Presentation on theme: "Action and Case Research in Management and Organizational Contexts."— Presentation transcript:
Action and Case Research in Management and Organizational Contexts
Learning Objectives To identify and highlight the differences between, 1 st person, 2 nd person and 3 rd person inquiry; To identify ways of evidencing 2 nd person inquiry; To identify ways in which 2 nd person inquiry may be useful in the DBA.
First, second and third person inquiry First-person inquiry - It is about inquiry (and action), for me. Second-person inquiry - It is about collaborative inquiry/conversation, rather than competitive. It is inquiry (and action), for us. Third-person inquiry - It is about inquiry (and action), for them. Associated with Collaborative Inquiry form of AR. Bradbury and Reason, (2001: pp ).
First, second and third person inquiry They are mutually supportive: Second-person research/practice presupposes work to co- generate first-person research/practice ; Successful third-person research/practice is an action inquiry leadership practice that presupposes first- and second- person action research/practice capacity on the part of leadership. Bradbury and Reason, (2001: p.256).
Second-person inquiry Second person inquiry depends on conversation, “Speaking-and-listening-with-others is the quintessential second-person research/practice”. Bradbury and Reason, (2001: p.253).
Second person inquiry conversation comes in four forms: Framing - declaring or amending a possible shared sense of vision/intent for the occasion as a whole or for some fractal of the larger occasion; Advocating - setting a goal, recommending a strategy, or making some other abstract claim (e.g. you’re beautiful); Illustrating - offering a concrete, a visual picture/story based on observed performance; and/or Inquiring - inviting any contribution or feedback from others about their response to one's speaking and associated conduct. Fisher, D. and Torbert, W.R., (1995). Personal and Organizational Transformation: the True Challenge of Continual Quality Improvement. London: McGraw Hill.
Second-person inquiry Does it pass the test of giving beneficial results (as for all three forms of inquiry 1 st person, 2 nd person and 3 rd person): Relationships; Practical outcomes; Extended ways of knowing; Purpose; Enduring consequences. Bradbury and Reason (b) in Bradbury and Reason (EDs)., (2001: p 449).
Second-person inquiry – quality checklist Did it? Maximise participation of all those involved? Did the participants learn something useful? Did participation increase ways of knowing, perspectives? Did the research produce new knowledge/theory? Was the method appropriate? Was the work significant to the participants? Were the participants harmed? Based on Bradbury and Reason (b) in Bradbury and Reason (EDs)., (2001: pp ).
Second-person inquiry – ethical and professional considerations Was the fieldwork described accurately; Were the participants treated equally and honestly; Were the conclusions drawn merited by the data; Has triangulation taken place; Were any theoretical claims fully justified by the data and were alternatives considered.
Relevance of 2 nd person inquiry to DBA Inquiry on behalf of us; Interventionist on behalf of us; Practical results as well as academic research; Well established method in the business world.
References Bradbury and Reason (a), (2001). Introduction, in Bradbury and Reason, (EDs)., (2001), “Handbook of Action Research”. London: Sage. Bradbury and Reason (b), (2001). Issues for the improving of action research, in Bradbury and Reason, (EDs), (2001), “Handbook of Action Research”. London: Sage. Torbert, W, (2001). The practice of action inquiry, in Bradbury and Reason, (EDs)., (2001), “Handbook of Action Research”. London: Sage. Fisher, D. and Torbert, W.R., (1995). “Personal and Organizational Transformation: the True Challenge of Continual Quality Improvement”. London: McGraw Hill.