Management Learning

Copyright © 2003 Sage Publications

London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi
www.sagepublications.com
Vol. 34(4): 451–463
1350–5076

David Coghlan
University of Dublin, Ireland

Practitioner Research for Organizational

Knowledge
Mechanistic- and Organistic-oriented Approaches to
Insider Action Research

Abstract Insider action research is a relatively neglected form of research on organiza-

tions. Insider research is valuable because it draws on the experience of practitioners as
complete members of their organizations and so makes a distinctive contribution to the
development of insider knowledge about organizations and organizational change. We are
all insiders in our own families and organizations and a distinctive quality of knowledge
generalizable to that experience can come from insider action research. Within insider
research, action research has a particular contribution to make to organizational research
as it generates useful knowledge about how organizations manage change and how key
actors perceive and enact their roles with regard to change. Two distinct patterns within
action research may be seen. Mechanistic-oriented action research encompasses traditional
action research as expressed in organization development and participatory action
research, leading to pragmatic outcomes such as the management of change or problem
resolution. Organistic-oriented action research is more complex and subversive because it is
guided by a primary aspiration to study the inquiry process and help it transform through
increasingly intensive learning in action. Key Words: action research; insider action
research; mechanistic-oriented action research; organistic-oriented action research; practi-
tioner research
As organizations work at enabling, developing and consolidating their production
of knowledge in order to enhance their capacity and capability for learning
(DiBella, 2001), ways in which this knowledge may be produced and understood
are worthy of consideration and exploration. Academic research is increasingly
criticized for being too narrow and removed from the concerns of practising
managers (Lowendahl and Revang, 1998). As the growing dissatisfaction and
unease with the dominance of positivism in organizational research have led to the
articulation and exploration of alternatives, it is appropriate and useful to reflect
on insider action research as a relatively neglected form of research on organiza-
tions.
10.1177/1350507603039068
452 Management Learning 34(4)

Insider research is valuable because it draws on the experience of practitioners

as complete members of their organizations and so makes a distinctive contribu-
tion to the development of knowledge about organizations. We are all insiders in
many systems—our own families, communities, organizations and associations. As
members we play active roles in the development of these systems, e.g. in child
rearing, or in enabling the organization to function and fulfil its goals.
There are several levels at which we can participate and inquire into our
experience (Torbert, 1999, 2001; Sherman and Torbert, 2000; Fisher et al., 2000).
Through first person research/practice we can reflect on our own values and
assumptions and how we behave. Through second person research/practice we
can engage in inquiry with others and can work to create a community of inquiry.
Through third person research/practice we can move beyond immediate first and
second person audiences to the impersonal wider community and make a
contribution to the body of knowledge of what it is really like in these systems and
how we can learn better change management while in the middle of it.
Within insider research, action research has a particular contribution to make to
organizational research as it generates useful knowledge about how organizations
manage change and how key actors perceive and enact their roles with regard to
change. Although action research as a whole is relatively organic compared with
positivist research, we can also divide action research itself into a more mechanistic
and a more organistic variant. Mechanistic-oriented action research encompasses
traditional action research as expressed in organization development and partici-
patory action research, leading to pragmatic outcomes such as the management of
change or problem resolution. Organistic-oriented action research is more com-
plex and subversive because it is guided by a primary aspiration to study the
inquiry process and help it transform through increasingly intensive learning in
action.
In this article, I am reflecting on how action research conducted by insider
practitioners can contribute to organizational knowledge. There are three main
sections to this article. First, I will remind readers of the main tenets of the action
research tradition and identify mechanistic- and organistic-oriented strands. Sec-
ond, I will reflect on insider research. Third, I will explore the relatively neglected
subject of insider action research in terms of mechanistic- and organistic-oriented
approaches.

Action Research

Action research has been traditionally defined as an approach to research that is

based on a collaborative problem-solving relationship between researcher and
client, which aims at both solving a problem and generating new knowledge. It
developed largely from the work of Kurt Lewin and his associates, and involves a
cyclical process of diagnosing a change situation or a problem, planning, gather-
ing data, taking action, and then fact-finding about the results of that action in
order to plan and take further action (Lewin, 1946; Foster, 1972; Peters and
Robinson, 1984; Argyris et al., 1985; Schein, 1987; Elden and Chisholm, 1993;
Eden and Huxham, 1996; Greenwood and Levin, 1998; Gummesson, 2000; Reason
and Bradbury, 2001). The key idea is that action research uses a scientific
 Coghlan: Practitioner Research for Organizational Knowledge 453

approach to study important social or organizational issues together with those

who experience these issues directly. The central tenets of action research have
developed to become a family of approaches encompassing many different forms,
each of which places emphasis on a different aspect of the process or of the client
group or participating system (Brooks and Watkins, 1994).
For Gummesson (2000) action research is ‘the most demanding and far-
reaching method of doing case study research’ (p. 116). He argues that action
research always involves two goals: to solve a problem for the client, and to
contribute to science. For Gummesson this means being a management consultant
and an academic researcher at the same time; hence it is done in real time. It is
particularly about understanding, planning and implementing change in systems;
it aims at being holistic and so can recognize complexity; and it requires an
applied pre-understanding of the corporate environment and of the conditions of
the organization. In Gummesson’s view, action research is interactive and requires
cooperation between researcher and client and continuous adjustment to new
information and events; it requires the total involvement of the researcher, and it
operates from an ethical framework within any particular context and requires its
own criteria for quality and rigour (Eden and Huxham, 1996; Reason and
Bradbury, 2001).

Mechanistic-oriented and Organistic-oriented Approaches to Action

Research

The terms ‘mechanistic-’ and ‘organistic-oriented’ research are found in Argyris’

(1970) classic work on intervention theory. Argyris uses these terms to contrast
what we might see as consultant-centred and client-centred consultation ap-
proaches. As action research is participative by nature, I have adapted the terms to
reflect the direction in which an action research project is intended.
Some of the action research literature can be framed as a ‘mechanistic-oriented’
approach. By ‘mechanistic’ I mean that the action research is framed in terms of
managing change or solving a problem—it is directed at confronting and resolving
a pre-identified issue. In this approach, a system, such as an organization, group or
community, has a problem or is embarking on a change process, and the action
researcher engages in the action research cycle with the members of the system.
Together, they name the issue, articulate a desired outcome, plan, take action and
evaluate the action. Through their enactment of the action research cycles they
work together at making the desired change or solving the problem, and
articulating knowledge out of that experience. The issues may vary in complexity
and may lead to first or second order change. The classic example of mechanistic-
oriented action research is the case of the Harwood Company (Coch and French,
1948). The researchers were addressing the question of how to introduce change
into the company where there was strong resistance to change. They set up two
approaches to introducing the change—representative participation and total
participation in discussing the implementation. Using these two approaches they
were able to show the different effects each had on productivity and acceptance of
the change. The results indicated that productivity increased at a faster rate and
454 Management Learning 34(4)

further beyond previous levels in groups where total participation was used as a
means of introducing the change.
First person research/practice in mechanistic-oriented action research focuses
on the role of the action researcher in having the skills to work with client systems
(Neilsen, 1994). Second and third person research/practice focus on actualizing
how to be helpful to client systems in such a way that change is made and through
which knowledge is generated (Schein, 1995, 1999a).
In many respects, traditional action research, as it has been practised in
organization development (OD) is illustrative of the mechanistic-oriented approach
(Schein, 1987, 1995; Cunningham, 1993; French and Bell, 1999; Gummesson,
2000; Coughlan and Coghlan, 2002). In a similar vein, the approach known as
‘participatory action research’ is also mechanistic (Whyte, 1991; Selener, 1997;
Greenwood and Levin, 1998). These broad traditions of practice within action
research focus on changing organizations as social systems.
Other forms of the action research literature contain examples of ‘organistic-
oriented’ action research. By organistic, I mean action research projects in which
the inquiry process is a value in itself (Schon, 1983; Marshall, 1999, 2001; Reason
and Bradbury, 2001). As Reason (1996: 18) expresses it:
Human inquiry is simply good in its own right as an expression and actualisation of
human capability and development of our capacity to inquire—into our purposes and
values, into our individual and collective behaviour, into our life on the planet—and is
to be celebrated and encouraged in its own right.

In an organistic-oriented situation, the participants themselves engage in an

action inquiry process in which inquiry into their own assumptions and ways of
thinking and acting is central to the research process. Marshall (2001) describes
this first person research/practice in terms of (1) inquiring into the inner and
outer arcs of attention, (2) engaging in cycles of action and reflection, and (3)
being active and receptive.
Examples of the literature containing the organistically oriented approach are
the action science work of Argyris (Argyris, 1993; Argyris et al., 1985) and the
developmental action inquiry work of Torbert (1987, 1991, 2001; Fisher et al.,
2000). In action science, participants, whether individuals or more complex
systems, focus on how their actions (based on what Argyris calls ‘theories-in-use’)
tend to produce defensiveness and undesired outcomes, the opposite of what is
intended. This happens because we hold assumptions that govern our behaviour,
and make private inferences and attributions about the motives and thought
processes of others that we do not test. Accordingly, the core of the action science
is learning how to identify the assumptions that govern behaviour and develop
skills at testing assumptions and inferences, while at the same time exposing our
own privately held theories to public testing. In Argyris’ view such a process is
central to organizational learning (Argyris and Schon, 1996).
In a similar vein, Torbert (1987, 1991, 1999, 2001; Fisher et al., 2000) develops
the inquiry process by linking the ability to engage in the rigour of action inquiry
with stages of ego development. As individuals advance through stages of ego
development they may develop the skills that confront them at those stages. As
Torbert (1999) illustrates, the goal orientation of the ‘achiever’ stage can evolve
into the self-conscious responsiveness of the ‘strategist’ stage. In his view, it is in
 Coghlan: Practitioner Research for Organizational Knowledge 455

the latter stages of development that individuals can engage in collaborative

inquiry, whereby as they reflect on their behaviour-in-action, their behaviour
towards others is such that it invites them to do likewise. Such behaviour has
implications for the role of leadership and the use of power in creating
communities of inquiry (Torbert, 1987, 1989). Organistic-oriented action research
takes the primary focus away from practical outcomes and more on to what is
being learned, and how the process of inquiry challenges values and ways of
working and enacts a transformation of being (Reason and Bradbury, 2001). In
this way it inquires into issues of professional practice at the individual level
(Schon, 1983), and of culture at the level of a larger system (Schein, 1999b).
Quality in organistic-oriented action research is characterized by how the
researchers articulate their intentions, values and assumptions, and how they
illustrate how these are tested in action. Second and third person research/
practice focus on facilitating reflection-in-action in others. Techniques such as the
ladder of inference and the double-column (Argyris et al., 1985), and the four
forms of speech (Torbert, 1999) are ways in which privately held inferences are
publicly tested and refined through cycles of action and reflection.
While it may appear that the distinction between mechanistic- and organistic-
oriented action research parallels distinctions between instrumental and trans-
formational change, this is not what is intended. Mechanistic-oriented action
research is indeed instrumental but it may lead to transformational change in a
system. Organistic-oriented action research is not transformational in the sense of
pre-identifying a transformation. Rather it focuses on the process of inquiry itself.
In a similar vein it would be an oversimplification to equate mechanistic- and
organistic-oriented research with single loop learning/first order change and
double loop learning/second order change, respectively. Both approaches include
both forms of learning and change; what makes the distinction between them is
what is intended at the outset (Coghlan and Brannick, 2001). Mechanistic-oriented
action research is driven by an instrumentalist approach to achieving planned
pragmatic outcomes and generating usable knowledge. While organistic-oriented
action research can also achieve planned outcomes, it is guided by a primary
aspiration to study the inquiry process and help it transform through increasingly
intensive learning in action. Of course one approach can lead into another as the
emergent data in the mechanistic project open up the need for more organistic-
oriented inquiry.

Insider Action Research

Action research is generally presented in terms of a professional researcher

working with a client system to achieve intended outcomes. In this context the
action researcher is conceptualized as the ‘friendly outsider’ (Greenwood and
Levin, 1998). There is considerably less attention in the literature to situations
where the action researcher is an insider to the client system. Hence, the focus of
this article is on where the action researcher is a ‘complete member’ of the
organization (Adler and Adler, 1987) and not one who joins the organization
temporarily for the purpose of the research, as is common in ethnographic studies
(Van Maanen, 1988). In insider action research the researcher is not only
456 Management Learning 34(4)

concerned with studying some aspect of the organization, but with changing it
(Coghlan, 2001; Coghlan and Brannick, 2001).
Insider research is characterized by the researcher being immersed experien-
tially in the situation (Evered and Louis, 1981; Flyvbjerg, 2001). It involves
researchers undertaking research in and on their own organization while a
complete permanent member. Such researchers have an opportunity to acquire
‘understanding in use’ rather than ‘reconstituted understanding’. As insiders,
while the action researchers are familiar with their organizational setting they have
to create the space and character for their research role to emerge. They need to
learn how to look at the familiar from a fresh perspective and become open to
discovering what they do not see and how their perspective is grounded in their
functional role or occupational sub-culture. They need to develop relationships
with people who they did not associate with previously, change the nature of pre-
existing relationships with them, and become involved with the setting more
broadly than they have hitherto in their functional role (Adler and Adler, 1987).
While many of the issues that face an external action researcher also pertain to
the insider action researcher, there are three particular areas to which the insider
action researcher needs to attend (Coghlan, 2001; Coghlan and Brannick, 2001):
these are pre-understanding, role duality and organizational politics. These issues
are well established in the consulting literature but tend to be less available in the
research literature.

Pre-understanding
‘Preunderstanding refers to such things as people’s knowledge, insights and
experience before they engage in a research programme’ (Gummesson, 2000: 57).
The knowledge, insights and experience of the insider action researchers apply
not only to the theoretical understanding of organizational dynamics, but also to
the lived experience of their own organization. Nielsen and Repstad (1993)
outline some examples of such experience and pre-understanding. Insider action
researchers have knowledge of their organization’s everyday life. They know, at
least implicitly, the everyday jargon; they know the legitimate and taboo phenom-
ena of what can be talked about and what cannot; they know what occupies
colleagues’ minds; they know how the informal organization works and who to
turn to for information and gossip; they know the critical events and what they
mean within the organization, and they are able to see beyond objectives that are
merely window dressing. When they are inquiring they can use the internal jargon
and draw on their own experience in asking questions and interviewing, and be
able to follow up on replies and so obtain richer data. They are able to participate
in discussions or merely observe what is going on without others necessarily being
aware of their presence. They can participate freely, without drawing attention to
themselves and creating suspicion.
There are also some disadvantages to being close to the data. When insider
action researchers are interviewing, they may assume too much and so not probe
as deeply as they would if they were outsiders or ignorant of the situation—they
may think they know the answer and not expose their current thinking to
alternative reframing. Also they may find it difficult to obtain relevant data,
because as a member they have to cross departmental, functional or hierarchical
 Coghlan: Practitioner Research for Organizational Knowledge 457

boundaries, or because as an insider they may be denied deeper access, which

might not be denied to an outsider. These pose considerable challenges to the
insider action researcher and require rigorous introspection and reflection on
experience, in order to expose underlying assumptions and unreflective action to
continuous testing (Argyris et al., 1985; Nisbett and Ross, 1980). As Brookfield
(1994) points out, such engagement in critical reflection provides the opportunity
to gain insights into cognitive and emotional ebbs and flows of first person and
second person inquiry and how such reflection contributes to transformative
learning (Mezirow, 1991).
In order to meet the challenges of pre-understanding, insider action researchers
may utilize other people as consultants, mentors or supervisors to provide
feedback and help them reflect on their experience and learning. If the action
research is part of a requirement for a degree, then the academic supervisor
performs that role (Krim, 1988). Action researchers are sometimes members of a
group that meets to provide support and shared inquiry in the manner of a
cooperative inquiry group (Reason, 1999) or an action learning set (McGill and
Beaty, 1995).

Role Duality: Organizational and Researcher Roles

When insiders augment their normal organizational membership role with the
research enterprise, it can be difficult and awkward, and can become confusing for
them. As a result, in trying to sustain a full organizational membership role and
the research perspective simultaneously, they are likely to encounter role conflict
and find themselves caught between loyalty tugs, behavioural claims and identifica-
tion dilemmas (Ramirez and Bartunek, 1989; Holian, 1999).
Ramirez and Bartunek (1989) reflected on role conflict explicitly in their study
of an insider action research project in a health care organization. They noted that
the insider action researcher had to deal with the twin role of facilitating meetings
while at the same time acting as a department head whose status was junior
relative to other participants.

Managing Organizational Politics

Undertaking an action research project in one’s own organization is political and
might even be considered subversive. Action research examines everything: it
stresses listening; it emphasizes questioning; it fosters courage; it incites action; it
abets reflection; and it endorses democratic participation. Any or all of these
characteristics may be threatening to existing organizational norms. While insider
action researchers may see themselves as attempting to generate valid and useful
information in order to facilitate free and informed choice (Argyris and Schon,
1996), they may find, as Kakabadse and Parker (1984) argue, that what constitutes
valid information is intensely political. Ramirez and Bartunek (1989) describe the
situation where, as the insider action researcher started moving the project
towards the action planning stage, she was informed that there were rumours
among the staff that she was engaging in the research to set up a position for
herself. She tried to dispel these rumours by informing the staff of the project’s
458 Management Learning 34(4)

direction and activities. Her experiences of being the recipient of such political
behaviours caught her off guard and were hurtful to her.
A critical political issue for all researchers is sensitivity regarding the publication
and dissemination of the research for the third person audience, and insider
action research is no exception. The ethical principles associated with working in
an action research mode mean that the researcher does research with people
rather than on people. Hence in principle the psychological and formal contract
between the researcher and the members of the system is collaborative throughout
the process, and so issues regarding publication are dealt with in the context of
the authentic collaborative relationships (Rowan, 2000).
As insider action research researchers engage in their project, they need to be
prepared to work in the political system, which involves balancing the organiza-
tion’s formal justification of what it wants from the project with their own tacit
personal justification for political activity (Buchanan and Badham, 1999).
Throughout the project they have to maintain their credibility as an effective
driver of change and as an astute political player (Buchanan and Boddy, 1992).
The key to this is assessing the power and interests of relevant stakeholders in
relation to aspects of the project, while at the same time maintaining the integrity
of the relationships (Rowan, 2000).
In her research on ethical decision-making in her own organization, Holian
(1999) reported how she felt unprepared for the backlash that resulted from
surfacing ‘undiscussables’ within the organization related to cover-ups, perceived
abuses of power, nepotism, harassment, allocation of rewards, and unfair discrim-
ination. While these issues were deeper, and more shocking and troubling than
anticipated, she reflected that she was not adequately prepared to look after
herself or others when the backlash came. Consequently, she was not able to
balance the multiple roles of researcher, senior executive and programme facili-
tator and, after one last stand-up fight with some of her fellow senior executives,
she resigned.

Insider Mechanistic-oriented Action Research

Insider mechanistic-oriented action research illustrates how change may be
enacted in an organization and provides valuable case material and contributes to
knowledge of how organizations change. For instance, Bartunek et al. (2000)
provide good examples of insider mechanistic-oriented action research. They
present three cases of management-led action research projects that are oriented
towards improving operational action. For example, they describe one such project
in a bank on communication problems with clients. Through the action research
process of participative data gathering, data analysis, feedback and action plan-
ning, intervention and evaluation, the named problem was addressed and im-
provements made. In a more complex case, they describe a manager-led action
research project which initially aimed at improving a manufacturing system by
increasing volume while maintaining flexibility as well as enabling automated
material control and improved planning. As the data were being analysed, it
became evident that these changes would involve creating a radically new way for
the company to do business. Accordingly, through the action research cycle,
materials personnel, assemblers, testers and supervisors/managers participated in
 Coghlan: Practitioner Research for Organizational Knowledge 459

diagnosis, analysis and feedback resulting in the implementation of a new

integrated manufacturing system. So the issue moved from being a first order or
single loop issue to a second order or double loop issue.

Insider Organistic-oriented Action Research

Insider organistic-oriented action research is frequently focused on the researcher
as a ‘reflective practitioner’, whereby the researcher engages in an inquiry into his
or her own personal and professional practice (Schon, 1983; Marshall, 1999, 2001;
Raelin, 2000). In many situations, this inquiry process is privately undertaken and
may not be explicit or shared with fellow members of the organization (Coghlan
and Brannick, 2001). In situations where the research is a requirement for
academic accreditation, such as a doctoral or masters dissertation, the researcher
needs to contract with relevant members of his or her organization as to what he
or she is doing and, where necessary, be given permission (Coghlan and Brannick,
2001). In all situations it is important to avoid unethical practices whereby one is,
in effect, spying on others.
Krim (1988; Bartunek et al., 1999) provides an organistic case example of action
inquiry in his own organization. He reports how he, as initiator and coordinator of
a new labour–management cooperation programme based on employee participa-
tion in a city hall, sought to use himself as the key learning strategy, whereby his
management style would be central to the inquiry process. He outlines the context
of change in a city hall power culture, and describes both the political and
conflictual dynamics within that culture and the processes of his own personal
learning. He describes his reflection process in terms of a pyramid of five steps:
recording and observing on a daily and hourly basis; weekly selection and analysis
of critical incidents; exploration of these issues with his academic supervisor;
rehearsal and role playing with his supervisor in anticipation of further critical
incidents; and public testing in the real-life situation. He reports how this cycle of
continuous rehearsal and performance allowed him to improve his performance
in highly political and conflictual situations. From this process he received
feedback on his management style, particularly regarding how he tended to ‘de-
authorize’ himself, and so he adopted some practical rules of thumb to help him
develop new behaviours. He reports how he was accused of spying as his research
notes were pilfered from his computer and circulated around his antagonists. This
case is organistic as it deliberately addresses not only the task of implementing the
employee participation programme in city hall, but also how the researcher’s own
personal learning in action was integral to the study.
For the insider action researcher, organistic action research is potentially more
difficult in political terms than mechanistic action research. As mechanistic action
research is directed toward a pragmatic outcome, the benefit for the organization
may be clear and more acceptable, whereas organistic action research is potentially
more subversive as it addresses underlying assumptions and defensive routines that
members of an organization may feel uncomfortable about being exposed and
then may oppose and subvert.
Action research tends to be opportunistic in that the situation being studied is
one that is already occurring or being planned, and is not set up specifically for
the purpose of the research. Hence action research involves inquiry into real-time
460 Management Learning 34(4)

action. Accordingly, the starting point for the insider action researcher is a
question about what is happening or being planned, followed by contracting an
action research approach to studying the system in action. The opportunistic
nature of action research means that the researcher’s initial question determines
whether a project is mechanistic or organistic. In Bartunek et al. (2000) the
concrete operational problems led the practitioners into mechanistic-oriented
inquiry into how to resolve them. Krim (1988) elected to use himself as the focus
of his inquiry and so opted to follow an organistic-oriented approach.
Can mechanistic- and organistic-oriented action research be combined? While I
have presented mechanistic and organistic approaches as distinct within action
research, they are complementary and can be utilized together in situations where
the pragmatic change agenda is integrally linked to intended self-study in action by
the organization. This may occur in a large-scale transformational change project,
or in the adoption of a total quality approach where the psychological contract is
to create a community of inquiry. An interesting example of the combination of
mechanistic and organistic inquiry may be seen in the emerging learning history
approach (Kleiner and Roth, 2000; Roth and Kleiner, 2000). Kleiner and Roth
(2000) provided a learning history account of an oil company in which the new
CEO set the company on a deliberate course of learning and transformation. The
change agenda was initiated through an economic model and then moved to
issues of governance, structures, relationships, communication, and basic attitudes
and behaviour. Fundamental identity and ways of thinking, feeling and acting
changed over time. The learning history provides both the observations and
reflections on what happened by the participants, and the ‘analytic’ comments by
the external learning historians. In the learning history, participants at all
hierarchical levels show their perceptions and experiences of what took place.

Conclusions

Insider action researchers are engaged in first person research, using their pre-
understanding of organizational knowledge and organizational studies for their
own personal and professional development. They are engaging in second person
research by working on practical issues of concern to their organization in
collaboration with colleagues and relevant others. They are engaging in third
person research by generating understanding and theory that is extrapolated from
the experience. Mechanistic- and organistic-oriented forms of action research
address all three audiences for research.
In this article I have reflected on insider action research as a relatively neglected
form of research on organizations. Insider research is valuable because it draws on
the experience of practitioners as complete members of their organizations and so
makes a distinctive contribution to the development of knowledge about organiza-
tions. Within insider research, action research has a particular contribution to
make to organizational research, as it generates useful knowledge about how
organizations manage change and key actors perceive and enact their roles with
regard to change.
I have identified two distinct patterns of approach within action research.
Mechanistic-oriented action research encompasses what is seen as traditional
 Coghlan: Practitioner Research for Organizational Knowledge 461

action research as expressed in organization development and participatory action

research, leading to pragmatic outcomes such as the management of change or
problem resolution. This is an attractive form of action research from an
organization’s point of view and one that is readily adopted by many insider action
researchers. Organistic-oriented action research is more complex and subversive
because it addresses issues of transformation of being and values as behaviour in
action is studied and underlying assumptions and values questioned. As distinct
approaches, both provide important and useful ways of doing action research in
organizations; as complementary or integrated approaches, they enable the deeper
aspects of organizational change to be uncovered and researched.
As alternatives to traditional approaches to research become more common, it is
useful to reflect on insider action research as an increasing phenomenon within
organizational research. Further reflection on and exploration of how active
members of organizations engage in action research in and on their own
organizations will continue to yield fruit and contribute to the developing
experience and knowledge of life in organizations.

References

Adler, P. A. and Adler, P. (1987) Membership Roles in Field Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Argyris, C. (1970) Intervention Theory and Method. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C. (1993) Knowledge for Action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and Smith, D. (1985) Action Science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., and Schon, D. (1996) Organisational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bartunek, J. M., Crosta, T. E., Dame, R. F. and LeLachleur, D. I. (2000) ‘Managers and
Project Leaders Conducting their Own Action Research Interventions’, in R. T.
Golembiewski (ed.) Handbook of Organisational Consultation, 2nd edn, pp. 59–70. New
York: Marcel Dekker.
Bartunek, J. M., Krim, R. M., Necocchea, R. and Humphries, S. M. (1999) ‘Sensemaking,
Sensegiving, and Leadership in Strategic Organisation Development’, in J. Wagner III
(ed.) Advances in Qualitative Organisational Research, vol. 2, pp. 37–71. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Brookfield, S. (1994) ‘Tales from the Dark Side: A Phenomenography of Adult Critical
Education’, International Journal of Lifelong Education 13(3): 203–16.
Brooks, A. and Watkins, K. E. (1994) The Emerging Power of Action Inquiry Technologies. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Buchanan, D. and Badham, R. (1999) Power, Politics and Organisational Change. London:
Sage.
Buchanan, D. and Boddy, D. (1992) The Expertise of the Change Agent. London: Prentice Hall.
Coch, L. and French, J. P. (1948) ‘Overcoming Resistance to Change’, Human Relations 1:
512–32.
Coghlan, D. (2001) ‘Insider Action Research Projects: Implications for Practising Man-
agers’, Management Learning 32: 49–60.
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2001) Doing Action Research in Your Own Organisation.
London: Sage.
Coughlan, P. and Coghlan, D. (2002) ‘Action Research for Operations Management’,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management 22(2): 220–40.
Cunningham, J. B. (1993) Action Research and Organisation Development. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
462 Management Learning 34(4)

DiBella, A. J. (2001) Learning Practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (1996) ‘Action Research for the Study of Organisations’, in S.
Clegg, C. Hardy and W. R. Nord (eds) Handbook of Organisation Studies, pp. 526–42.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elden, M. and Chisholm, R. F. (1993) ‘Emerging Varieties of Action Research: Introduction
to the Special Issue’, Human Relations 46: 121–41.
Evered, M. and Louis, M. R. (1981) ‘Alternative Perspectives in the Organisational Sciences:
“Inquiry from the Inside” and “Inquiry from the Outside”’, Academy of Management Review
6: 385–95.
Fisher, D., Rooke, D. and Torbert, W.R. (2000) Personal and Organisational Transformations
through Action Inquiry. Boston, MA: Edge/Work Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foster, M. (1972) ‘An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Action Research in Work
Organisations’, Human Relations 25: 529–56.
French, W. and Bell, C. (1999) Organisation Development, 6th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Greenwood, D. and Levin M. (1998) Introduction to Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Gummesson, E. (2000) Qualitative Methods in Management Research, 2nd edn. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holian, R. (1999) ‘Doing Action Research in my Own Organisation: Ethical Dilemmas,
Hopes and Triumphs’, Action Research International Paper 3, http://www.scu.edu.au/
schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-rholian99.html.
Kakabadse, A. and Parker, C. (1984) Power, Politics and Organisations. Chichester: Wiley.
Kleiner, A. and Roth, G. (2000) Oil Change. New York: Oxford University Press.
Krim, R. M. M (1988) ‘Managing to Learn: Action Inquiry in City Hall’, in P. Reason (ed.)
Human Inquiry in Action, pp. 144–62. London: Sage.
Lewin, K. (1946) ‘Action Research and Minority Problems’, Journal of Social Issues 2: 34–46.
Lowendahl, B. and Revang, O. (1998) ‘Challenges to Existing Strategy Theory in a Post-
industrial Age’, Strategic Management Journal 19: 755–73.
Marshall. J. (1999) ‘Living Life as Inquiry’, Systemic Practice and Action Research 12(2):
155–71.
Marshall, J. (2001) ‘Self-reflective Inquiry Practices’, in P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds)
Handbook of Action Research, pp. 433–9. London: Sage.
McGill, I. and Beaty, L. (1995) Action Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Mezirow, J. (1991) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Neilsen, E. H. (1994) Becoming an OD Practitioner. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nielsen, J. C. R. and Repstad, P. (1993) ‘From Nearness to Distance—and Back: Analyzing
Your Own Organisation’, Copenhagen Business School, Institute of Organisational and
Industrial Sociology, Papers in Organisations No. 14.
Nisbett, R. and Ross, I. (1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Peters, M. and Robinson, V. (1984) ‘The Origins and Status of Action Research’, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 20: 113–24.
Raelin, J. A. (2000) Work-based Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ramirez, I. and Bartunek, J. M. (1989) ‘The Multiple Realities and Experience of Internal
Organisation Development Consultation in Health Care’, Journal of Organisational Change
Management 2(1): 40–56.
Reason, P. (1996) ‘Reflections on Purposes of Human Inquiry’, Qualitative Inquiry 2(1):
15–28.
 Coghlan: Practitioner Research for Organizational Knowledge 463

Reason, P. (1999) ‘Integrating Action and Reflection through Cooperative Inquiry’,

Management Learning 30: 207–26.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2001) Handbook of Action Research. London: Sage.
Roth, G. and Kleiner, A. (2000) Car Launch. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rowan, J. (2000) ‘Research Ethics’, International Journal of Psychotherapy 5(2): 103–10.
Schein, E. H. (1987) The Clinical Perspective in Fieldwork. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schein, E. H. (1995) ‘Process Consultation, Action Research and Clinical Inquiry: Are they
the Same?’ Journal of Managerial Psychology 10(6): 14–19.
Schein, E. H. (1999a) Process Consultation Revisited: Building the Helping Relationship. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. (1999b) The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Selener, D. (1997) Participatory Action Research and Social Change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University.
Sherman, F. and Torbert, W. R. (2000) Transforming Social Inquiry: Transforming Social Action.
Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Torbert, W. R. (1987) Managing the Corporate Dream. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Torbert, W. R. (1989) ‘Leading Organisational Transformation’, in R. Woodman and W.
Pasmore (eds) Research in Organisational Change and Development, vol. 3, pp. 83–116.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Torbert, W. R. (1991) The Power of Balance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Torbert, W. R. (1999) ‘The Distinctive Questions Developmental Action Inquiry Asks’,
Management Learning 30: 189–206.
Torbert, W. R. (2001) ‘The Practice of Action Inquiry’, in P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds)
Handbook of Action Research, pp. 250–60. London: Sage.
Van Maanen, J. (1988) Tales of the Field. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Whyte, W. W. (1991) Participatory Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Contact Address

David Coghlan is in the School of Business Studies, University of Dublin, Trinity College,
Dublin 2, Ireland.
[email: [email protected]]