C 2005) Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 18, No. 6, December 2005 (
DOI: 10.1007/s11213-005-9465-3

Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design David Coghlan1,4 and A. B. (Rami) Shani2,3 Received August 17, 2005; accepted September 22, 2005 For novice action researchers, issues of roles, politics and ethics are critical, particularly in design. The field of organization development (OD) provides many useful considerations of roles, politics and ethics. This article proposes a systemic design-based framework of the action research process that includes context, inquiry mechanisms, inquiry cycle and outcomes. Such perspective brings to the forefront the issues of context, roles, politics dynamics and ethics that are embedded in the action research process and influence its emergent process, quality and outcomes. A set of propositions for further explorations is advanced and briefly discussed. KEY WORDS: action research design; novice action researchers; roles; politics; ethics.

1. INTRODUCTION Organization science is embedded in the study of organizational and management issues for the purpose of generating scientific knowledge and improving practice. Action research is about undertaking action and studying that action as it takes place (Greenwood and Levin, 1998; Gummesson, 2000; Coghlan and Brannick, 2005; Cooke and Wolfram Cox, 2005; Adler, Shani and Styhre, (2004). Action research, one of the many streams of collaborative research, is viewed as “. . . an emergent inquiry process in which applied behavioral and organizational sciences are applied to solve real business problems. It is simultaneously concerned with bringing about change in organizations, in developing self-help competencies in organizations and adding to the scientific knowledge” (Shani and Pasmore, 1985, p. 439). As such, action research brings about the challenge of balance and interdependence between researchers and organizational members, between 1 University

of Dublin, School of Business Studies, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland. College of Business, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California. 3 Stockholm School of Economics, FENIX Program, Stockholm, Sweden. 4 To whom correspondence should be addressed at University of Dublin, School of Business Studies, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland; e-mail: [email protected]. 2 Orfalea

533 C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 1094-429X/05/1200-0533/0


534

Coghlan and Shani

academic research and actual applications, between knowledge creation and problem solving, and between inquiry from the inside and inquiry from the outside. Action research cannot be classified as one single methodology. Rather it includes a wide range and levels of inquiry approaches, activities and methods (Reason and Bradbury, 2001). Common to the variety of approaches is the complex dynamics of action research that are triggered by the design orientation of the collaborative effort. From a design perspective, AR is viewed as a holistic process that comprises several sequential dimensions: strategic or policy choices to focus on simultaneous action and research in a collaborative manner, design requirements that can make the policy choices operational, and design dimensions that bound and specify the requirements and lead to a realized design, all of which set the context within which an AR effort develops. In our experience of educating and supervising novice action researchers who enter organizations with a view of being helpful to them on a particular change project and at the same time, who are drawing on the experience for an academic dissertation, the interplay of roles, politics and ethics play a significant part of the design and implementation process. While action research is typically an organic process, which takes on its own distinctive pattern, systemic design of some key variables at the outset enables action researchers to anticipate what they need to consider. A systemic design-based framework, at the most basic level, includes four key features: Context, inquiry mechanism (design requirements and design dimensions), inquiry cycle and outcomes (Shani and Pasmore, 1985). The context refers to environmental, organizational, and individual characteristics; interpersonal dynamics and the strategic purpose that result in the decision to pursue action research. The inquiry mechanism refers to the formal and informal configuration—structures, processes, procedures, rules, tools, methods, and physical configurations—created within the organization for the purpose of developing and enhancing human and organizational performance (Shani and Docherty, 2003). The inquiry cycle refers to the four main phases of diagnosing, planning action, taking action and evaluating action (Coghlan and Brannick, 2005). Outcome refers to the actionable knowledge that was created as a result of the effort. Thus, a systematic design-based perspective brings to the forefront the issues of context, roles, politics and ethics that are embedded in the action research process and influence its emergent process, quality and outcomes. We have found that, while roles, politics and ethics are well discussed in the organization development (OD) arena, these insights have not reached the action research arena, particularly in those applications of action research that are not grounded in the applied behavioral science. We also want to remind readers that action research is not an impersonal approach. Action researchers engage in action to influence outcomes. As such they need to be self-reflexive about their vulnerability: to have realistic expectations, tolerance, humility, to be able listen and above all, to have an openness and ability to learn (Bell, 1998). It is in this

Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design

535

context that we reflect on design issues pertaining to politics, roles and ethics in order that novice action researchers may take them into consideration within the particular context of their own action research setting and their own personal learning. 2. ROLES At the outset of an action research project, action researchers are confronted by with the issue of role. Roles are patterns of behavior which individuals expect of others performing specific functions or tasks (Rusaw, 2001). Katz and Kahn (1978) describe organizations as a system of roles. They present four concepts. r Role expectations are the evaluative standards that are applied to the behavior of the focal person who occupies a given organizational role. They represent the cognitions and motivations of the role senders. r Sent-role consists of the communications arising from role expectations and sent to the focal person to influence behavior. They represent the behaviors of the role senders. r Received role is the perceptions of the sent-role, including expectations that the focal person himself/herself creates. They represent the cognitions and motivations of the focal person. r Role behavior is the response of the focal person to the information and influence received. They represent the behaviors of the focal person. These four concepts constitute a sequence where the expectations and sent role go in one direction to the received role and subsequent role behavior. Katz and Kahn expand their model of the role episode to include, organizational factors, personality and interpersonal factors. In the context of action research organizational factors can refer to size, complexity, climate, culture, readiness and capacity for change and so on, which would exert influence on the action research process. Personality factors may refer to the action researcher’s perception, motivations, skills and so on. Interpersonal factors refer to those between the role sender and action researcher, which influence the role behavior of both parties. Katz and Kahn (1978) also consider the notion of role conflict and role ambiguity. They define role conflict as “the simultaneous occurrence of two or more role expectations such that compliance with one would make compliance with the other more difficult (p. 204). Role ambiguity refers to” uncertainty about what the occupant of a particular office is supposed to do” (p. 206). Katz and Kahn identify five types of role conflict: intrasender, intersender, interrole, person-role, and role overload. Katz and Kahn’s model therefore becomes a cyclical one where role expectations and sent-role influence received role and role behavior, which in turn feed back to influence role expectations and sent-roles. This takes place in the context of organizational, personality and interpersonal factors. These arise from

536

Coghlan and Shani

the researcher’s position, expertise and from the changing needs and requirements of the action research projects (Rusaw, 2001). Action researchers have to deal with the role expectations and sent-role of the members of the system in which they are working. The system may not have unified expectations of the action research project and so there are intrasender ambiguities and conflicts as different members or factions hold different expectations of what role the action researchers are to play. At the same time, action researchers may have expectations of what their role is or what they want it to be, which may or may not accord with the sent-role or varieties of sent-role from the system and its constituent factions. One common incongruity between sent-role and received-role for action researchers is the difference in mental models around the external helping role. Action researchers typically are viewed as external helpers and as such they are liable to the common ambiguities, which exist around the nature of the helping process. Rusaw (2001) lists what she understands as six common roles for action researchers: experts, brokers, gatekeepers, liaisons, stakeholders and champions. These roles do not form a continuum but they do provide the basis for role ambiguity and role conflict. Lippitt and Lippitt (1986) provide a continuum of external helper roles, which goes from “advocate” (one who proposes or directs) at one extreme to “objective observer” (one who raises questions for reflection) at the other. In between lie alternatives that combine directiveness and nondirectiveness according to the level of researcher activity and the level of client activity (Coghlan et al., 2004). Schein (1999) presents three helping models: doctor–patient, purchase and process consultation, consideration of which we think are useful to action researchers. The doctor–patient model is the familiar one where the expert is called in to diagnose the problem and prescribe a solution, which the client system then implements. The purchase model is utilized where the client system buys in the skills of the expert who actually implements a solution for the client. The third model, process consultation “is the creation of a relationship with the client that permits the client to perceive, understand and act on the process events that occur in the client’s internal and external environments in order to improve the situation as defined by the client” (Schein 1999, p. 20). Schein does not place any value on one helping model over another. Rather he locates the values of each model on what is helpful to the client. He then points out that knowing what is helpful to the client is a very difficult task and so he argues that process consultation is the mode in which to begin and the base from which a consultant can move in and out of the other models as appropriate. He discusses extensively how misunderstandings as to the nature of the helping role and as to the psychological contract between client and consultant can arise where one expects a doctor-patient model and the other process consultation. In Katz and Kahn’s terms, there is an incongruence between the sent-role and the received-role.

Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design

537

Process consultation, as presented by Schein, provided a clear framework from which action researchers may work. Indeed Schein (1987) argues that process consultation and his version of action research which he calls clinical inquiry are closely related, though with some differences (Schein, 1995). Schein (1999) describes typology of inquiry, which provide a useful framework for the action researcher: pure inquiry is where the action researcher prompts the elicitation of the story of what is taking place and listens carefully and neutrally; exploratory diagnostic inquiry is where the action researcher begins to manage the process of how the content is analyzed by the other by exploring, reasoning, actions and emotional processes; and confrontive inquiry is where the action researcher, by sharing her own ideas, challenges others to think from a new perspective. 3. POLITICS Clearly any form of research in any organization has its political dynamics. Political forces can undermine research endeavors and block planned change. Gaining access, using data, disseminating and publishing reports are intensely political acts. Doing action research is political. Indeed it might be considered subversive. Action research has a subversive quality about it. It 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, particularly in those organizations that lean towards a hierarchical control culture. As action researchers may see themselves as attempting to generate valid and useful information in order to facilitate free and informed choice so that there will be commitment to those choices in accordance with the theory and practice of action research (Argyris et al., 1985), they may find that, as Kakabadse (1991) argues, what constitutes valid information is intensely political. Accordingly, action researchers need to be politically astute, becoming what Buchanan and Badham (1999) call a “political entrepreneur.” In their view, this role implies a behavior repertoire of political strategies and tactics and a reflective self-critical perspective on how those political behaviors may be deployed. Buchanan and Boddy (1992) describe the management of the political role in terms of two activities, performing and backstaging. Performing involves the public performance role of being active in the change process, building participation for change, pursuing the change agenda rationally and logically, while backstage activity involves the recruitment and maintenance of support and the reduction of resistance. Backstaging comprises skills at intervening in the political and cultural systems, through justifying, influencing and negotiating, defeating opposition and so on. Action researchers need to be prepared to work the political system, which involves balancing the organization’s formal justification of what it wants in the

538

Coghlan and Shani

project with their own tacit personal justification for political activity. Throughout the project they will have to maintain their credibility as an effective driver of change and as an astute political player. The key to this is assessing the power and interests of relevant stakeholders in relation to aspects of the project (Pettigrew, 2003). Breu and Hemingway (2003) describe how the manager with whom they were working in the participatory action research project contrived to create a success story of the intervention to ensure a positive reflection on his own performance, and to ensure the continuity of funding by providing selective access to the evaluation sample and by censoring the evaluation findings through excluding negative evidence and by censoring their representation in the research report. 3.1. Managing Political Relationships In order to be able to manage the content and control agendas of the action research project and the political processes of influencing and ensuring the legitimacy of the project, action researchers need to be able to manage key power relationships. These relationships typically comprise: action researchers’ relationship with sponsors, sponsors with other key executives, key executives with each other, action researcher with key executives, senior executives with higher authority, key executives with the members of the organization and organizational departments with each other (Greiner and Schein, 1988).

4. ETHICS As action research has an unfolding nature as it attempts to integrate inquiry with everyday organizational action, one may argue that the ethical issues of action research are not different from the ethical issues of a good life. At the same time there are design issues that novice action researchers need to consider. Given that action research is an unfolding, emergent process which evolves through cycles of action and reflection, it is not feasible to map out a detailed anticipation of ethical issues in advance which will cover all eventualities (Morton, 1999; Walker and Haslett, 2002). In some settings researchers are required to fill out an ethical form prior to commencing the work. Lincoln (2001) suggests that protocols are inadequate and are insufficient to meet the face-to-face, participative close work of action research. At the same time it is possible to articulate some ethical principles to guide the work of the action researcher (Detardo-Bora, 2004). The second issue follows from the first, namely that there are a number of dilemmas which arise in the course of action research which the action researcher must face and resolve in the context of each particular action research project.

Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design

539

4.1. Quality of Relationships Rowan (2000) presents a series of five concentric circles that describe ethical issues in different forms of research in psychology. The first circle is the “natural inquiry” arena in which researchers engage in what we typically term positivist research in which the researcher and participant engage at a single of point of contact, namely the researcher’s agenda to obtain information from the participant. The ethical issues which arise in this one-sided relationship typically focus on doing good, not doing harm and respecting the person, and these issues are met through communication. Participation observation, which often involves disguising the purpose of the researcher’s involvement, does mean that deceit is part of the research process (Punch, 1994). The second circle is the “human inquiry,” which is captured by the hermeneutics and phenomenology. In this approach the participants is treated as one who is fully human and not simply as set of variables to be measured. There is emphasis on empathy, identification, trust and nonexploitative relationships (Punch, 1994). For Rowan there is a major shift when one moves to the third circle. Rather than the researcher meeting participants at one carefully stage-managed point of the research process, the researcher involves participants in planning the research and in processing the results. This is the arena of action research. Ethical issues not only concern individuals, but also the whole community or organization. Unintended consequences are a deliberate focus. The researcher’s self-understanding and social vision come into play, with issues of power central to the process. The fourth circle is transcendent research which focuses on transpersonal research, spirituality and mindfulness (Bentz and Shapiro, 1998). Ethical issues attend to the spiritual level in persons. Rowan’s fifth circle is comprehensive, systematic inquiry which encompasses all the others and which demands being able to think and act appropriately in each research setting, with a concern for the researcher, the participants and the wider system, taking into account the spiritual implications of what is being undertaken. Rowan provides a framework for thinking about the forms and quality of relationship that researchers have with participants in different research settings. It directs the ethical behavior in which action researchers must engage in the democratic, participative values which on action research is grounded. Williamson and Prosser (2002) pose three ethical questions, which in their view, action researchers and participants need to be clear about, discuss and agree the answers. 1. If researchers and participants collaborate closely, how can confidentiality and anonymity be preserved? As action research is a political enterprise and has consequences for participants and the researchers it is difficult to guarantee anonymity and confidentiality as others can easily know who participated and may be able to identify who said or contributed what.

540

Coghlan and Shani

2. If action research is a ‘journey’ and ‘evolves’ how can informed consent be meaningful? Neither action researcher nor participants can know in advance where the journey will take them and cannot know to what they are consenting. As a change process can create its own resistance, action researchers cannot be expected to withdraw in the face of opposition (albeit by small groups within the project). 3. As action research can have political consequences how can action researchers avoid doing harm to participants? Williamson and Prosser point to two ways of answering this question: the establishment of an ethical code for action researchers and the extent to which the collaboration and negotiation occurs so that participants own the findings as much as the researcher. Walker and Haslett (2002) ground the issues of ethics in action research in the action research cycle itself. They suggest that ethical questions may be posed in terms of possible and actual ethical questions around the cyclical activities of planning, action and reflection. Processes of obtaining consent, ensuring anonymity and confidentiality, balancing conflicting and different needs, are actualized in planning, taking action, collecting data and interpreting. They cite Stringer’ (1999) two important questions as central questions running through the whole project. Who will be affected? How will they be affected? Gellerman et al. (1990) articulate four ethical principles. 1. Serve the good of the whole 2. Treat others as we would like them to treat us 3. Always treat people as ends, never only as means; respect their being and never use them for their ability to do; treat people as person and never as subjects 4. Act so we do not increase power by more powerful stakeholders over less powerful 5. INTEGRATING ROLES, POLITICS AND ETHICS There are ethical dilemmas attached to how action researchers hold their researcher and their organizational action roles. In terms of the organizational action, they are bound to provide a quality service to the organization’s management; as researchers they have a responsibility to go beyond the boundaries of the particular project to contribute to the generation of knowledge. In addition to the ethical dilemmas pertaining to these separate roles, there are dilemmas which pertain to the integration of the roles which are held together by action researchers (Benne, 1959; Lippitt, 1961; Kelman, 1965). Applying Katz and Kahn, White and Wooten (1986) refer to as “role episode” by which they mean studying an ethical dilemma through an ambiguity or conflict between the sending role and role receiver. The

Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design

541

“sending role” comprises expectations of what the action research role will fulfill. The “receiving role” has perceptions of both the role and of the sending role and then either complies or resists. As White and Wooten (1986) illustrate, this role episode model is a useful one to investigate and explain the behavior of change agents and client systems, and as such is relevant to our consideration of action researchers. They apply role episode model to five categories of ethical dilemmas: misrepresentation and collusion, misuse of data, manipulation and coercion, values and goals conflict and technical ineptness. Also Bate (2000), in describing the role of an external consultancy team working on culture change in a large hospital, highlights the importance of neutrality and even-handedness, speaks being positioned in the space between management and workforce, and having to strenuously avoiding being seen as either management-centric or worker-centric, as they acted as knowledge workers, and mediating between the different interests and perspectives to facilitate the development and implementation of collaborative strategies for change. With regard to the dual role of action research, Morton (1999) describes four ethical dilemmas in terms of “role contamination.” r What might action researchers promise clients? Action researchers should not promise beyond what they can reasonably deliver, yet the process of action research is innovative and involves a degree of risk. So action researchers have a dilemma in holding both promise and risk. r How theoretical can action researchers be on organizations’ time and money? Action researchers, more than consultants value reflection and theorizing which satisfy their own intellectual interests but may be of little value to organizational management. Action researchers need to balance their research-oriented activities with their action-oriented activities. r How do action researchers present themselves? Presenting themselves primarily as academic researchers who also do consulting or primarily as consultants who have academic interests has their own pitfalls, depending on the audience and the audience’s view and expectation of either role. r How can action researchers resolve the conflict between the quality of the organizational action and the quality of research? While one expects them to be in harmony, this may not be necessarily so. A failure in the organizational action may generate rich research data. If an organizational action is heading for possible failure, action researchers may be confronted with having to put priority on one over the other. Pettigrew (2003) reflects on his own role as a political entrepreneur. He notes that it can be exhilarating when it appears that one’s advocacy, enthusiasm and energy have created desired effects towards some defined outcomes, and equal and opposite despair when things go wrong. He reflects that there’s a fine line between acting in a politically astute manner and acting unethically. In his view, action

542

Coghlan and Shani

researchers have to build relationships and trust with people who operate from different mental models and at different levels. Yet working as a change agent cannot always be done with openness, honesty and transparency. He judges that the real skill as the political entrepreneur is knowing that the game is everything and that it is “theories-in-action” rather than espoused theories that count. Rusaw (2001) provides a typology of action research dilemmas by outlining four ethical dilemmas—role, affect structure and norms and juxtaposing them with one another. For instance, action researcher may have role dilemmas with regard to affect, structure and norm, affect dilemmas with regard to structure and norm and structure dilemmas with regard to norm. Her solution is to have a willingness to engage in contracting between and among themselves as well as with clients and factions within the organization, through successive rounds of assessment, feedback and open discussion on evolving norms, roles and organizational structures and processes. 6. DISCUSSION The systemic design-based perspective illustrates the complexity of action research and provides some new insights into its nature. The following four sets of propositions are viewed as away to pursue an ongoing dialogue and collaborative inquiry that are likely to shade further lights on action research. Proposition 1. The greater the role clarity among the different actors involved in the action research process, the more willing participants will be to participate in the process. Proposition 2. The greater the contextual complexity, the more complex the role dynamics, the more political power games and the more difficult the development of role clarity. Negotiation to develop and establish role clarity, especially at the outset of an action research project, is critical to reducing and minimizing the possibilities of role ambiguity and role conflict. Discussion of clients’ expectations, particularly if there is a diversity of expectations within members of a client system, and how they are received by the researcher are essential for building collaborative foundations for the project in which people are willing to participate. Attention also needs to be given to role renegotiation or clarification during the process as unfolding events may challenge earlier agreements or perceived understanding of the researcher’s role. In situations where there are widespread or intense political power games within the organizational system and where there are multiple stakeholders with differing capacity and readiness for change, role negotiation with the action researcher with a view to the development of role clarity is extremely difficult. In

Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design

543

addition, personality and interpersonal factors influence the role behavior of both parties as they work to build a collaborative partnership. Proposition 3. The greater the contextual complexity, the more critical is the role of the AR inquiry mechanisms. Proposition 4. The greater the variety of structures and processes in the AR inquiry mechanisms the greater the challenge of developing role clarity within and outside the AR inquiry mechanism. Where there is great complexity, such as formal and informal configuration— structures, processes, procedures, rules, tools, methods, and physical configurations, a collaborative process of inquiry and action between an outsider action researcher and insider members of the system are essential for developing shared understanding of how these forces operate and for developing and implementing strategies to deal with those that are judged to be unsatisfactory or impediments to effective action and to learning. The tacit and explicit knowledge of insiders is exposed by the questioning of the outsider, and the subsequent planning, taking and evaluating action is facilitated by the outsider’s skilled use of pure, exploratory-diagnostic and confrontive interventions. The inquiry mechanism reinforce the action researcher’s role as the insider members of the system experience the action researcher as one who is genuinely helpful, who contributes actively to both the inquiry and action processes and who allows ownership of the organizational issues and the development of solutions to remain firmly with them. Proposition 5. The features and dynamics of the AR inquiry mechanisms will effect the AR inquiry cycle and will lead to organizational improvement and to the creation of new knowledge. Proposition 6. The greater the variety of the resources represented in the AR inquiry mechanisms, the more difficult there will be to facilitate the AR inquiry cycle. Action research is grounded in the exigencies of the project and the engagement in cycles of diagnosing, planning, taking and evaluating action, undertaken in collaboration with members of the system. At the same time engagement in these cycles is itself exposed to cycles of diagnosing, planning, taking and evaluating action, in effect, action research on action research. This action inquiry into action inquiry constitutes a metacycle of learning (Coghlan and Brannick, 2005) and is central to the production of actionable knowledge (Argyris, 2003). The engagement of organizational members in the action research cycles is viewed as crucial to the effort’s success. As the involvement of individuals with different disciplinary background increases, the challenge of developing a common language increases. Coupling the diverse work experience and backgrounds with diverse disciplinary education makes the inquiry process and cycles stimulating, as people from different parts of the organization are likely to have difficulty in

544

Coghlan and Shani

seeing a common problem, agreeing on the data to be collected, making sense of the data collected, planning and taking action. Proposition 7. The political nature of the organization results in politics dynamics, role complexity, and ethical dilemmas that impact the AR inquiry mechanisms, AR inquiry cycle and AR outcomes. Proposition 8. To the extent that the quality of the relationship developed in the AR inquiry mechanism is high, the quality of the AR inquiry cycle and its outcomes will be high. All research is political and action research is particularly so as it emphasizes democratic participation, questioning, reflection and is directed towards change, all of which may be threatening to existing organizational norms. Action researchers have to thread a fine line between being participative and ethical and being political in order to be effective. Their engagement in performing and backstaging activities needs to be done in such a way that does not compromise the role that was negotiated and that the ethics which underpin action research are not compromised. Action research is research with people, rather than on people. Members of the system being studied are coinquirers with the action researcher, as ultimately it is their system and they will live with the future created through the action research process when the project is completed. Accordingly, the higher the quality of ownership of the issues, the higher the quality of collaboration between members and the action researchers and the joint enactment of the action research process the more successful will the outcomes be.

7. CONCLUSIONS For novice action researchers, critical factors of roles, politics and ethics in action research are critical issues in the design and implementation of action research. This article has proposed a systemic design-based framework of the action research process that includes context, inquiry mechanisms, inquiry cycle and outcomes. Such perspective brings to the forefront the issues of context, roles, politics dynamics and ethics that are embedded in the action research process and influence its emergent process, quality and outcomes. A set of propositions were articulated and discussed briefly for the purpose of advancing the scholar–practitioner dialogue about the meaning of collaborative research, its inquiry mechanisms, cycles and dynamics. Action research is viewed as an approach that helps in closing the relevance gap between research and practice. The demonstrated complexity of action research means that while the payoffs are invaluable the challenges of facilitating the process are many.

Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design

545

REFERENCES Adler, N., Shani, A. B. (Rami), and Styhre, A. (2004). Collaborative Research in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Argyris, C. (2003). Actionable knowledge. In Tsoukas, T., and Knudsen, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 423–452. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and Smith, D. (1985). Action Science, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Bate, P. (2000). Changing the culture of a hospital: From hierarchy to networked community. Public Admin. 78, 485–512. Bell, C. (1998). Self-reflection and vulnerability in action research: Bringing forth new worlds in our learning. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 11(2), 179–191. Benne, K. D. (1959). Some ethical problems in group and organizational consultation. J. Soc. Issues 15(2), 60–67. Bentz, V., and Shapiro, J. (1998). Mindful Inquiry in Social Science, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Breu, K., and Hemingway, C. (2003). It works in practice, but will it work in theory? Paper presented at 19th EGOS Colloquium, Copenhagen. Buchanan, D., and Badham, R. (1999). Power, Politics and Organizational Change: Winning the Turf Game, Sage, London. Buchanan, D., and Boddy, R. (1992). The Expertise of the Change Agent, Prentice-Hall, London. Coghlan, D., and Brannick, T. (2005). Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, 2nd edn. Sage, London. Coghlan, D., Coughlan, P., and Brennan, L. (2004) Organizing for research and action: Implementing action research networks. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 17(1), 37–49. Cooke, B., and Wolfram Cox, J. (2005). Fundamentals of Action Research, 4 volumes, Sage, London. Detardo-Bora, K. (2004). Action research in a world of positivist-oriented review boards. Action Res. 2(3), 237–253. Gellerman, W., Frankel, M., and Ladenson, R. (1990). Values and Ethics in Organization and Human System Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Greenwood, D., and Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to Action Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Greiner, L. E., and Schein, V. E. (1988). Power and Organization Development, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative Methods in Management Research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Kakabadse, A. (1991). Politics and ethics in action research. In Craig Smith, N., and Dainty, P. (eds.), The Management Research Handbook. Routledge, London, pp. 289–299. Katz, D., and Kahn, R. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New York. Kelman, H. C. (1965). Manipulation of human behavior: An ethical dilemma for the social scientist. J. Soc. Issues 21(2), 31–46. Lincoln, Y. (2001). Engaging sympathies: Relationships between action research and social constructivism. In Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.), Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London, pp. 124–132. Lippitt, G., and Lippitt, R. (1986). The Consulting Process in Action, 2nd edn. Pfeiffer, San Diego. Lippitt, R. (1961). Value-judgment problems of the social scientist in action research. In Bennis, W., Benne, K., and Chin, R. (eds.), The Planning of Change, 1st edn., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 689–694. Morton, A. (1999). Ethics in action research. Syst.Pract. Action Res. 12(2), 219–222. Pettigrew, P. (2003). Power, conflicts and resolutions: A change agent’s perspective on conducting action research within a multi-organizational partnership. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 16(6), 375– 391.

546

Coghlan and Shani

Punch, M. (1994). Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In Denzin, N., and Lincoln, Y. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 83–97. Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.) (2001). Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London. Rowan, J. (2000). Research ethics. Int. J. Psychother. 5(2), 103–110. Rusaw, A. C. (2001). Ethical dilemmas of action research: A typological analysis. In Rahim, M. A., Golembiewski, R. T., and MacKenzie, K. D. (eds.), Current Topics in Management, Vol. 6, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 51–66. Schein, E. H. (1987). The Clinical Perspective in Fieldwork, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Schein, E. H. (1995). Process consultation, action research and clinical inquiry: Are they the same? J. Manage. Psychol. 10(6), 14–19. Schein, E. H. (1999). Process Consultation Revisited: Building the Helping Relationship. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA. Shani, A. B., and Pasmore, W. A. (1985). Organization inquiry: Towards a new model of the action research process. In Warrick, D. D. (ed.), Contemporary Organization Development: Current Thinking and Applications, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL., pp. 438–448. Shani, A. B. (Rami), and Docherty, P. (2003). Learning by Design. Blackwells, Oxford. Stringer, E. (1999). Action Research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Walker, B., and Haslett, T. (2002). Action research in management—Ethical dilemmas. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 15(6), 523–533. White, L. P., and Wooten, K. C. (1986). Professional Ethics and Practice in Organization Development, Praeger, New York. Williamson, G. R., and Prosser, S. (2002). Action research: Politics, ethics and participation. J. Adv. Nurs. 40(5), 587–593.