Action Research in Organizations

Front matter

Marianne Kristiansen Jørgen Bloch-Poulsen

Action Research in Organizations

Participation in Change Processes

Part I: Participation in An example of tensions and dilemmas in

organizational action research

‘On the infinitely large in the infinitely small’

What and WHY ia cease dase es dha aaren ee aan cone OTET NETERA 1. Tensions between participation as involvement and/

3. Experimental change of communication patterns in

Team: Product SUpport aiiis esnan ei a E EET caGuld EEREN a 4. Tensions between the smaller project context and larger

5. Tensions in the management of organizational difference

Table of Contents

Part Il: An empathetic-critical view of participation in organizational action research in the twentieth century— From self-managing groups to co-generation of practical

Chapter 3 Change-oriented social science: Early organizational Whatiand WHY osese ersen eion ainet EEE das deunciade nis abasione beens 4 84 T -SOME CONCLUSIONS eraci wile es du aGiVngaw andes ds Maas sakes awe R TA 107 Reflection S neiet en niea E Vebik cond EEE AEN ees Sees dems Ere 108 Chapter 4 The origin of socio-technical systems thinking— Whatandi Why ws fcc ete cael o a a dee E EE ae tds ate aa 110 2. The Tavistock group’s experiences before, during and after the

Table of Contents

9 CONCLUSIONS: aont Sadana dard E Waser E A demande dings TEO malas 231 Reflections eoni de sa Gad ania anetee Vad bin add ene ae tule oat nai deiaeedas 234 Chapter 7 Pragmatic action research—Projects in Spanish cooperatives Whatandiwhy secur? etete e a adele earl en lag tee aa panda dews 238 1, Background ssn n nae nE ad ace eda a ae Sia eh et Sees bbe T E 239 6. Is pragmatic action research a participatory, conventional,

7 CONCLUSIONS: 5 aa cane ade T E EERE BRERA MERRE HATE anes oD ae 276 Reflections... 26 ides nad caw E sae ele aed ene E A seal aeea des 278 Chapter 8 L,-INtrOdUCtION Ri sa0 Seen e A ek a ET ee 280 2. Differences and similarities between change-oriented social science,

4. Participation in the future?... 6... ccc cence eee e teen en eens 290 Bibliography s 92404-0056 5 vince is 5.525 e Gone oe e Ee ore ewe Sele EE 307

Preface

“Action Research in Organizations. Participation in Change Processes”. It is my pleasure and honour to present this book by Marianne Kristiansen and Joergen Bloch-Poulsen. It is an important book for all those who are working scientifically and/or politically and practically on a transformation of society and thus dare more democracy.

Marianne and Joergen do this by means of a systematic-critical analysis of the development of democratic participation through action research. In doing so, they also present a history of action research in organizations in the second half of the last century in Western Europe.

According to their analyses, the following innovations have shaped the development of action research in organizations during this period:

— Inthe English coal mine Haighmoore, a group of miners together with their local managers combined their experiences with self-managing groups with anew mining technique (long wall method of coal getting) in the late 1940s and thus independently developed a new socio-technical system.

— Following the British model, semi-autonomous groups were introduced in a number of Norwegian companies in the 1960s as part of the “industrial democracy” programme. Action research and participation were limited to single cases, and an extension to a process of democratisation of the economy (industrial democracy) was planned, but failed.

— The concept of democratic dialogue, developed in the Swedish LOM (Leadership, Organization, Co-determination) programme in the 1970s and 1980s, is regarded as a major innovation in the theoretical and practical development of action research. The previous institutional conception of participation is being replaced by a processual understanding: participation in the form of taking part in democratic dialogues is an open, evolving process.

— Finally, the concept of participatory action research: employees are to be involved more than before in the development of theoretical and practical knowledge in the research process. (“co-generative research”).

The authors consistently analyse the concepts mentioned above with regard to the difference between claim (espoused values) and actual practice. A cen-

Preface tral question here is to what extent the presence of power in all participatory relations hinders the realisation of the respective claim of the concepts. “Participation is the enactment of power”, the authors pointedly express this issue; they cite as examples: The introduction of the semi-autonomous groups in the Norwegian programme “industrial democracy” is based on a decision of the labour market parties and action researchers; the employees were not asked about their willingness to participate or about alternative ideas. Correspondingly, they offered strong resistance to the plans in the beginning, as the two action researchers Emery and Thorsrud openly report. What the authors criticise about the concept of democratic dialogue is that its rules and criteria were formulated by the researchers — albeit, as they argue, based on their experience in participation processes. Finally, the authors also encounter the exercise of power, limiting and sometimes preventing the participation of workers, in the reports on the co-generative Mondragon projects in Northern Spain: The “research team” steering the action research process includes not only the researchers but above all the personnel managers of the companies. The authors eventually express doubts about the claim of “co-generative research”; they rightly emphasise that this claim is the Achilles’ heel of action research, because it usually cannot be fulfilled through equal cooperation between researchers and practical actors in the research process.

The authors' criticism — often decisive and fundamental, but never arrogant or dogmatic — is based on their many years of research experience, which they have documented in their book “Midwifery and Dialogue in Organizations”, published in 2005, and in numerous publications in specialist journals (International Journal of Action Research, Action Research Journal). There they describe their encounters with power structures in dialogues; impressive is the high degree of reflection and self-criticism as well as their sensitivity in dealing with personal and structural power in the dialogues. The source of their reflective approach to practical actors is their appreciation of the employees‘ creative potential. In their above-mentioned book, they compare the work of the action researcher with that of an obstetrician: In action research it is important to discover and bring to light the creative abilities of the workers without dominating them by the presumptuous power of scientific knowledge."

As the above-mentioned example of the socio-technical system in the mining company, which was developed independently by miners and local management, shows, the creative power of the workers sometimes comes to light without the involvement of action research. ,,I went into

Preface

It is no exaggeration to say that the longstanding research work of the two authors is characterised by their respect for the employees’ need for independence, recognition and democratic participation. This respect is the source of the demanding requirements for future action researchers formulated in the final chapter of the book. Marianne and Joergen demand a higher degree of self-reflection from future action researchers. So far, they found that action researchers too seldom reflect on their handling of personal and structural power in participation processes. Moreover, they often fail to actually practice the equivalence of scientific and practical knowledge, i.e. to avoid a dominant position in the dialogue process. Finally, the authors suggest that action researchers should in future make their methods, the scientific basis of their work and their handling of power in participation processes the subject of dialogues with actors in practice. Only then will dialogues take place on an equal footing. The book concludes that this could improve both the theory and practice of action research.

I do agree. In addition, I would like to add a few remarks on the future of action research, to which this book has also inspired me.

In their research practice, Marianne and Joergen have developed a great sensitivity for the presence and impact of power in participation and dialogue processes. They have focused on the micro-level of relationships between project actors in corporate power structures. In this respect, their work is not different from the Western European action research of past decades. However, power, especially structural power, also exists at the societal level. Just think of the power of the big digital companies. Action research wants to enable people to (co-)shape their world, their working conditions and living conditions in a self-determined way by discovering, promoting and activating their often hidden, unused, because suppressed, abilities. The eminent action researcher Bjorn Gustavsen already pointed out at the end of the last century that this will only succeed in the future if action research overcomes the limitation to single cases. How can this be achieved?

In Latin America, participatory action research in the tradition of Paulo Freire, Orlando Fals Borda and Alfonso Torres Carrillo practices cooperation with social movements, such as in Colombia, and with broad sections of the population (such as the participatory budgets movement in Brazil, especially the mine and came back as a different person,“ commented Eric Trist, director of the Tavistock Institute, on his reaction to the surprising discovery

Preface in Porto Alegre). In Western Europe, Extinction Rebellion and the movement "Fridays for Future" are among the possible cooperation partners, initially at local/regional level. Bjorn Gustavsen has tried to initiate a social movement of participatory democracy with the funds of the Swedish Action Research Programme (LOM); this has not succeeded. But it is certain that action research can only effectively promote the self-determination of people in business and society today if it overcomes the limitations of the single-case approach in view of the increasing complexity and anonymity of social and economic relations (platform society and its algorithms, global value chains). In the publications of the above-mentioned and other authors from Latin America, there are many suggestions for organising cooperation with social movements.

If this is also successful in Western Europe, the experience of seventy years of action research and participation in corporate transformation processes will be preserved and further developed in an expanded concept of action research. With their systematic-critical analysis, Marianne Kristiansen and Joergen Bloch-Poulsen have created an important prerequisite for this. One can build on this; there is much in the history of social science.

I wish their book many interested readers. It is easy to read, very stimulating, full of ideas and grown from a rich research experience.

Werner Fricke, August 2020