essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

358 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––research. I conclude that, for those research tasks to which AR/RA can be applied, 13 itsvalidity is at least equal to that of conventional methodologies. Moreover, the kind of learningpossible through AR/RA is on a deeper level than traditional social science research and leadsto a firmer base for making sense of phenomena and facilitating change.NOTES ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––I am grateful to George Strauss and Catherine Cassell for very helpful comments which in no wayavoids my responsibility for any remaining problems.1 The absence of such a distinction has made it easier for traditionalists to attack ActionResearch and deny it a useful role in social science. There will, neverthless, be exampleswhere AR and RA overlap. Argyris came to a similar conclusion and has found it necessaryto differentiate his Action Science from Action Research (Argyris et al., 1985) similar to mydescription of Research Action.2 Change agents may claim that they and their clients learn from the experience; that isobviously so, but it is not the same as research. Stretching the meaning of terms createsunnecessary ambiguity.3 The term ‘participative’ draws attention to the difference with traditional research that treatsthe people who provide information as subjects rather than as collaborators or jointinterpreters of data. I have included the participative approach in the description of the coreattributes. Hence, Research Action could also be called Participative Research Action. It mustbe admitted, however, that the early classical AR projects did not use participants in the waywe now believe is appropriate.4 The use of the term Research Action does not preclude the idea that knowledge can beacquired during an ongoing change process, that is to say, during action.5 Of course I recognize that some philosophers will say that the judgement that fish have finsis based entirely on our visual and/or tactile perception and is therefore subjective in thatsense. I think such arguments are appropriate for philosophy, but add nothing useful toapplied social science.6 There are exceptions. Selection tests, for instance, are used and validated in many practicalsituations and often suitably amended if the results are equivocal.7 Conventional research is rarely tested in action, but see Wilkins, 1986; Latham, 2001; Drenth,2001; Dunnette, 2001.8 An early example of the systematic use of co-interpretation is Group Feedback Analysis (Heller,1969). A version of this method was used in the case example at the end of this chapter.9 Technology is now available, particularly for new buildings to adjust temperatures in eachroom with individual thermostats. It is unlikely that this costly degree of automation will beintroduced in British schools for many years.10 The classic socio-technical model has been tested only in relation to intra-organizational jointoptimization. The extension of the model to cover the impact of technology on people inthe external environment has only begun (Heller, 2001b).11 In consultation with maths teachers we used a simple formula that students aged 10 years andmore could use.12 Both projects are different from traditional research which would investigate the relationshipbetween dependent and independent variables, for instance, the effect of energy syllabusintegration with changes to attitudes to energy awareness.