Toward a reframing of action research for human resource and organization development: Moving beyond problem solving and toward dialogue

Action Research

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 267-292

  Maurer, Martin ^a   Githens, Rod P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

action research; dialogue; organization development; philosophical hermeneutics

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956079897     PISSN: 14767503     EISSN: 17412617     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1476750309351361     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Akdere, M. (2003). Action research paradigm in the field of training and development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27(8), 413-422.
2. Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: SAGE.
3. Argyris, C. (1997). A theory of action perspective. Journal of Management Education, 21(1), 9-26.
4. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
5. Barge, J.K. (2002). Enlarging the meaning of group deliberation: From discussion to dialogue. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 159- 177). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6. Bierema, L.L. (in press). Critical organization development for human resource development and adult education. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
7. Block, P. (2002). The answer to how is yes: Acting on what matters. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
8. Brown, A.D., & Starkey, K. (2000). Organizational identity and learning: A psycho-dynamic perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 102-120.
9. Buber, M. (1967). Between man and man: The realms. In F. W. Matson & A. Montague (Eds), The human dialogue (pp. 113-117). New York: The Free Press.
10. Burke, W.W. (2002). Organization change theory and practice: Foundations for organizational science. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
11. Bushe, G.R. (1999). Advances in appreciative inquiry as an organization development intervention. Organization Development Journal, 17(2), 61-69.
12. Cooperrider, D., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In R. Woodman & W. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (pp. 129-169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
13. Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (2001). Organizational development and change, 7th edn. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
14. Cunningham, J.B. (1993). Action research and organizational development. Westport, CT: Praeger.
15. Dick, B. (1999). Action research and publication. Retrieved 11 December 2005 from: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/research.html.
16. Ellinor, L., & Gerard, G. (1998). Dialogue: Rediscover the transforming power of conversation. New York: Wiley.
17. Emery, F.E. (1959). Characteristics of socio-technical systems: A critical review of theories and facts. London: Tavistock.
18. Factor, D. (1994). On facilitation and purpose. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/facilitation_purpose.html.
19. Fenwick, T.J. (2004). Toward a critical HRD in theory and practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(3), 193-209.
20. Fenwick, T. (2005). Conceptions of critical HROD: Dilemmas for theory and practice. Human Resource Development International, 8(2), 225-238.
21. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
23. French, W., & Bell, C. (1999). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement, 6th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24. Friedman, V.J., Rothman, J., & Withers, B. (2006). The power of why. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 201-218.
25. Gadamer, H.-G. (1992) Truth and method, 2nd edn, trans. J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall. New York: Crossroad.
26. Gadamer, H. (2001). Practical philosophy. In R. E. Palmer (Ed.), Gadamer in conversation (pp. 78-85). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27. Githens, R.P. (2007). Critical action research in human resource development. In F. M. Nafukho (Ed.), Academy of Human Resource Development Conference Proceedings (pp. 481-488). Bowling Green, OH: AHRD.
28. Greenwood, D.J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
29. Grundy, S. (1988). Three modes of action research. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggert (Eds), The action research reader, 3rd edn (pp. 352-361). Geelong, Vic: Deakin University Press.
30. Gustavsen, B. (1992). Dialogue and development: Theory of communication, action research and the restructuring of working life. Assen/ Maastricht: Van Gorcum.
31. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interest. Boston, MA: Beacon.
32. Isaacs, W.N. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24-39.
33. Karlsson, O. (2001). Critical dialogue: Its value and meaning. Evaluation, 7(2), 211- 227.
34. Kemmis, S. (2001). Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jürgen Habermas. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 91-102). London: SAGE.
35. Kowalski, R., Haron, J., Yorks, L., & Kowalski, D. (2003). Reducing workplace stress and aggression: An action research project at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Human Resource Planning, 26(2), 39-53.
36. Kristiansen, M., & Bloch-Poulsen, J. (2004). Self-referentiality as a power mechanism: Towards dialogic action research. Action Research, 2(4), 371-388.
37. Levin, M. (1994). Action research and critical systems thinking: Two icons carved out of the same log? Systems Practice, 7(1), 25-42.
38. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
39. Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the 'field' at a giving time. Psychological Review, 50(3), 292-310.
40. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
41. Lewin, K. (1947a). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.
42. Lewin, K. (1947b). Frontiers in group dynamics II: Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1(2), 143-153.
43. Lewin, K. (1948a). Resolving social conflicts; Selected papers on group dynamics, ed. G. W. Lewin. New York: Harper & Row.
44. Lewin, K. (1948b). Conduct, knowledge and acceptance of new values. In G. W. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving social conflicts (pp. 56-70). New York: Harper & Row.
45. Lippitt, G., & Lippitt, R. (1978). The consulting process in action. San Diego, CA: University Associates.
46. Marrow, A.J. (1958). The action theorist. New York: Basic Books.
47. Marshak, R.J. (1993). Lewin meets Confucius: A review of the OD model of change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(4), 393-415.
48. McArdle, K.L., & Reason, P. (2008). Action research and organization development. In T. Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of organization development (pp. 123-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
49. McKernan, J. (1991). Curriculum action research. A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. London: Kogan Page.
50. McLagan, P.A. (1989). The models. A volume in models for HROD practice. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
51. McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project. New York: Routledge.
52. Meyerson, D.E., & Scully, M.A. (1995). Tempered radicalism and politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585-600.
53. NTL Institute. (2008). NTL institute: About NTL. Retrieved 28 November 2008 from: http://www.ntl.org/inner.asp?id=178&category=2.
54. Pinchot, G., & Pellman, R. (1999). Intrapreneuring in action: A handbook for business innovation, 1stedn. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
55. Porras, J.I., & Silvers, R.C. (1991). Organization development and transformation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 51-78.
56. Pragmatism. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (2002) Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Retrieved 19 September 2005 from xreferplus: http://www.xreferplus.com/entry/2442307.
57. Reason, P. (2003). Pragmatist philosophy and action research. Readings and conversations with Richard Rorty. Action Research, 1(1), 103-123.
58. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 1-14). London: SAGE.
59. Schein, E.H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 40-51.
60. Schwandt, T.A. (1997). The landscape of values in evaluation: Charted terrain and unexplored territory. New Directions for Evaluation, 76, 25-39.
61. Schwandt, T.A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn (pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.