Action and Case Research in Management and Organizational

Contexts

Learning Objectives

• To identify and highlight the differences between, 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person inquiry;

• To identify ways of evidencing 2nd person inquiry;• To identify ways in which 2nd person inquiry may

be useful in the DBA .

First, second and third person inquiry

• First-person inquiry - It is about inquiry (and action), for me.• Second-person inquiry - It is about collaborative

inquiry/conversation, rather than competitive. It is inquiry (and action), for us.

• Third-person inquiry - It is about inquiry (and action), for them.

• Associated with Collaborative Inquiry form of AR.

Bradbury and Reason, (2001: pp . 251 - 256).

First, second and third person inquiry

They are mutually supportive:• Second-person research/practice presupposes work to co-

generate first-person research/practice ;• Successful third-person research/practice is an action inquiry

leadership practice that presupposes first- and second- person action research/practice capacity on the part of leadership.

Bradbury and Reason, (2001: p.256).

Second-person inquiry• Second person inquiry depends on

conversation,

• “Speaking-and-listening-with-others is the quintessential second-person research/practice”.

Bradbury and Reason, (2001: p.253).

Second person inquiry conversation comes in four forms:

•  Framing - declaring or amending a possible shared sense of vision/intent for the occasion as a whole or for some fractal of the larger occasion;

• Advocating - setting a goal, recommending a strategy, or making some other abstract claim (e.g. you’re beautiful);

• Illustrating - offering a concrete, a visual picture/story based on observed performance;

and/or• Inquiring - inviting any contribution or feedback from others about their

response to one's speaking and associated conduct.

Fisher, D. and Torbert, W.R., (1995). Personal and Organizational Transformation: the True Challenge of Continual Quality Improvement. London: McGraw Hill.

Second-person inquiryDoes it pass the test of giving beneficial results (as for all three forms of inquiry 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person):• Relationships;• Practical outcomes;• Extended ways of knowing;• Purpose;• Enduring consequences.

Bradbury and Reason (b) in Bradbury and Reason (EDs)., (2001: p 449).

Second-person inquiry – quality checklist

Did it?• Maximise participation of all those involved?• Did the participants learn something useful?• Did participation increase ways of knowing, perspectives?• Did the research produce new knowledge/theory?• Was the method appropriate?• Was the work significant to the participants?• Were the participants harmed?

Based on Bradbury and Reason (b) in Bradbury and Reason (EDs)., (2001: pp 451-452).

Second-person inquiry – ethical and professional considerations

• Was the fieldwork described accurately;• Were the participants treated equally and honestly;• Were the conclusions drawn merited by the data;• Has triangulation taken place;• Were any theoretical claims fully justified by the

data and were alternatives considered.

Relevance of 2nd person inquiry to DBA

• Inquiry on behalf of us;• Interventionist on behalf of us;• Practical results as well as academic research;• Well established method in the business world.

References

Bradbury and Reason (a), (2001). Introduction, in Bradbury and Reason, (EDs)., (2001), “Handbook of Action Research”. London: Sage.Bradbury and Reason (b), (2001). Issues for the improving of action research, in Bradbury and Reason, (EDs), (2001), “Handbook of Action Research”. London: Sage.Torbert, W, (2001). The practice of action inquiry, in Bradbury and Reason, (EDs)., (2001), “Handbook of Action Research”. London: Sage.Fisher, D. and Torbert, W.R., (1995). “Personal and Organizational Transformation: the True Challenge of Continual Quality Improvement”. London: McGraw Hill.