The Potential Challenges and Opportunities that Conducting Action Research in the Workplace - Assignment Example

SALEH ALOTHMAN Week 8: Learning Set Participation Words: 1902 Using Coghlan (2001) and Brannick and Coghlan (2007), explore the potential challenges and opportunities that conducting action research in your workplace is likely to raise for you. This discussion this week begins with Brannick and Coghlan’s argument (2007) in support their of 2005 book ‘Doing Action research in your own organisation’ which points out that academic research often receives little attention. According to an article by Coghlan (2001) as far as organizations are concerned the most appropriate topics suitable for action research are those to do with systems improvement, learning within the organisation, changes among management and other related themes. Actions research is suitable in these cases because :- a. The researchers are looking at genuine events which require dealing with in real time. b. They give chances for both learning and productive activity c. Such research contributes to the development of ideas about what is really going on in a company. I find this third point of particular interest and I think that my study which deals with poor levels of employee motivation would be suitable for such action research. There is a need to evolve a theory which is based up on real, every day events within the company. This study of motivation will be only the beginning of my investigations as it is bound to show up other related topics which require investigation if real improvements are to be made. My support of this style of research, as well as of the researcher being a member of the organization which he is investigating, was not the view of Morse (1998) who argued that “it is not wise for an investigator to conduct a qualitative study in a setting where he or she is already employed and has a work role. The dual roles of investigator and employee are incompatible, and they may place the researcher in an untenable position” - Quoted by Brannick and Coghlan, ( 2007: p. 59). Her argument is restricted to qualitative research techniques. . Brannick and Coghlan (2007) also quote from Alvesson (2003) and indicate that self-ethnography is similar to insider research. :- A self-ethnography is a study and a text in which the researcher-author describes a cultural setting to which s/he has a ‘natural access,’ is an active participant, more or less on equal terms with other participants. The researcher then works and/or lives in the setting and then uses the experiences, knowledge and access to empirical material for research purposes. (p. 60). From this they go on to further discussion on the topic of being a researcher from the inside. This may well be seen as being problematic. It may even be , and disqualified because it is seen as not conforming adequately to rigorous intellectual standards It is sometimes felt that such researchers may be affected by their undoubted personal interest in the results. The positive and negative aspects of such research continue as this is a subject not easily resolved. Despite this I remain in support of action research by insiders and will therefore continue my discussion in a positive way , although I do not deny that there will be difficulties. In order to strengthen the case for action research as being suitable for management learning Coghlan (2001) brings in Riemer (1977) who stated that researchers should turn situations with which they are familiar, and use appropriate events, or particular expertise into research. Such opportunistic research by members has been shown as being suitable for use when there is research within organisations. The function of the researcher in such cases is both external and internal. It is external because of deliberately reduced bias and rigour, and at the same time internal because they belong to the organisation. Coghlan (2001) also clearly shows that managers who take on the role of researchers can be from any level within a company or organisation. At the same time the higher they are the hierarchy the better the results which can be achieved fro the organization as a whole if such researchers can be maintain an unbiased and rigorous approach. (Coghlan, 2001 p. 51) goes on to discuss the need for pre-understanding As defined by Gummesson (2000) pre-understanding is concerned with such things as the knowledge people have already, and any insights and experiences they have already had before they take part in any research programme (Coghlan, 2001: p. 51). Although it seems that this is an advantage, this doesn’t mean that there are not disadvantages to being involved with the data. Such pre- understanding can result in assumptions being made and then questions which are asked by researchers may be based on such assumptions. Also once the expected /desired results are obtained further, perhaps necessary, investigation may not be carried out. On the other hand if the investigation is not producing results as required because of pre-understanding the researcher may decide to bring the research to a halt. . So it seems that pre- understanding can at times have adverse effects upon research and its findings. Duality of roles is another facet that is discussed. The researcher can be confused as to whether he is acting as part of an organisation or purely as a researcher. The role of being a researcher can also become complicated if it involves interviewing colleagues who are also friends and investigate problems these have. It can be difficult to be truly objective in such situations. As suggested by Coghlan (2001) such ties of friendship can result in both openness and add to restrictiveness (p. 52). On a personal basis the area which is the most problematic for me is the management of politics within my organisation. It is this which provides the impetus for research. In order to attain the correct results, the researchers must scrutinise everything, listening carefully to all involved and be extremely observant and careful in their recording. This requires a degree of daring when prompting actions and advocating egalitarian participation (Coghlan (2001: p. 52). It is also necessary to take care when dealing with matters which might be considered to be sensitive. Getting on the wrong side of management could both result in an abrupt end to the research project and a loss of credibility for the researcher. So researchers need to handle matters with tact, be friendly and yet they must also be firm and without bias if they are to obtain results which reflect the true situation within the company. Use the articles by Greenwood, Whyte and Harkavy (1993) and Cassell and Johnson (2006) to present your thoughts on the type of action research that you plan to carry out in your organization. Cassell and Johnson (2006) go back to refer to the writing of Reason and Bradbury (2001) with regard to action research, discussing diverse methods which have their basis in including a wide range of methodologies, grounded in different traditions, that express various theoretical assumptions (p. 786). The phrase ‘action research experimentation’ is the name given to research which follows traditional methods of experimentation which works with the relationships between potential conditions and potential results. These are expressed as ‘if so’ plans which fit in with guidelines under fixed conditions. This process means evaluating actions and deciding whether that which has been done is more or less than what has been expected. Also it gives the person who comes up with the plan an opportunity to learn from it , to gain new insights. Thirdly the facts discovered can form the basis for future planning and so modifying the company’s ‘overall plan’. Some forms of action are referred to as inductive. This is where researchers are able to modify their pre-conceived ideas by learning how to access participants in their seeking to inductively access research participants’ cultures, in their innate contexts. Cassell and Johnson (2006) described deconstructive action research as being a relatively new phenomenon. Boshoff (2007) describes how it can be used in education. Also described is Participatory Action Research (PAR) in which professional social researchers are required to collaborate actively with members of the relevant organization in order to bring about necessary change within it. Greenwood , Whyte and Harkavy (1993) state that PAR is a form of ongoing research, a learning process which emphasizes co-operative learning , active participation, and the transforming of organisations (p.177). There is a need to define problems, arrive at hypotheses, as well as the collection of data and its analysis. Greenwood, Whyte and Harkavy (1993) identified the main features of PAR as being collaboration, eclecticism, the assimilation of local knowledge, and diversity. Also mentioned are orientation, the emerging of process and being able to link scientific knowledge to social actions. These factors cannot be discussed at length here in what is a relatively brief discussion, but it is clear that the researcher becomes more of an enabler than being the expert. Based upon the above discussion, the style of action learning I prefer would be PAR. Think about the purposes of action research as a means of workplace-based problem solving and a way of contributing to knowledge; are these complementary or contradictory? Action learning are both contradictory and complementary. Such research methods require internal inquiry and this in turn needs a degree of pre-understanding, a duality of roles on the part of the researchers, as well as the ability to overcome internal organisational politics. Despite the various pros and cons, I would support action research as being a necessary part of the detailed information needed to deal with an organisation’s problems. The researchers must determine that any research project has rigor and that its results are objective and unbiased. I believe they should also be complementary. I base this opinion on the arguments of Zuber-Skerritt and Perry’s (2002) which they refer to as ‘ thesis action research’ and “core action research” being both definitely separate and yet complimentary facets of the same topic. Researcher need to use well planned design for action research using field work, as well as by observing and describing the research processed required and an analysis of the field work, going on to reflection. , aiming at practical outcomes. I do not remember any of the Week 8 readings suggesting that the two facets of action research are in opposition.. Coghlan (2001); Brannick and Coghlan (2007; Eden and Huxham (1996); Greenwood et al (1993); Evered and Louis (1981); as well as the other authors all point out how action research successfully combines practical application and theory. How will these ideas inform your approach to research and your approach workplace-based problem solving in the future? The ideas outlined above have provided me with excellent information about how I should go about research projects. Also. it has given me a better understanding into my role and conduct as a researcher when implementing an internal inquiry. I am now aware of possible problems caused pre-understanding, the duality of roles and internal politics role duality and organization politics. I have become even more convinced that there is a need to carry out action research in order to learn how to deal with poor levels of motivation among employees in my company. . Also, as stated by Coghlan (2001, p 50), managers remain full members of their organisation, while at the same time they carry out research into it , and they will want to remain in post once the project is completed This is my personal position , as , at the present time, I have no intention of becoming an academic either as a university teacher or as a researcher. However partaking in the University of Liverpool course has given me an introduction to the whole concept of Critical Action Learning. Also I believe that the weekly readings when combined with the issues that arise in my workplace, work together to deepen my understanding of how to move the particular issues forward in a positive way. As well as this “constant” CAL, I will on occasions take on more action research enterprises , ensuring their good planning and design and be able to meet and consider challenges to be faced in the future in terms of accessibility , duality of roles, pre- understanding, and politics within organisations (Brannick and Coghlan, 2007, pp 67-71). This is in order to lessen them and on the other hand maximise opportunities for action research by insiders, especially when as the aspect of quality is concerned. This can be done by considering the twelve assertions put forward by Eden and Huxham (1996) and incorporating these into research planning as outlined by Zuber-Skerritt and Perry (2002, p 177). REFERENCES ALVESSON 2003 - NEED FULL REFERENCE BOSHOFF, A , 2007, A Hermeneutical Approach to Curriculum Interpretation: Deconstruction as a Learning Activity, available from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10500/1316/dissertation.pdf?sequence=1 ( accessed 7th August 2011) BRANNICK,T. and COGHLAN, D., 2007, In Defense of Being Native: The Case for Insider Academic Research, Organizational Research Methods, 10 (1), January, pp. 59-74 Sage Journals [Online]. Available from: http://orm.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/content/10/1/59.full.pdf+html (Accessed: 7th May 2011). CASSELL,C.and JOHNSON, P., 2006, Action research: Explaining the diversity, Human Relations, 59 (6), pp. 783–814, Sage Journals [Online]. Available from: http://hum.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/content/59/6/783.full.pdf+html (Accessed: 8th August 16th 2011). COGHLAN, D., 2001, Insider Action Research Projects : Implications for Practising Managers, Management Learning, 32 (1), pp. 49-60 , Sage Journals [Online]. Available from: http://mlq.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/content/32/1/49.full.pdf+html (Accessed: 8TH August 2011). COGHLAN, D., and BRANNICK, T., 2005, Doing action research in your own organization, London, Sage EDEN ,C. and HUXHAM,C., March 1996, Action research for management research, British Journal of Management, 7, pp. 75-86, EBSCOhost [Online]. Available from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/ehost/detail?hid=105&sid=446561bf-3152-405d-87fd-f6972fd2d38e%40sessionmgr115&vid=47&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=buh&AN=4528438 (Accessed: 8TH August 2011). EVERED,R. and LOUIS, M., 1981, Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: “Inquiry from the inside” and “inquiry from the outside.”Academy of Management Review, 6 (3), pp.385-395, EBSCOhost [Online]. Available from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/ehost/detail?hid=105&sid=446561bf-3152-405d-87fd-f6972fd2d38e%40sessionmgr115&vid=47&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=buh&AN=4285776 (Accessed: 8TH August 2011). GREENWOOD,D.,WHYTE,W., and HARKAVY, I., 1993, Participatory action research as a process and a goal, Human Relations 46, pages 175-192, available from http://getcited.com/cits/PP/1/PUB/103359648, ( accessed 8th August 2011) MORSE,J., 1998). Validity by committee. [Editorial] Qualitative Health Research, 8, 443-445. – IS THIS THE RIGHT REFERENCE ? REIMER (1977) – NEEDS FULL REFEERENCE. GUMMERSON, E, 2000, Qualitative Methods in Management Research, London, Sage REASON, P. and BRADBURY, H., 2001, Handbook of Action Research. Participatory Inquiry and Practice, London, Sage Publications ZUBER-SKERRITT, O. and PERRY,C. , 2002, Action research within organisations and university thesis writing, The Learning Organization, 9(4), 171-179, Emerald [Online]. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/journals.htm?issn=0969-6474&volume=9&issue=4&articleid=882639&show=html&PHPSESSID=cb1d0684nvdgb9b31q327mhe91 (Accessed:8th August 2011). Read More