Action Research as Experimentation

Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, February 2005 ( C© 2005)DOI: 10.1007/s11213-005-2459-3

Action Research as Experimentation

Alexander Styhre1,3 and Mats Sundgren2

Received September 3, 2004; revised December 12, 2004

This paper suggests that the metaphors of experimentation and the laboratory are ap-plicable when positioning action research vis-a-vis more conventional business schoolresearch. Following on from three different action research projects in a large multi-national pharmaceutical company, the paper argues that an action researcher can neverconstruct a sheltered environment wherein certain qualities of nature can be isolated,purified, and enhanced, but must always undertake research activities in vivo, in reallife organizational setting. Still, the metaphor of the laboratory is applicable because itenables for an understanding of how what Ian Hacking calls interventions in the “hardsciences” share certain characteristics with the action research activities. When actionresearchers intervene within organizations, the activities are always experimental innature, i.e., they can never be fully predicted or anticipated, but are initial steps in anemergent process of organizational change.

KEY WORDS: action research; experimental thinking; pharmaceutical industry; man-agement research.

1. INTRODUCTION

Action research and various forms of academy–industry partnerships have been re-cently problematized in special issues in some leading organization theory journalsand in several publications (Organization, and British Journal of Management;Brydon-Miller et al., 2003; Gergen, 2003; McNiff, 2000; Thomas, 2004. See alsoFrost, 1997; Huff, 2000). In the literature on action research, a number of compet-ing research methodologies are advocated, for instance action inquiry (Ellis andKiely, 2000), action science (Friedman, 2001), cooperative inquiry (Reason, 1999),

1FENIX Research Program & Department of Project Management, Chalmers University of Technol-ogy, Goteborg, Sweden.

2AstraZeneca R&D, and FENIX Research Program & Department of Project Management, ChalmersUniversity of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden.

3To whom correspondence should be addressed at FENIX Research Program & Department ofProject Management, Chalmers University of Technology, Aschebergsgatan 46, Vasaomradet Hus 3,S-412 96, Goteborg, Sweden; e-mail: [email protected].

53

1094-429X/05/0200-0053/0 C© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

54 Styhre and Sundgren

insider action research (Coghlan, 2001), insider/outsider team research (Bartunekand Louis, 1996), and appreciative inquiry (Johnson and Leavitt, 2001). In thispaper, we will however use the notion of action research because that appears tobe the term most widely recognized in the literature (Eden and Huxham, 1996).In their review of the literature, Shani et al. (2004, p. 87) portray action researchin the following terms: “Action research is viewed as an emergent inquiry processembedded in partnership between researchers and organizational members for thepurpose of addressing an organizational issues (or problem) and simultaneouslygenerating scientific knowledge. . . . Action research is a philosophical view thatencompasses the need for the generation of new knowledge in organizational set-tings and the desire for ongoing organizational renewal.” Elsewhere, Coghlan andBrannick (2001) speak of action research as follows:

As the name suggest, action research is an approach to research which aims at bothtaking action and creating knowledge or theory about that action. The outcomes areboth an action and a research outcome, unlike traditional research approaches whichaims at creating knowledge only. Action research works through a cyclical process ofconsciously and deliberately: (a) planning; (b) taking action; (c) evaluating the action,leading to further planning and so on. The second dimension of action research is thatit is participative, in that the members of the system which is being studied participateactively in the cyclical process. (Coghlan and Brannick, 2001, p. xi).

In the following, we speak of action research as a loosely coupled frameworkof research methodologies aiming both at producing theoretical insights and prac-tical effects, what Baburoglo and Ravn (1992) calls “actionable knowledge.” Eventhough this “double knowledge interest” (Habermas, 1968) of action researchmay sound appealing, action research is often controversial. For instance, in theemerging literature on “Mode 2” type of research (Gibbons et al., 1994; Harveyet al., 2002; MacLean et al., 2002), a research mode recognizing the emphasison practical effects of action research projects, partnerships tend to be depictedas being either a fruitful approach to integrate academic business school researchand practitioners’ interests, or as being detrimental to academic research (see e.g.,Grey, 2001; Kilduff and Keleman, 2001). Thus, academy–industry partnershipsare increasingly becoming a contested area. To date, the discussion on academy–industry partnerships has been focused on the ethics of such relationships and itspostulated long-term effects for business school research in areas of organizationand management theory. A rather limited interest has been shown to the verypractices of such partnership-based research. There are of course a vast literatureon action research, participative inquiry, and insider/outsider models of research,but there are not too many discussions on the relationship between the overarchingacademy–industry partnership debate and the research methods used in such re-search efforts. This paper is an attempt to discuss the use of an experimental modelaimed at interrogating into the practices of everyday work life in organizations.Rather than assuming that academy–industry partnerships are either “good” or

Action Research as Experimentation 55

“bad,” the paper advocates a model of research that have been employed in severalresearch projects without drawing normative conclusions. The objective of thepaper is thus primarily to discuss the pros and cons of the experimental model inaction research projects without necessarily suggesting that the model representsome “best practice” in action research activities.

In a famous passage, Adorno (2000, p. 74) says, “bluntly put, closed systemsare bound to be finish” (see also Bertalanffy, 1968). What Adorno is addressing istotal philosophical systems in the tradition of German idealism, but the quote canalso be used as a slogan in favor of the emerging academy–industry partnershipthat has been subject to heated debates. The closed, monadic-like spheres of theacademic community on the one hand and the industry on the other, is a model thatcannot be maintained in action research practices. Therefore, rather than seekingto achieve a state of purity, research detached observations or interviewing, actionresearch is aimed at establishing joint research projects among academic as wellas industry-based researchers. Since academic researchers tend to be more trainedin scientific methods and data collection and data analysis practices than the av-erage industry representative, there is a need to build a common ground for allsorts of participants in action research projects. Therefore, what can be called theexperimental method of management research (Hatchuel, 2001) can be applied.The experimental method is aimed not only at providing research results of inter-ests for a sophisticated supercillious academic research community, but equallyto provide learnings and insights for the industry representatives. Therefore, thepurpose of the experimental method is twofold: On the one hand, it is aimed atoffering empirical material for academic research papers, and on the other handit is aimed at providing actionable knowledge, that is, knowledge that can serveas a basis for a continuous development of organizational practices. Therefore,the experimental method has an application that is extending beyond the mereproduction of academic knowledge. Czarniawska (1998, p. 274) argues that intraditional (e.g. “male”) “scientific debate,” the “fight is for Truth, not understand-ing,” The struggle for truth is one metanarratives of modern technoscience rejectedby Lyotard (1984). Truth is not a very meaningful objective for scientific research,we are learning from writers such as Nietzsche and his follower Foucault, sincethere is no such thing as a truth per se but only interpretations of social realities.Therefore, the experimental method is not aimed at truths but at insights, whichmay be what Czarniawska calls “understanding,” as well as action.

The paper is structured as follows: First, the notion of experimental thinkingis discussed. Second, three cases of experimentation in action research projectsare presented. Third, some conclusions are drawn.

2. EXPERIMENTAL THINKING

In order to be able to experiment, one must doubt. Peirce (1992, p. 115) saysthat “there must be a real and living doubt, and without this all discussion is idle.”


To doubt is to become reflective on one’s life world (Reason, 2003). Reflection ishere denoting the capability of critically examining the taken for granted formsof social reality and to be able to offer additional insights on the matter reflectedupon (Cunliffe, 2003). Although reflection is a tricky concept from an ontologicaland epistemological point of view (Lynch, 2000), it is here used to capture thedoubt that is underlying to all proper research. In terms of doubt, Dewey (1911)is talking about what he calls reflective thinking:

Reflective thinking is always more or less troublesome because it involves overcomingthe inertia that inclines one to accept suggestions at their face value; it involves will-ingness to endure a condition of mental unrest and disturbance. Reflective thinking, inshort, means judgment suspended during further inquiry; and suspense is likely to besomewhat painful. (Dewey, 1911)

Overcoming the inertia of common sense or received wisdom (i.e., the axiomsenacted in normal science) is the goal of experimental research. To Canguilhem(1988, p. 32), “a science is a discourse governed by critical correction.” Exper-imental methods are aimed at contributing with new findings that further ad-vances the aggregated scientific knowledge within a field of inquiry (Shapin andSchaffer, 1985). In management research, Hatchuel (2001) advocates the experi-mental method. To Hatchuel, “the enterprise as a collective process is forced to livewith objects whose identities are both transformed and transformable” (Hatchuel,2001, p. 35). Therefore, Hatchuel is postulating a process-based conception oforganization similar to that of Chia and King (1998) wherein an organization iscontinuously modified and changed in the course of action. Hatchuel points outthat “the famous ‘experimental method’ does not belong to medicine, to biology,to statistics or to physics. It is indisputably a transdisciplinary concept” (Hatchuel,2001, p. 36), and suggests that experimental methods could be employed withinmanagement and organizational research (see also Bowler, 1995; Hargadon andSutton, 2000). What is then experimentation? To Lyotard and Thebaud (1985),experimentation is a distinguishing mark of the avant-garde in various disciplinesand artistic activities. As opposed to the mainstream manifestations of scienceand arts, the avant-garde does not have any immediate audience: “[T]he artisticvanguard knows that it has no readers, no viewers, and no listeners” (Lyotard andThebaud, 1985, p. 10). For instance, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Albert Einstein,two of the most praised philosophers and physicists of the twentieth century, bothclaimed that they believed that there was only a few contemporaries that fullyunderstood their thinking (Monk, 2000; White, 1995). To be at the forefront of adiscipline or an artistic field is to operate in solitude. But Lyotard and Thebaud(1985, p. 10) also emphasize that experimentation is at stake among the avant-garde; the ability to create new forms of artistic expression is threated by theambition of becoming acknowledged by one’s contemporaries. What is of impor-tance in Lyotard and Thebaud’s reasoning is that experimentation is inextricably


entangled with novelty, with the production of the new, the innovative, even theradical. In addition, experimentation is something that is putting present and takenfor granted practices and beliefs into question, and therefore the experimentalresearcher/artist is always taking a risk. For instance, Foucault (2000, p. 240) saysthat “I am an experimenter and not a theorist.” Foucault clarifies his stance:

I call a theorist someone who constructs a generic system, either deductive or analytical,and applies it to different fields in a uniform way. That isn’t my case. I’m an experimenterin the sense I write in order to change myself and in order not to think the same asbefore.

While Foucault claims to experiment to avoid repeating his own thoughts,the action researcher is an experimenter who identify new organizational practicesand modus operandi that can further refine or enhance organizational practicesand to enable for new ways of thinking.

The concept of experimentation is in most cases having connotations withnatural science (Knorr Cetina, 1999; Latour and Woolgar, 1979). In natural sciencepractices, the laboratory serves as the arena on which the experiments—the inter-vention into nature in Hacking’s terms (1983)—are taking place. The laboratoryis simulacrum of reality, an Ersatz reality that serves to simulate an environmentthat the scientist can fully control: “In fact, laboratories rarely work with objectsas they occur in nature” (Knorr Cetina, 1995, p. 145). Knorr Cetina (1992) writes:

The laboratory is an enhanced environment which improves upon the natural orderin relation to the social order. How does this improvement come about? Laboratorystudies suggest that it rests upon the malleability of natural objects. Laboratories usethe phenomenon that objects are not fixed entities which have to be taken as they areor left to themselves. In fact, laboratories rarely work with objects as they occur innature. Rather they work with object images or with their visual, auditory, electrical,etc., traces, with their components, their extractions, their purified versions. (KnorrCetina, 1992, p. 116)

Therefore, laboratories are “ ‘purified,’ and enacted versions of reality.” Whilescientists can simulate their field of investigation in order to be able to fully controlall the parameters of interest, no management researcher are capable of fullyreproducing organizations in laboratory settings. In many cases, organizationalpsychologists and sociologists are capable of undertaking experiments (often basedon graduate students at some major North-American research university), butsuch experiments are never claimed to be modeled on full-scale organizationalsettings. Therefore, the management researchers aiming at experimenting mustbe able to locate the experiments into the studied organization. We can thus talkof in vivo experiments, experiments located in the area of practices. Rather thanoperating within an “ ‘enhanced’ environment” (Knorr Cetina, 1995, p. 145), themanagement researcher needs to undertake experiments together with practitioners


in real life settings, an idea advanced by Lewin (1973) who spoke of “naturalexperiments” in settings wherein the variables cannot be controlled.

3. EXPERIMENTATION IN ACTION RESEARCH PROJECTS

The notion of experimentation is here used in the broadest sense. As opposedto the laboratory scientist, the action researcher cannot fully control and determinethe environment and the processes of the experiment. The concept of experimentdoes here therefore denote the practices of producing new insights and knowledgeon basis of new organizational arrangements and activities. The experiment is inbrief a practice of changing the organization’s routines or to make use of newforms of organizing within existing routines. The experiment is never conclusivebut is always serving as the basis for further experimentations. Therefore, theexperimenter is not in the first place interested in the formulation of conclusive,coherent theoretical systems, but is rather interested in developing new hypothesesand propositions that can be further developed and refined. In action research, in itsideal typical form, organizational changes are produced on basis of scientificallybased insights. This does not mean that the action researcher does not show anyinterest in theory but that theory is rather seen as a means rather than being thefinal objective of the research. The experiments of the action research activitiescan be both evaluations of past organizational experiments taking place within thecompany or new organizational interventions that is being developed by the actionresearcher. In the following, a number of organizational experiments, within amultinational pharmaceutical company, will be examined. An overview of thesecases is presented in Table I.

In the first case, the experiment is aimed at providing knowledge broker-ing practices within new drug development (see Roth, 2002). In the new drugdevelopment process, in this case Clinical R&D, the required three-part clinicaltrials process that judges the efficacy and safety of potential treatment is a majorundertaking. For each candidate drug (subsequently CD), each CDs project teamtakes care of one single drug product throughout the entire clinical trial process.Even though these CDs are different in terms of its various qualities and marketpotentials, the clinical trial process is a rather standardized set of activities, closelydetermined by the international Good Clinical Practices standards. Therefore, theroutines and standard operation procedures of each clinical trial project team aresimilar and there is a great deal of learning that can be made across the differentproject teams. However, each project team is very much focused on achieving thedesired outcome, a new registered drug, and therefore, joint learning and knowl-edge creation across is project teams are not highly ranked among the priorities. Asa consequence, individuals outside of the particular project team are never usingmuch knowledge and insights. In order to deal with this problem, the lack of jointlearning and knowledge creation, knowledge-brokering seminars were arranged.


Tabl

eI.

Cha

ract

eris

tics

for

the

Act

ion

Res

earc

hC

ases

Stud

ied

Exp

erim

enta

l&A

ctio

nre

sear

chca

ses

Obj

ectiv

eof

rese

arch

Dom

ain

ofth

eco

mpa

nyD

ata

colle

ctio

nA

ctio

nabl

ekn

owle

dge

unex

pect

edou

tcom

es

The

know

ledg

ebr

oker

sem

inar

sE

xam

inin

gor

gani

zatio

nal

lear

ning

Clin

ical

proj

ectt

eam

sat

one

R&

Dsi

tePa

rtic

ipat

ory

obse

rvat

ions

Kno

wle

dge

crea

tion

acro

sspr

ojec

tte

ams

Impr

oved

refle

ctiv

eth

inki

ngan

dne

wle

arni

ngca

pabi

litie

sT

hecr

eativ

itysu

rvey

Inve

stig

ate

dim

ensi

ons

ofcr

eativ

ecl

imat

e

Glo

balC

linic

alR

&D

Que

stio

nnai

re,a

ndfo

cus

grou

psIn

crea

sed

unde

rsta

ndin

gof

crea

tive

clim

ate

inR

&D

Impr

oved

voca

bula

ries

,un

expe

cted

diff

usio

nof

know

ledg

eth

roug

hse

min

ars

and

new

surv

eys

The

jam

sess

ion

Insi

ghts

how

prac

titio

ners

disc

uss

rese

arch

prob

lem

s

R&

Dre

pres

enta

tives

Free

form

disc

ussi

ons

&im

prov

isat

ion

Join

texp

erim

enta

tion

ofne

w“r

edan

dho

t”is

sues

Cre

atio

nof

new

conc

epts

,hy

poth

esis

and

enha

nced

com

mitm

ent


At these seminars, the projects teams were asked to identify key learning andinsights that they had done during the period project work. The knowledge brokerencouraged the project team members to critically reflect and examine their jointefforts and to formulate important findings that could be of use for other projectteams. The learning from each seminar was summarized by the knowledge brokersand was transferred to other project teams. The knowledge broker practices at thepharmaceutical company represent one form of experimentation wherein actionresearch methods can be of practical use. Rather than having one fixed model ofhow organizational learning can take place, the knowledge brokering model aimsat investigating what forms of knowledge transfer and creation that may be usefulin the particular setting. Therefore, the knowledge brokering activities is one formof experiment that is taking place in the studied organization.

The second case is an example of a collaborative research on organizationalcreativity in a major pharmaceutical company (see Sundgren, 2004). The back-ground to the study was a strategic change initiative aiming to enhance efficiencyand to nurture organizational creativity by improving clinical researchers’ capabil-ities for exploiting and exploring scientific information. The experiment, combin-ing an integrated business need and research, aimed to develop a questionnaire toexamine a conceptual framework for organizational creativity in pharmaceuticalR&D in which information sharing, networking, learning culture, and intrinsicmotivation were postulated to affect the perceived creative climate in the Devel-opment organization of the company. In the design process of the questionnairecovering the different stages of development, several focus groups representingmanagers and researchers from different parts of the organization gave feedbackand input to the design. Before launching the survey, intensive communicationwith line managers within the invited Development R&D organizations took placeto explain the purpose but also to gain acceptance and interest of the study. Afterapproval and completion of the study, the questionnaire and its design but also theresults attracted interest not only to the Development organization but also withinthe Discovery (i.e. preclinical research) organization in the company. This resultedthat one Discovery organization used a large part of the instrument to investigateinformation factors that are linked to creative climate. In the course of the ex-periment, several seminars were held, involving between 50 and 700 members ofthe company’s R&D organization. The experiment delivered insight, applicablemodels and shared vocabularies, but also had more immediate effects for the com-pany and has made a contribution toward putting the concept of organizationalcreativity on the organization’s strategic agenda.

The third case is an interactive seminar form that has been used in severalaction research projects. The seminar form, referred to as a Jam Session, drawingon popular Jazz music and its tradition of free interpretation and improvisationwithin the musicians’ shared framework. The jam session method is aimed atpulling together practitioners and academic researchers from different companies,


industries, research institutes, and so forth, in order to jointly discuss a certaintopic of interest (see Borjesson and Fredberg, 2003). For instance, in one jamsession, the notion of organizational creativity was discussed among companyrepresentatives from automobile industry and pharmaceutical industry. The jamsession was dedicated to the discussion of questions such as “what is organizationalcreativity,” “can creativity be managed?,” “is creativity inherently good or can it bedetrimental to the organization?” The objective of the jam session is twofold. First,it is aimed at providing practitioners as well as academic researchers with newinsights and ideas that is of interest and importance for their day-to-day activities.The jam session is aimed at being an arena where the participants can use theirintellectual capabilities for “out of the box thinking” and to invest new ideasand concepts and models. The jam session is therefore not aimed at in the firstplace solving organizational problems but at offering opportunities for discussingsuch problems from complementary perspectives. It is, in brief, aimed at beingan arena where new innovative ideas are being formulated and discussed. Second,the jam session is used as a deliberate scientific method in terms of being a mostimportant opportunity to gather insights on how practitioners jointly discuss certaintopics and organizational problems and opportunities. It may seem a contradictoryrelationship between the first and the second objective of the jam session butexperiences suggest that participants are not refusing the action researcher tomake use of the learning from the seminar. The use of jam sessions is, similarto the use of knowledge brokers in the pharmaceutical company, not aimed atproviding final, conclusive answers to organizational problems and opportunitiesbut to provide an arena where joint learning can take place.

The knowledge brokering seminars, implications of the survey, and the jamsessions are put into practice in order to offer possibilities for examining andcritically reflecting upon established organizational practices and to discuss alter-native ways of working. Neither the knowledge brokering, nor the survey sem-inars, nor the jam sessions have as their ultimate objective to unconceal truthsand foundational structures but to open up for a continuous discussion amongorganizational members on how to actively put into use alternative organizationalpractices. The knowledge brokering, the survey seminars, and the jam sessionsare in our vocabulary laboratories wherein new organizational practices are con-ceptualized and critically examined. The action researcher holds theory in esteemas the final conclusive outcome from organizational research, but also maintainthat organizational practices also need to be continuously reflected upon. The finaltheoretical developments of research activities is too an abstract and intangibleoutcome to fully qualify as the only outcome from the research efforts. Therefore,action researchers are often recognizing that there are two types of stakeholdersto the research activities: The academic research community and practitioners.In the experimental conceptualization of action research, there is an explicit am-bition to provide empirical material that can serve as the basis for theorizing,


while the experimental method also can provide interesting knowledge forpractitioners.

4. DISCUSSION

In Bruno Latour’s and other actor-network theorists’ analysis of the practicesof technoscience, the laboratory is never wholly removed from the social and cul-tural reality. The scientist, for instance, the praised French chemist Louis Pasteur,the “discoverer”/“inventor”—make your choice—of the microbe, is always oper-ating in a world wherein the social, the cultural, and the natural are entangled andintegrated into one another (see e.g., Latour, 1983, 1995, 1996). Without makingclaims that action researchers are actor-network theorists, it is noteworthy that theactor-network theorists’ recognition of the impossibilities of removing the labora-tory from the social, cultural, and economic reality is of great interests for actionresearchers. Action researchers make claims (e.g., Starkey and Madan, 2001) thata considerable amount of traditional academic research has only a rather limitedimpact on practice and for practitioners’ way of working and thinking, and thataction research is an attempt to reintegrate academic research and practitioners’interests and concerns. For the traditional academic researcher, the mixture ofacademic research interests and practitioners’ concerns may be detrimental to thequality of academic research (Grey, 2001; Kilduff and Keleman, 2001). In ourvocabulary, the scientific laboratory needs to be hermetically sealed in order toleave society, culture, and economy out of science. But such “pure” model ofscience is neither possible to achieve, nor desirable, action researchers may argue.

In the experimental setting, action researchers do not remain detached fromtheir object of investigation and analysis as in ideal typical academic research.Action researchers intervene with their object of research. But as opposed to con-sultants’ interventions into organizations and communities of practice, the actionresearchers does not have a preferred, favored model of application. The actionresearcher does not primarily provide solutions to problems but rather contributeto an analysis and discussion on certain concerns and interests. Therefore, theaction researchers take part in joint knowledge production with practitioners onexperimental basis. Since there is no such thing a laboratory in action research, asheltered domain removed from the turmoil of everyday life, action research ex-perimentation takes place in real life settings. At the bottom line, action researchis aimed at contributing with organizational experimentation on basis of jointlyconceived problems. Practitioners contribute with their puzzles and concerns andthe action researchers seek to frame these puzzles and concerns within legiti-mate scientific categories. Being an experimenter does not imply that theory isdegraded or rejected; theory is an important component of the action researcher’stoolbox, but theory is always used from in a pragmatic sense and is never givenany prerogative over the empirical material. In the cases offered in this paper, the


knowledge brokering activities in the pharmaceutical company aimed at open-ing up for routines for leaning and learning capabilities within the clinical trialfunction. The survey including the various stages of its development offered newdialogues on critical aspects of creative climate and creative work in the ClinicalR&D organization, and, furthermore, transferred actionable knowledge to otherparts of the organization (i.e., the Discovery organization). Finally, in the caseof the Jam Session seminar form, arenas for open-ended discussions were con-structed in order to provide possibilities for “non-routine thinking.” In all thesecases, the experiments had no expected outcomes but were used in order to findnew ways of framing and discussing about organizational practices. Therefore,they serve as good examples of the experimental method.

5. CONCLUSION

The emerging joint partnerships between academy and industry in terms ofapplied organizational research will in various ways affect organization researchpractices. The action researcher is taking a position in between the traditionalbusiness school researcher aiming at contributing with theoretical knowledge andthe consultant, in many cases applying standardized organizational models to newcases. The action researcher aims at providing theoretical insights, but also tointervene in the organizational practices in order to further enhance organizationalroutines and activities. Action researchers thus need to conceive of a broad arrayof methods and practices to be able to offer these two outcomes. This paper hassuggested that action research is based on an experimental approach to organizationstudies. Rather than applying theories to practices (traditional action research) orimposing standard models to practices (consultancy), the action researcher andpractitioners jointly problematize the day-to-day routines in organizations andconceive of experiments that may offer additional solutions to problems or inother ways enhance the understanding of the problem. At the bottom line, actionresearch is therefore based on an experimental mind-set constituted by what Peircecalls doubt and Dewey calls reflective thinking. Thus, the action researcher doesnot aim at truth, but at understanding of organizational activities. As a conclusion,one can say that the action researcher is always driven by doubt and the will toreflection, aiming at both an understanding of organizational activities and theirenhancement on basis of experimental research.

REFERENCES

Adorno, T. W. (2000). The Adorno Reader, Blackwell, Oxford.Baburoglo, O. N., and Ravn, I. (1992). Normative action research. Organization Studies 13(1), 19–34.Bartunek, J. M., and Louis, M. R. (1996). Insider/Outsider Team Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks.Bertalanffy, L. von (1968) General System Theory, George Braziller, New York.


Borjesson, S., and Fredberg, T. (2003). Jam Sessions for Collaborative Management Research. In Adler,N., Shani, R., and Styhre, A. (eds.), Collaborative Research in Organizations, Sage, ThousandOaks, pp. 135–148.

Bowler, G. (1995). Manufacturing truth. The development of industrial research. In Serres, M. (ed.),A History of Scientific Thought, Blackwell, Oxford.

British Journal of Management, 12, Special Issue on “bridging the gap.”Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., and Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Action Res. 1(1),

9–28.Canguilhem, G. (1988). Ideology and Rationality in the History of the Life Sciences, MIT Press,

Cambridge.Chia, R., and King, I. W. (1998). The organizational structuring of novelty. Organization 5(4), 461–478.Coghlan, D. (2001). Insider action research projects: Implications for practising managers. Manage.

Learn. 32(1), 49–60.Coghlan, D., and Brannick, T. (2001). Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, Sage,

London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi.Cunliffe, A. L. (2003). Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities. Hum.

Relat. 56(8), 983–1003.Czarniawska, B. (1998). Who is afraid of incommensurability? Organization 5(2), 273–275.Dewey, J. (1911). How We Think, Heath & Co. Publishers, Boston.Eden, C., and Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for the study of organizations. In Clegg, S. R.,

Hardy, C., and Nord, W. R. (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, London.Ellis, J. H. M., and Kiely, J. A. (2000). Action inquiry strategies: Taking stock and moving forward. J.

Appl. Manage. Stud. 9(1), 83–94.Foucault, M. (2000). Power: Essential Works of Michel Foucault, Vol. 3, Faubion, James D. (Ed.), The

New Press, New York.Friedman, V. J. (2001). Action science: Creating communities of inquiry in communities of practice.

In Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry &Practice, Sage, London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi.

Frost, P. (1997). Bridging academy and business: A conversation with Steve Kerr. Organ. Sci. 8(3),333–347.

Gergen, K. J. (2003). Action research and orders of democracy. Action Res. 1(1), 39–56.Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schartsman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M. (1994). The New

Production of Knowledge, Sage, London.Grey, C. (2001). Re-imaging relevance: A response to Starkey and Madan. Br. J. Manage. 12(Special

Issue), 27–32.Habermas, J. (1968). Knowledge and Human Interest, Heineman, London.Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Hargadon, A., and Sutton, R. I. (2000). Buildning an Innovation Factory. Harvard Business Rev. 78(3),

157–166.Harvey, J., Pettigrew, A., and Ferlie, E. (2002). The determinants of research group performance.

Towards Mode 2. J. Manage. Stud. 39(6), 747–774.Hatchuel, A. (2001). The two pillars of new management research. Br. J. Manage. 12(Special Issue),

33–39.Huff, A. (2000). Presidential address: Changes in organizational knowledge production. Acad. Manage.

Rev. 25(2), 288–293.Johnson, G., and Leavitt, W. (2001). Building for success: Transforming organizations through an

appreciative inquiry. Public Pers. Manage. 30(1), 129–136.Kilduff, M., and Keleman, M. (2001). The consolation of organization theory. Br. J. Manage.

12(Special Issue), 55–59.


Knorr Cetina, K. (1992). The couch, the cathedral, and the laboratory: On the relationship betweenexperiment and laboratory in science. In Pickering, A. (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture, TheUniversity of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.

Knorr Cetina, K. (1995). Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In Jasanoff,S., Markle, G. E., Peterman, J. C., and Pinch, T. (eds.), Handbook of Science and TechnologyStudies, Sage, Thousand oaks, London & New Delhi.

Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How Sciences Make Knowledge, Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Latour, B. (1983). Give me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World. In Knorr-Certina, K., and Mulkay,M. (eds.), Science Observed, Sage, London.

Latour, B. (1995). Joliot: History and physics mixed together. In Serres, M. (ed.), A History of ScientificThought, Blackwell, Oxford.

Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the Love of Technology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Latour, B., and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton

University Press, New Jersey.Lewin, K. (1973). Action research and minority problems. In Lewin, G. (ed.), Resolving Social

Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, Souvenir Press, London, pp. 201–206.Lynch, M. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virture and source of privileged knowledge.

Theory, Culture & Society 17(3), 26–54.Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A report on Knowledge, Manchester University

Press, Manchester.Lyotard, J.-F., and Thebaud, J.-L. (1985). Just Gaming, University of Minnsota Press, Minneapolis.MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R., and Grant, S. (2002). Mode 2 management research. Br. J. Manage. 13,

189–207.McNiff, J. (2000). Action Research in Organizations, Routledge, London.Monk, R. (2000). Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius, Cape, London.Organization, 8(2), Special issue on “Re-organizing knowledge, transforming institutions: Knowing,

knowledge, and the university in the 21st century,” Ed. by Marta Calas & Linda Smircich.Peirce, C. S. (1992). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings, Indiana University Press,

Bloomington and Indianapolis.Reason, P. (1999). Integrating action and reflection through co-operative inquiry. Manage. Learn.

30(2), 207–226.Reason, P. (2003). Pragmatist philosophy and action research: Readings and conversation with Richard

Rorty. Action Res. 1(1), 103–123.Roth, J. (2002). Knowledge Unplugged: An Action Research Approach to Enable Knowing in R&D

Organizations, PhD Dissertation, Fenix Research Programme, Chalmers University of Technol-ogy.

Shani, A. B., David, A., and Willson, C. (2004). Collaborative research: Alternative roadmaps. InAdler, N. B., Shani, A. B., and Styhre, A. (eds.), Collaborative Research in Organizations: Foun-dations for Learning, Change, and Theoretical Development, Sage, London, Thousand Oaks &New Delhi.

Shapin, S., and Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Airpump, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Starkey, K., and Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of

management research. Br. J. Managr. 12(Special Issue), 3–26.Sundgren, M. (2004). New Thinking, Management Control, & Instrumental Rationality: Managing Or-

ganizational Creativity in Pharmaceutical R&D, PhD Dissertation, Fenix Research Programme,Chalmers University of Technology.

Thomas, A. B. (2004). The coming crisis of Western management education. In Jeffcut, P. (ed.), TheFoundations of Management Knowledge, Routledge, London & New York.

White, M. (1995). Einstein: A life in Science, Demco Media, London.

Action Research as Experimentation

Documents

Transcript of Action Research as Experimentation