The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research

Richard Thorpe, Robin Holt, Richard Thorpe, Robin Holt

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2007
• Print ISBN: 9781412935289, 9781412935210
• eBook ISBN: 9781446238554
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Management
• Index: Business

?This comprehensive work extends general ideas, concepts, and techniques of qualitative research into the realm of management research...This is a crucial reference tool for anyone conducting research in this field of study? - CHOICE

With over 100 entries on key concepts and theorists, the Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research provides full coverage of the field, explaining fundamental concepts and introducing new and unfamiliar terms. This book provides:

- Definitions

- Examples in the field of management studies

- Criticisms and possible future directions

Engagingly written by specialists in each area, this dictionary will be the definitive and essential companion to established textbooks and teaching materials in qualitative management research.

---

A

---

ACCESS

Definition

Social science methodology texts, especially those aimed at students, often include chapters or sections of prescribed advice on gaining access that vary in length from the virtually non-existent (De Vaus 2001; Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2002) to short sections within chapters (Bryman and Bell, 2003; Easterby-Smith et al., 1991; Gill and Johnson, 1991; Hussey and Hussey, 1997; Jankowicz, 2005; Riley et al., 2000; Robson, 2002; Silverman, 2000; Whitfield and Strauss, 1998) to rather longer sections in chapters (Saunders et al., 2003) and finally whole chapters (Gummesson, 2000).

The format and context of these limited accounts tend to be similar. Access is usually regarded as requiring most consideration within research designs where the researcher expects to spend a significant amount of time with the same research subjects or where a range of research subjects (i.e. individuals or groups) are to be included in the project. It is, therefore, not unusual to see more extensive discussions on access in texts on qualitative research methods (Berg, 2001; Lofland and Lofland, 1995). In more general methodological textbooks, discussions on access are often to be found within chapters that consider ethnographic research. So, for example, Bryman and Bell (2003) discuss access within their chapter entitled ‘Ethnography and participant observation’, while Gummesson (2000), in his book Qualitative Methods in Management Research, devotes the whole of his second chapter to issues of access. Discussions of access within this context are often concerned with not just ‘getting in’ but also ‘getting on’ (Buchanan et al., 1988); that is, with managing relationships during the research process and the difficulties and benefits that the identities of researchers and researched can create for accessing information and opinions.

Discussion

The inference within these texts is that structured research designs are associated with a decreased need for attention to access. For example, Saunders et al. (2003: 117), argue that gaining access is ‘less applicable where you send a self-administered, postal questionnaire to organisational participants’. The authors acknowledge that some access issues do apply to the construction of ‘pre-survey contact and the written request to complete the questionnaire’ (Saunders et al., 2003: 117) which will be used by the respondent to decide whether to grant you access to their individual opinion. In support of this they cite Raimond (1993: 67), who argues that ‘provided that people reply to the questionnaires, the problem of access to data is solved’. In our opinion, however, this advice undermines the difficulties inherent in access even for a short interview (Danieli and Woodhams, 2005) and marginalizes implications of non-response bias within structured methods.

An alternative context that frames discussions on access can be found within research ethics (q.v.) (see Bryman and Bell, 2003; Hussey and Hussey, 1997; Robson, 1993; Saunders et al., 2003) [field research; participant observation]. Here the discussion is likely to be related to factors of informed consent, protecting respondents from harm, confidentiality and anonymity. Again, these issues tend to be seen as more significant in qualitative research and organizationally based research where the researcher is going to spend a significant amount of time in the organization. These issues are, of course, relevant to all types of research irrespective of the research methods used, but this is rarely pointed out. And given the location of this advice within textbooks, it is unlikely that researchers conducting remotely administered questionnaire-based survey research or one-off face-to-face interviews will consult them.

A common theme of concern that informs advice on research access focuses on the feasibility of the proposed investigation (see Buchanan et al., 1988; Easterby-Smith et al., 2002; Marshall and Rossman, 1989; Riley et al., 2000; Saunders et al., 2003). The main concern here is the likelihood of researchers being able to gain entry to organizations and whether they are likely to be given access to the type of information they will need in order to answer their research questions. Here we are more likely to see discussions of the research topic and the difficulties this creates for ‘getting in’ to organizations. These discussions are often replete with advice on the kinds of strategy that researchers might use to ensure they are not refused access by gatekeepers. Nevertheless, because of the limited reflection on access by experienced researchers, the advice tends to be uniform and to rely on few sources. It focuses on physical access, that is ‘getting in’, selling the value of the research to the participants, talking down sensitive aspects of the research while talking up the credibility of the researcher or research team.

In brief, the typical advice includes locating a gatekeeper who has the power or authority to grant formal entry to the research site and/or respondents. Advice on how to find this power figure includes using directories, asking the person who answers the phone within the target organization for the name of an appropriate person, approaching third parties for referrals or going through a ‘broker’ figure (such as a personnel manager) (see Buchanan et al., 1988; Easterby-Smith et al., 1991; Jankowicz, 2005; Saunders et al., 2003). In our experience, this advice underplays the role of the initial contact (the person who answers the phone), who often performs a highly effective access rebuff role in their own right (Danieli and Woodhams, 2005). Once contact has been made, it is stated, researchers must ensure that they maximize the relevance of their research to their target organization, offering them something useful (a report is suggested) in return for access. They should also try to avoid an access request ‘that appears to concentrate on aspects associated with non-achievement or failure’ (Saunders et al., 2003: 123). Once again, our reflections, informed by our research experience (Danieli and Woodhams, 2005), demonstrate that in certain circumstances, this advice does not apply. Finally, it is agued that establishing credibility is highly significant. Strategies to help create credibility include: expressing the research project clearly in initial contacts (Healey, 1991), demonstrating that the researcher is knowledgeable about both the topic being investigated and the organization they are attempting to access, and that they conform to the dress code appropriate to the research site.

Prospects

Gaining access to organizations to conduct research is a major hurdle to researchers (Bryman, 1988). Yet, while its importance is frequently recognized, it remains under-discussed and theorized within methodology texts (see also Buchanan et al., 1988; Gummesson, 2000). In a recent piece reflecting on securing research access on a sensitive topic (Danieli and Woodhams, 2005), we were only able to find one book dedicated to the topic (Brown et al., 1976) and very few informed academic accounts within organization studies on how it was achieved.

It is surprising, given the importance of access to data within the research process, that so few reflective accounts of access experience are published. It is likely that, with the increased emphasis on data protection, problems of achieving access will increase. It is to be hoped that the body of reflective literature in this area will be expanded to account for some of the nuances that are found within this multidisciplinary area and that these publications will penetrate a broader base of sources of advice delivered to novice researchers.

Carol Woodhams, Ardha Danieli

---

ACTION LEARNING

Definition

Action learning originates with Reginald Revans (1907–2003), Olympic athlete, student of nuclear physics, educational administrator and professor of management. Revans’s pragmatic philosophy and commitment to experiential learning in the face of intractable social and organizational problems draw on both John Dewey and Kurt Lewin. With other contemporaries, such as W. Edwards Deming, Stafford Beer and the Tavistock researchers, Revans sought the improvement of human systems for the benefit of those who depend upon them. The philosophy of action learning is based on a fundamental pragmatism about what can, and must, be done now, and a deeply humanistic view of human potential. Action learning can be seen as part of a wider family of action-based approaches [action research; action science; mode 2] to research and learning, distinguished by the primacy it gives to those actually facing the problems in question, and its scepticism on the views and advice of experts of all kinds.

A prime difficulty in researching action learning is the lack of an agreed definition. As Weinstein notes, ‘it means different things to different people’ (1995: 32). Revans eschewed any single definition, citing many principles, but defining only ‘what action learning is not’ (1993/1998: 87 et seq.). Willis has assembled some 23 of these principles of action learning, and examined a sample of cases in the USA against this ‘Revans’ Gold Standard’ (Willis, 2004). An alternative to this search for a single definition is pursued by Marsick and O’Neill (1999), who define three sub-categories of action learning: scientific, experiential and critical reflection. Action learning does not follow a single, agreed approach but is best described as a discipline or practical philosophy embracing a variety of practices around a core of shared values. Action learning appears to have spread more as an ‘ethos’ or general way of thinking about learning and teaching, than as a specific set of practices (Pedler et al., 2005: 64–5).

Discussion

In management education and research, action learning emerged in opposition to traditional business school practice. In 1965, Revans resigned his Chair at Manchester following negotiations over the new Manchester Business School, which he describes as a victory for the ‘book’ culture of Owens College over the ‘tool’ culture of the then College of Technology, later UMIST (Revans, 1980: 197). He favoured the latter as being closer to the needs of industry and objected to the importation of USA business school practice, describing the MBA as ‘Moral Bankruptcy Assured’, anticipating a continuing critique of this approach to management education (e.g Mintzberg (2004)). Action learning has been a recognized innovation in action research, organization development and management education since major UK initiatives undertaken by Revans in a consortium of London hospitals (1965–66) and the General Electric Company (1975) (Casey and Pearce, 1977; Clark, 1972; Wieland, 1981; Wieland et al., 1971).

Action learning can also be seen as part of a wider growth of interest in ‘action approaches’ to management and organizational research. Building upon Brooks and Watkins’s six ‘action inquiry technologies’ (1994), Raelin (1999) proposes action learning as among ‘the burgeoning action strategies that are now being practised by organization and management development practitioners around the globe’ where ‘knowledge is produced in service of, and in the midst of, action’. He contrasts these with positivist approaches that separate theory from practice (1999: 115, 117).

In the last forty years interest in action learning has waxed and waned without ever becoming mainstream. It has been controversial, especially because of the championing of practitioners over the ideas of experts and teachers. Unsurprisingly, given the dominance of the MBA in UK Business Schools, interest in action learning has been strongest among practitioners, with periodic assertions that it has finally ‘come of age’ (Levy, 2000). However, there has been growing interest from academics for two main reasons: (i) because of the increasing demand for practitioner-oriented postgraduate programmes, and (ii) because of a quest for a more critical business and management education.

Action learning is one of a cluster of ‘context-specific’ teaching and learning methods that have grown in relation to other approaches to management and leadership development (Horne and Steadman Jones, 2001; Mabey and Thomson, 2000). Some surveys of management development practice have suggested that the use of action learning has grown substantially, alongside coaching and mentoring (Horne and Steadman Jones, 2001; Thomson et al., 1997).

In contrast to the great attention given to theories of learning in professional and managerial education, the power of action learning stems from its philosophy of action and emphasis on practice (q.v.) or praxis. Revans’s attempt at a ‘praxeology’, or general theory of human action, sets out to create a unity of action and learning and also to connect the actor with the wider, collective context of action (1971: 33–67). This rests on the three overlapping systems of alpha, beta and gamma, which deal respectively with the external world (third person), with oneself (first person), with other practitioners (second person) (1982: 724). These can also be translated as categories of learning: personal – what has the researcher learned about their own practice?; practitioner – what has been learned about the practice which is useful to other practitioners?; and organizational – what has been learned in the wider system or network of stakeholders in which the researcher and the problem are located (Coghlan and Pedler, 2006: 137)? An adequate theory of action learning must take account of the contextualized and situated nature of human actions and activities. Thus, action learning sets themselves may be viewed as activity systems and members of sets as ‘actors-in-complex-contexts’ (Ashton, 2006: 28).

The current practice of action learning frequently departs from Revans’s foundational principles (Revans, 1998). These principles are both diluted, for example by the use of the term to describe ‘task forces’ which report findings rather than take action on organizational problems (Dixon, 1997), and variously criticized; for throwing the baby (of teaching) out with the bathwater (McLaughlin and Thorpe, 1993); for being too rational and for neglecting the role of emotions and politics in learning (Vince and Martin, 1993) and for needing a component of ‘critical theory’ (q.v.) if action learning ‘is not to be selectively adopted to maintain the status quo’ (Willmott, 1994: 127). It is important to note that these criticisms are made in the context of aspirations for action learning as a promising means for the developing of a more critical management education (Burgoyne and Reynolds, 1997; McLaughlin and Thorpe, 1993; Reynolds, 1999; Rigg and Trehan, 2004; Vince and Martin, 1993; Willmott, 1994, 1997).

Prospects

A leading challenge to current practice comes from critical theorists. Given its protean nature, action learning is easily adapted to serve local agendas, but how can it avoid the trap being ‘selectively adopted to maintain the status quo’ (Willmott, 1994: 127)? Willmott and others call for a more critical action learning which goes beyond ‘ordinary criticality’ to a social and organizational critique. A critical action learning would distinguish between effective practice, reflective practice and critically reflective practice (Burgoyne and Reynolds, 1997: 1) or, as Reynolds and Vince (2004: 453) put it, ‘Do ideas brought into action-based discussions help to question existing practices, structures and associated power relations within the organization?’ This would be especially valuable in management education, currently seen by these writers as very uncritical of the status quo.

Whether this mission can be fulfilled by an action learning which puts its trust in peers and emphasizes the ‘art of the possible’ is an open question. A critical practice of action learning would not only bring Revans’s ‘insightful questions’ (1983/1998: 6) to bear on ‘existing practices, structures and associated power relations’, but would also aim to change them for the better. This is a ‘big ask’, but the fact that such hopes are pinned here can be taken as evidence of the emerging maturity of action learning.

Mike Pedler

---

ACTION RESEARCH

Definition

Action research may be defined as an informed investigation into a real managemen...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgement
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• List of Contributors
• What is Management Research?
• Why a Dictionary?
• The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research
• References
• Index