Action Research and Collaborative Management Research: More Than Meets the Eye?

By Shani, A. B.; Coghlan, David et al. | International Journal of Action Research, January 1, 2012 | Go to article overview

Action Research and Collaborative Management Research: More Than Meets the Eye?


Shani, A. B., Coghlan, David, Cirella, Stefano, International Journal of Action Research


Action research and collaborative management research emerge from different traditions and each begins from a different foundational position in regard to action and to collaboration. Both are different from the traditional research, evaluative research or practitioner research orientations. From a grounding in a philosophy of practical knowing as social science, this article engages in a comparative theoretical exploration of action research and collaborative management research through a focus on the operations of human knowing which yield a general empirical method. It reviews the origins of each approach and how they differ significantly from each other in the context in which they operate, with consequent differences in how the research is implemented and how the relationship between the parties is structured. The general empirical method provides a critical perspective on assessing the quality of action research and collaborative management research in terms of dimensions of real-life action, the quality of collaboration, the quality of inquiry in action and sustainability. The aim is to develop understanding of how these two approaches relate to one another so as to advance knowledge of the different modalities or expressions that comprise the broad field of action- and collaborativeoriented research as a social science of practical knowing.

Key words: action research, collaborative management research, general empirical method

Introduction

As the field of management research matures, so are the different streams of thoughts and practice that emerged during the past century. "Management" and "research" are the targets for growing criticism. Management and its practitioners are criticised in the public debate and in scholarly writings for acting irrationally based on unfounded beliefs and imitation (Pfeffer, 2009). Management science and the researchers it engages are criticised for producing knowledge of little relevance for management practice (Starkey, et al., 2009). Action research and collaborative management research approaches, embedded in a synergistic engagements of managers and researchers, enhances the relevance of both for management practice (Shani, et al., 2008; Coghlan, 2011a). In this article, we locate practical knowing as social science, describing its characteristics so as to ground the foundation of how action research and collaborative management research have the potential to yield both robust theory for scholars and actionable knowledge for practitioners. We examine and distinguish between action research and collaborative management research, in order to demonstrate the unique added value of each and possible limitations. The general empirical method advanced by Coghlan (2010a) will provide the standard template for the comparative investigation.

The evolution of management inquiry is characterised by methods that are based on varied degrees of action and collaboration that were advanced during the last (and the current) century, each of which seems to emphasise distinct scientific or collaborative or action features. Such methodologies include action research, participatory action research, action learning, action science, developmental action inquiry, co-operative inquiry, clinical inquiry/research, appreciative inquiry, learning history, intervention research, and collaborative management research, to mention a few (Shani, Adler, & Styhre, 2004; Coghlan, 2010a). The collaborative and action research orientations are based on a specific world view (ontology), epistemology that expresses how we seek to know (the theory of knowledge) and methodologies that articulate the approach that is being adopted for inquiry (Cassell & Johnson, 2006).

This article utilises the structure of human knowing framework to contrast action research and collaborative management research. The structure of human knowing involves the experiencing and the questioning of the experience in order to arrive at some judgment that helps verifies the answer to the question (Dewey, 1933; KoIb 1984; Lonergan, 1992). …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Action Research and Collaborative Management Research: More Than Meets the Eye?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.