e d to changethose c o n s e q u e n c e s Persona l i ty and Organization, 1957;Inte-grating the Individual and the Organization, 1964). He thent u r n e d h i s attention to w a y s o f changing o r g a n i z a t i o n s , e s p e -cially th e b e h a v i o r o f e x e c u t i v e s at the u p p e r levels o f o rga n i z a -t i o n Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effective-ness, 1962; Organization andInnovation, 1965).

xix


18/18

xx The A u t h o rsThis line of inquiry led him to f o c u s on the role of the

social scientist as a r e s e a r c h e r and interventionist InterventionTheory and Method, 1970; Inner Contradictions of RigorousResearch, 1 9 8 0 ) . D u r i n g th e pas t decade he has also been devel-o p i n g , w ith D o n a l d S c h o n , a t h e o r y of i n d i v i d u a l and organiza-tional l ea rn i n g in which human r e a s o n i n g n o t just behavior-b e c o m e s th e basis for diagnosis and action Theo ry inPractice,1974; Increasing Leadership Effectiveness, 1976; O rganiza-tional Learning, 1978).

A rg y ri s is currently working on a project that w ill relatethe perspective presented in this book to the ideas of other re-searchers and practitioners. Argy r i s has earned honorary doc-torates f r o m the Stockholm School of Economics (1979), theUniversity of Leuven, Belgium (1978), and McGill U n i v e r s i t y( 1 9 7 7 ) .

Robert Putnam is a doctoral student and an instructor incounseling and consultingpsychology at HarvardUniversity. Hereceived the A.B. degree with honors in political science f r o mSyracuse University 1970) and wasdesignated a Woodrow Wil-son Fellow. He studied political economy and government atH a r v a r dUniversity, served in the Peace C o r p s in Costa Rica, andworked as a counselor and training director at a human serviceagency in Boston. He received the Ed.M. degree in counselingand consultingpsychology from Harvard University (1980).

Diana McLain Smith is a doctoral student and teachingfel low in counseling and consulting psychology at HarvardUni-versity. She received a B.A. degree with honors in political w r it-ing f rom Boston U n i v e r s i t y ( 1 9 7 3 ) and a m a s t e r s degree incounseling and consulting psychology f r om Harvard University(1980).She has worked in the area of community mental healthas an administrator and a psychotherapist and more recently asa consultant to o rganizat ions in both th e p r i v a t e a nd p u b l i c sec-tors .

ciencia y accion

Documents