Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:55:10.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 12 - Co-Inquiring in a Digital Age

Enhancing the Practice of Strategy Work in Government Organizations through Action Research

from Part II - Methodological Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2023

By
Joe McDonagh ,
David Coghlan  and
Paul Coughlan
Edited by
Boyka Simeonova  and
Robert D. Galliers
Boyka Simeonova
Affiliation:
University of Leicester
Robert D. Galliers
Affiliation:
Bentley University, Massachusetts and Warwick Business School
Get access

Summary

Recognizing the pervasive influence of modern digital technologies, this chapter argues for the supremacy of strategy work in terms of giving shape and effect to the associated agenda for strategic, organizational and technological change. The chapter focuses on the theory and practice of action research as a Mode 2 approach to knowledge production as managers co-inquire into the practice of strategizing. The discussion speaks directly to the practice of action research in government organizations, of enhancing strategy work and its related outcomes, and the broader outcomes of co-inquiry. The chapter affirms the central role of action research in knowledge production and emphasizes how the practice of action research is itself being transformed by enabling digital technologies during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The contention throughout is that good practice informs research and good research informs practice.

Keywords

action researchco-inquirydigital technologiesdigital transformationMode 2 knowledge productionstrategy work
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Qualitative Digital Research , pp. 172 - 190
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahern, B. (2007). Stepping up to the mark: The Taoiseach’s organisational review programme for departments & offices. LINK, Issue No. 49.Google Scholar
Argyris, C. (2010). Management Traps. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and Smith, D. (1985). Action Science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Baburoglu, O. and Ravn, I. (1992). Normative action research. Organization Studies, 13(1), 19–34.Google Scholar
Beer, M. and Eisenstat, R. A. (2000). The silent killer of strategy implementation and learning. MIT Sloan Management Review, 41(4), 29–40.Google Scholar
Bradbury, H. (2015). The Sage Handbook of Action Research, 3rd edition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bradbury, H., Mirvis, P., Neilsen, E. and Pasmore, W. A. (2008). Action research at work: Creating the future following the path from Lewin. In Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Action Research, 2nd edition. London: Sage, pp. 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnen, M. and Burrell, G. (2012). Journals à la mode? Twenty years of living alongside mode 2 and the new production of knowledge. Organization, 20(1), 25–37.Google Scholar
Carlton, D. (2019). Situational incompetence: The failure of governance in the management of large-scale IT projects. Journal of Modern Project Management, 7(2), 68–69.Google Scholar
Chanias, S., Myers, M. D. and Hess, T. (2019). Digital transformation strategy-making in pre-digital organizations: The case of a financial services provider. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(1), 17–33.Google Scholar
Coghlan, D. (2016). Retrieving the philosophy of practical knowing for action research. International Journal of Action Research, 1(12), 84–107.Google Scholar
Coghlan, D. (2011). Action research: Exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 53–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coghlan, D. (2010). Seeking common ground in the diversity and diffusion of action and collaborative management research methodologies: The value of a general empirical method. In Pasmore, W. A., Shani, A. B. and Woodman, R. W. (eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development. Bingley, UK: Emerald, Vol. 18, pp. 149–181.Google Scholar
Coghlan, D. (2009). Toward a philosophy of clinical inquiry/research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(1), 106–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coghlan, D. and Shani, A. B. (Rami). (2021). Abductive reasoning as the integrating mechanism between first- second- and third-person practice in action research. Systemic Practice & Action Research, 34(4), 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coghlan, D. and Shani, A. B. (Rami). (2018). Action Research for Business and Management Students. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Coghlan, D., Shani, A. B. (Rami) and Dahm, P. C. (2020). Knowledge production in organization development: An interiority-based perspective. Journal of Change Management, 20(1), 81–98.Google Scholar
Coghlan, D., Shani, A. B. (Rami) and Hay, G. W. (2019). Toward a social science philosophy of organization development and change. In Noumair, D. A. and Shani, A. B. (eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development. Bingley, UK: Emerald, Vol. 27, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Correani, A., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Petruzzelli, A. M. and Natalicchio, A. (2020). Implementing a digital strategy: Learning from the experience of three digital transformation projects. California Management Review, 62(4), 37–56.Google Scholar
Crittenden, V. L. and Crittenden, W. F. (2008). Building a capable organization: The eight evers of strategy implementation. Business Horizons, 51(4), 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, B. (2017). Phenomenology of Human Understanding. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.Google Scholar
Davenport, T. and Westerman, G. (2018). Why so many high-profile digital transformations fail. Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2018/03/why-so-many-high-profile-digital-transformations-fail.Google Scholar
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. (2017). Our public service 2020: Development and innovation. Dublin, Ireland, www.ops.gov.ie/app/uploads/2019/08/Our-Public-Service-2020-WEB.pdf.Google Scholar
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. (2016). Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies. Dublin, Ireland, www.per.gov.ie/en/revised-code-of-practice-for-the-governance-of-state-bodies/.Google Scholar
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. (2012). Organisational Review Programme: Progress Report on Implementation. Dublin, Ireland: Government Publications Sales Office.Google Scholar
Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (1996). Researching organizations using action research. British Journal of Management, 7(1), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gable, G. G. (2020). Viewpoint: Information systems research strategy. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 29(2), 1–19.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C. and Scott, P. (2011). Revisiting mode 2 at Noors Slott. Prometheus, 29(4), 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, D. and Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to Action Research, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Guerci, M., Radaelli, G. and Shani, A. B. (Rami). (2019). Conducting mode 2 research in HRM: A phase-based framework. Human Resource Management, 58(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
Heron, J. and Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274–294.Google Scholar
Kappelman, L., Johnson, V. L., Mclean, E., Torres, R., Snyder, M., Kim, K. et al. (2020). The 2019 SIM IT issues and trends study. MIS Quarterly Executive, 19(1), 69–104.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1997). Action research and minority problems. In Resolving Social Conflicts. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 143–154 (original publication, 1946).Google Scholar
Lonergan, B. J. (1992). The Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, Vol. 3: Insight: An Essay in Human Understanding, Crowe, F. and Doran, R. (eds). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Loshin, D. (2013). Big Data Analytics: From Strategic Planning to Enterprise Integration with Tools, Techniques, NoSQL, and Graphs. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
MacLean, D., McIntosh, R. and Grant, S. (2002). Mode 2 management research. British Journal of Management, 13(2), 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, J. A. (2007). Organisational capacity reviews: Building capacity. Paper presented at IPA National Conference, Delivering for the Citizen: Transforming Government Performance, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2003). ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
O’Riordan, J. (2011). Organisational capacity in the Irish Civil Service: An examination of the Organisation Review Programme. Research paper number 3, State of the public service series. Institute of Public Administration, Dublin.Google Scholar
Pasmore, B. (2015). Leading Continuous Change: Navigating Churn in the Real World. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Kohler.Google Scholar
Pasmore, W. A. (2011). Tipping the balance: Overcoming persistent problems in organizational change. In Shani, A. B., Woodman, R. W. and Pasmore, W. A. (eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development. Bingley, UK: Emerald, Vol. 19, pp. 259–292.Google Scholar
Pasmore, W. A. (2001). Action research in the workplace: The socio-technical perspective. In Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds), Handbook of Action Research. London: Sage, pp. 38–47.Google Scholar
Pasmore, W. A., Woodman, R. and Simmons, A. L. (2008). Toward a more rigorous, reflective, and relevant science of collaborative management research. In Shani, A. B., Mohrman, S. A., Pasmore, W. A., Stymne, B. and Adler, N. (eds), Handbook of Collaborative Management Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 259–292.Google Scholar
Reason, P. (2006). Choice and quality in action research practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(2), 187–203.Google Scholar
Rosseau, D. M. (2018). Making evidence-based organisational decisions in an uncertain world. Organisational Dynamics, 47(3), 135–146.Google Scholar
Schein, E. H. (2013). Humble Inquiry: The Art of Asking Instead of Telling. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Kohler.Google Scholar
Schein, E. H. and Schein, P. A. (2017). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 5th edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Shani, A. B. (Rami) and Coghlan, D. (2021). Collaborative Inquiry for Organization Development and Change. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Shani, A. B. (Rami) 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. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Co., pp. 438–448. [Reproduced in D. Coghlan and A. B. (Rami) Shani (eds). (2010). Fundamentals of Organization Development. London: Sage, Vol. 1, pp. 249–260.]Google Scholar
Susman, G. I. and Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582–601.Google Scholar
Swan, J., Bresnen, M., Robertson, M., Newell, S. and Dopson, S. (2010). When policy meets practice: Colliding logics and the challenges of ‘mode 2’ initiatives in the translation of academic knowledge. Organization Studies, 31(9–10), 1311–1340.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. and Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821.Google Scholar
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144.Google Scholar
Wimelius, H., Mathiassen, L., Holmstrom, J. and Keil, M. (2020). A paradoxical perspective on technology renewal in digital transformation. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 198–225.Google Scholar
Yammarino, F. J., Salas, E., Serban, A., Shirreffs, K. and Shuffler, M. (2012). Collectivist leadership approaches: Putting the ‘we’ in leadership science and practice. Industrial & Organisational Psychology, 5(4), 382–402.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×