building grounded theory in action research through the interplay of subjective ontology and...

http://arj.sagepub.com/Action Research

http://arj.sagepub.com/content/7/1/69The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1476750308099598

2009 7: 69Action ResearchLatha Poonamallee

subjective ontology and objective epistemologyBuilding grounded theory in action research through the interplay of

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Action ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://arj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://arj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://arj.sagepub.com/content/7/1/69.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Feb 24, 2009Version of Record >>

at COLORADO TECH UNIV LIB on August 16, 2013arj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://arj.sagepub.com/

http://arj.sagepub.com/content/7/1/69

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://arj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://arj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://arj.sagepub.com/content/7/1/69.refs.html

http://arj.sagepub.com/content/7/1/69.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Building grounded theory in

action research through the

interplay of subjective ontology

and objective epistemology

Latha PoonamalleeMichigan Technological University, USA

A B S T R A C T

In this article, I contribute to the discourse on building theorywithin the context of action research. Specifically, drawing onadvaita (non-dualism) philosophy from Hinduism, I describe aholistic framework which views life as holistic, that is, comprisingboth subjective and objective views of reality and thus promot-ing interplay between ontological subjectivity and epistemo-logical objectivity. I illustrate with examples, how anchored in aholistic paradigm, I used principles of constant comparison indeveloping the theoretical category of sacredness in its variousdimensions. I also describe two dimensions that characterizedthis process: researcher as insider-outsider and researcher’saffirmations and ambivalences.

Action Research

Volume 7(1): 69–83Copyright© 2009 SAGE PublicationsLos Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DCwww.sagepublications.comDOI: 10.1177/1476750308099598

A R T I C L E

K E Y W O R D S

• action research

• change

• paradigms

• postcolonialism

• theory

69



Introduction

Theory can be a powerful resource for generating insight, understanding, andaction (Kemmis, 2001) by bringing order to complex phenomena (Bradbury &Reason, 2001). However, partly due to action researchers’ preoccupation withdeveloping local theories for practical problem solving, developing transferabletheory is an under-focused area in action research (Eden & Huxham, 1996).Another factor is assumptions about ontology and epistemology. Because if realityis thought to be purely subjective, knowledge created about such reality will haveto be subjective too and cannot be valid; hence, the interest in creating thickdescriptions (Deetz, 1996) with less attention to theory building. For example,there are many reasons why grounded theory (GT) method is a good fit for theorygeneration in action research (Eden & Huxham, 1996). But GT’s requirements ofobjectivity and tabula rasa induction are difficult to reconcile with actionresearchers’ deep engagement with the phenomenon.

In this article, I join a small but growing discourse in social sciences thatdenies the subject-object split (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2001; Benefiel, 2005;Bhaskar, 1978; Ladkin, 2005) by offering an alternate paradigm based on advai-ta (non-dualism), a Hindu philosophy. This philosophy views life as holistic, thatis, comprising both subjective and objective views of reality because both viewsare manifestations of the ultimate reality which is non dualistic. I propose thatanchored in this holistic paradigm, self-reflexivity can overcome the danger ofbecoming self-indulgent and self-referential (Marshall, 2001) and can help makeobjective sense of subjective experience. I describe how grounded in this holisticparadigm, I developed theoretical categories in action research by using the con-stant comparative techniques from grounded theory method (Glaser & Strauss,1967) in combination with rigorous self-reflexivity. My field study of a socialchange movement in India provides the context for this discussion.

Theoretically, my study was an exploratory investigation of organizing forradical social change through collective action that resulted in an emerging theoryof change. As an action researcher, I also wanted to crystallize my learning fromthe process of inquiry itself (Argyris, 1982) and this article is the result: myresearch narrative that is anchored in the community narrative, a story within astory and a theory within a theory. For purposes of this article, I went back to myoriginal data, analysis and personal notes, and analyzed all of them using the con-stant comparative approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1969) and developed theoreticalcategories that characterized my inquiry process. They were researcher’s locationas an insider-outsider, researcher affirmation and ambivalence that resulted ininterplay between ontological subjectivity and epistemological objectivity.

First, I describe the holistic paradigm of advaita philosophy and then, Ioffer a brief synopsis of the study and the community story.

Action Research 7(1)70 •



Holistic paradigm: An advaitic view of the world

In organizational analysis, no other paradigmatic grid has gained the almosthegemonic capacity as that of Burrell and Morgan (Deetz, 1996). One of the axesin this grid is ontology, that is, nature of reality. This pertains to the question ofwhether the ‘reality’ to be investigated is external to the individual or the productof individual consciousness. Burrell and Morgan (1979) term it the subjective–objective divide. According to them, one’s view of the nature of reality informstheir view of the nature of knowledge. The question is whether knowledge ishard, real, and capable of being transmitted in a tangible form or if it is of asofter, more subjective, spiritual or even transcendental kind, based on experienceand insight of unique and essentially personal nature. Moreover, in this frame-work a synthesis is not possible because in their pure forms, they are contradic-tory and mutually exclusive. In this article, I offer an alternative paradigm whichviews life as holistic, that is, comprising both subjective and objective views ofreality. This paradigm is grounded in the advaita (non-dualistic) view of reality.Roots of this philosophy go back millennia to Vedas and Upanishads and I drawon the foundational work done by Dr S. Radhakrishnan – an Indian philosopherand statesman, Swami Vivekananda (1907) – a 19th-century Indian spiritualleader/activist-reformer, and Gandhi whose life itself was an experiment inAdvaita philosophy (Saravanamuthu, 2006). In a sense, all of them were actionresearchers who engaged with both practice and theory of advaita.

Most of the discussion about ontology in social sciences is derived fromWestern philosophical traditions grounded in incommensurable dualities: anapproach to God that separates divinity from the human, humanist philosophythat separates human beings from the rest of the universe, and modern sciencethat separates personal experience from facts or knowledge (Radhakrishnan,1999). But the Advaita philosophy rests on assumptions of non-dualism. In thisframework, objective and existential realities are not metaphysical contraries. Foradvaitic thinkers, both the objective world or empirical being (vyavaharika satta)and illusory or subjective experience (pratibhasika satta) exist. Nature (swabhava)is the object of a subject – the underlying principle of things. We need one tounderstand and experience the other. While realization of ‘nature’ (object) of aphenomenon (subject) is a fact, a theory of reality is an inference. Both the sub-jective and objective realities are valid expressions of the ultimate because,‘sadspadam sarvam sarvatra’ – everything everywhere is based on ultimate realityand all knowledge is a struggle to know the ultimate reality.

To ‘know’ or realize the ultimate is the goal of an advaiti (non-dualist). It isin this knowledge (vidya) lies ananda (bliss) which integrates existence, con-sciousness, and intuition. It lies beyond the scope of what is usually consideredknowledge but paradoxically it is knowledge that can transport one there.Knowledge in this framework is not just limited to texts. It integrates multiple

Poonamallee Building grounded theory in action research • 71



ways of knowing, action, experience, contemplation and sense making. However,rationality or objective thought is an important dimension. Radhakrishnan(1999: 25) writes, ‘to be spiritual is not to reject reason but to go beyond. It is tothink so hard that thinking becomes knowing or viewing.’ Conventional dualisticontology denies a subject the capacity for objective reflection. But advaita episte-mology is based on the belief that a subject can view itself as an object and stillcontinue to be an actor and subject. An advaiti’s quest for knowledge is an efforttoward knowing ultimate reality through a relation between subject and object.This is done through a witnessing of subject and object, thus freeing oneself ofboth purely subjective and objective realities through knowing both.

Research context

Community narrative: A synopsis

This case is located in Alwar district in Rajasthan state, India. Twenty years ago,Rajendra Singh – the founder of Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS), a non-governmentalorganization – triggered an environmental rejuvenation of the area, which in turnled to economic and social rejuvenation. In 1983, he arrived in BheekampuraKishori, a tiny village in the region, driven by an internal call to do something forthe society. During those decades, due to severe drought conditions, distressmigration was rampant in the area and poverty stark. Advised by a local villageelder, Rajendra Singh set out to revive an old water harvesting structure in thevillage. Inspired by this and the success thereof, this movement of ecologicalreclamation spread to over 2000 villages. These villages also formed village com-mittees to manage their natural resources including water, forest and animals.Such large-scale water conservation has also led to the rejuvenation of local riversthen defunct and the community rallied around to form a River Parliament toprotect and manage this newfound resource. This ecological emancipation,brought in through community involvement, ushered in changes because avail-ability of water freed women’s time and they began to get involved in incomegeneration activities and this led to schools being formed and the children of thearea going to school. They have even started a Water University to share theirknowledge and experience with others.

Research topic: A brief background

This study was conducted during the early stages of my doctoral program in adepartment well known for action research engagement in social change acrossthe world. At that stage, I had not yet theoretically positioned my work, but I hada keen interest in social change processes, especially in postcolonial and post-




developmental communities. My initial survey of literature of the discourses ofmodernity, postmodernity and development helped me define my research ques-tions. For instance, even in my early proposal for this study, I wrote:

The relevance of this site also stems from the urgent need to learn from communitiesthat have managed to reverse the ravages of ‘Development’ which has left millionsbehind. Despite the rhetoric, traditional mainstream development has not beensuccessful in providing equal access to all the people and instead has led to thecreation of new islands of poverty. As Sachs (1992) says, ‘at a time when develop-ment has evidently failed as a socioeconomic behavior, it has become of paramountimportance to liberate ourselves from its dominion over our minds’ and to discoverhow a few ‘others’ have fashioned their lives through alternate social realities.Scholars like Appadurai (2000) and Esteva and Prakash (2000) write about newemergent social forms, creating or reinventing fresh intellectual and institutionalframeworks that go beyond the premises and promises of modernity. Studying thesecommunities might give us new ways to understand and change organizations.

My literature review also revealed that my work would add value by bringing inan organizational lens traditionally viewed through developmental or macro-economic perspectives. It would also go a step toward addressing the ethnocen-tric imbalance of our field (Fals-Borda & Mora-Osejo, 2003; Whiteman &Cooper, 2000). I selected this particular case from a shortlist of 30 differentcommunity development efforts and/or leaders because given this region’s highilliteracy, poverty, prevalence of child marriage and distance from the main-stream economy that was fueling the economic engine in the urban areas, theirsustained accomplishment (over 20 years) in ecological, social, and cultural trans-formation was dramatic. Moreover, coming from a water starved communitymyself, this story had personal appeal. Finally, I also believed that I could learnfrom this community about how the ‘powerless’ claim the power to change theirworlds as well as gain control over their commons.

Action research in the holistic paradigm

From the point of view of conventional dualistic ontology, AR appears to be sub-ject to subjectivity owing to its stance on researcher being an actor. In this article,I propose that when anchored in a holistic ontology, in which a subject is believedto have the ability to witness herself and her processes objectively, there is poten-tial for creative interplay between the ontological subjectivity and epistemologi-cal objectivity. The key dimensions that characterize this process are: researcheras an insider-outsider and researcher’s affirmations and ambivalences.




Researcher as insider-outsider

By researcher as insider-outsider, I mean that a researcher simultaneously beingan insider and an outsider in relation to the phenomenon that he or she is engag-ing with. As an insider-outsider, not only can one actively engage in the phe-nomenon, one can also objectively view their own process of engagement. I wasan insider as an actor and subject engaging in the phenomenon and an outsiderobserving the phenomenon and my engagement. My first visit was in the summerof 2001 and I have gone back multiple times for extended periods of time after-wards thus forging personal relationships with many members of the community.I was also demographically an insider-outsider. Having been raised in India, Ishared certain cultural understandings (language, social practice like caste sys-tem) with this community. However, being an urbanite, I had no insight into theeveryday life of this rural, agrarian community. Being an insider and outsidersimultaneously helped me explore this world with its contradictions and allowmy relationship with the community grow over time.

Researcher’s sense-making: Affirmations and ambivalences

Like ethnographers, action researchers need to juxtapose their assumptions andpractices with those of the ‘foreign’ culture (Schulze, 2000). Being an insider-outsider simultaneously allows the researcher to co-hold the subjective and theobjective and the way the researcher can make sense of the data. In her relation-ship with the data and her experience with the system, sometimes her assump-tions might get affirmed while there may be times when her ambivalences arearoused. I found that some of my experience with the community and the datathat I collected affirmed my assumptions while some other experiences and datahighlighted my own ambivalences and paying attention to both was helpful forgenerating insight.

Development of theoretical categories: An example

I describe how I developed the primary theoretical category, ‘the sacred’ and itsvarious dimensions through an objective sense-making process of subjectiveexperience, various types of data, and theory.

Core of the sacred

My background and training in a department that is steeped in the traditions ofAppreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987) made me sensitive toaffirmative assumptions, a fundamental dimension that emerged as a founda-tional block in my sense-making. For example, this was one of the first excerptsthat coded under affirmative assumptions:




When I heard that there was a time when the neighboring village, Brahmanvas, hada market for grains, it occurred to me that if this district was poor for centuries, therewouldn’t have been a market for grains. So, this place must have been prosperous atsome point of time and that is why there was a market for grains here . . . they werebuilt from resources in this region. So I started thinking about that world, whattimes were they, what kind of world was that, what can we learn from those times?

Rajendra Singh, while looking at a poverty stricken community in despair,did not assume that this community had nothing to offer or help themselves. Butinstead, he started off with a positive, affirmative assumption that there is evidencein this in community of past glory and that he needs to uncover their wisdom fromdecades or centuries of dust from colonial influence. When I began to code moretranscripts, I discovered that this affirmative assumption is not restricted to peoplebut extended to all sentient beings, cherishing and worshipping trees, animals,birds and all the elemental forces. Over and over, I heard a note of acceptance, loveand respect for all sentient beings. In my personal journal, I wrote:

I keep seeing the spiritual dimension of these people, the use of we, common forvision for the group, no special requirement for self, love, sustenance economy, butno need to grow and expand one’s wealth and riches beyond water, happiness for all. . . no quest for individual . . . concern for environment, animals around.

Affirmative assumptions are part of my training and makeup, but as anurbanite trained in business and management, so is cost-benefit analysis based onutilitarian rationality. Therefore, even while I saw that with such affirmativeassumptions, there is a willingness to accept and nourish the other with love; awillingness to invest emotions, energies and resources for the welfare of theircommunity, I also saw a defiance of cost–benefit rationality which I found incred-ible. I struggled to make sense of and articulate this component of their socio-ecological relational ethic which values community wellbeing as wealth.

I was also conscious of my own ambivalent relationship with technology. Ibelieved that being choiceful about use of technology helps one lead a moreenvironment-friendly life, but I am also cognizant of the role of technology in mylife. During every visit, it took me a while to adjust to the technological and ma-terial limitations of this community, because I had to relearn to live without themodern conveniences of electricity, running water, and working telephone. Myvisits were at least a few weeks long, so it was not a camping adventure but a seri-ous lifestyle change. I have also wondered if it would be possible for me to chooseit as a permanent lifestyle. I continue to reflect on and explore this ambivalence,which made me examine this community’s assumptions and definitions ofprogress and wealth in contrast to the ones that the modern populations hold. Ishare an excerpt from my personal journal that illustrates my struggle:

Life seems to be difficult to people there, no way of income except through lifestock,and gathering forest produce but they don’t have the right to sell the dung. And also




the question of standard of life. But As Suresh Bhai says these people don’t thinktheir lives are bad, it is me with my urban values, the values of an omnivore impos-ing my values on their lives and finding their ‘below’ standards. So what are thestandards. And whose standards?

Such comparative analysis between the data that I collected and my per-sonal reactions helped me conceptualize that they have a different understandingof wealth. For them wealth is the well-being of the community which everyone Ispoke to enunciated over and over again. Arjun Bhai, one of the locals tells me:

The world thinks that those who consume a lot, those who spend a lot, those whoenjoy a lot, they are the developed ones. You may know that those who share a rela-tionship of love with nature, those who have love in them, those who can nourishthe others with love nurture the environment and community around them. For us,that is wealth.

Mindfulness through submission to the sacred

I admire their sense of deep caring and sense of responsibility towards the entireecosystem and even aspire to share their sense of togetherness that allows them toparticipate in a relational understanding of long-term benefits for all, withoutquestioning about short-term individual share of the benefits. But I also continueto wrestle with this kind of subjugation of ‘self’ to the ‘community’. In this com-munity, collective well-being is predominant, but individual and family prefer-ences are honored through a consensual process of decision-making in theirvillage committees. They respect the right of people to dissent and have agreedthat they will not begin a project till everyone is committed to it. There have beencases of certain villages taking over three to five years to come to a consensus.Moreover, I knew that one’s sense of place is very much tied to one’s caste and Ididn’t want to overlook serious social issues like caste system or women’sinvolvement. I also asked questions about how they managed to overcome aseemingly insurmountable stratification to build an egalitarian system of deci-sion-making. Like every part of rural India, the people in this region also followstrict caste rules. They marry within their own castes and their social status isreflective of their caste. They don’t claim an unrealistic sense of harmony buthave managed to find common ground in issues that matter to all of them.Submitting themselves to a larger cause of their village and its welfare as a whole,they have been able to work with each other without giving up their caste identi-ties, they have learnt to acknowledge their differences and yet work togetheraround them. From this reflection and analysis of data about how they madedecisions in their village committees, I constructed category called ‘mindfulness’.I use the term ‘mindfulness’ because these people live a mindful existence, mind-ful of their role, their community and the ecosystem in which they live.




Sacred vision

Longevity of this initiative fascinated me as an insider to change processes. As oneof the villagers puts it, ‘All this work happened little by little.’ From my previousexperience as a change manager and a change consultant, I knew that most busi-ness organizations have a hard time sticking to their change agenda over time,especially when there is resource constraint. I wanted to know how this movementkept spreading through a distributed community of a couple of thousand villages,even through hard times like drought, government aggressions, large-scale urbanmigration and globalization. I found that these villages operating with very littlematerial resources have an enormous reserve of resilience and patience to waitbecause their vision is rooted in faith, faith that they are doing the right thing, faiththat they are responding to a ‘call’. They sustain their faith through a symbolicmanipulation of their universe, which includes their vision, dreams, emotions andattachments. Rajendra Bhai talks about the ‘vision’ for water.

I did not have the vision for water, the image of it, because I was born in a placewhich had plenty of water. When you live amidst plenty of water, you don’t graspthe real character of water, you don’t have the real vision for it. You don’t grasp thesacred and holy nature of water, last night you heard the people from Haryanasaying that water is sacred, they don’t call the ponds Thalabs, they call them Tirth(place of pilgrimage). When it is seen as holy, its character is different, its science isdifferent, it is not in words. I tried to learn how water becomes holy and sacred,when paani (water) becomes Tirth (place of holy pilgrimage), what is the visionbehind making it so.

Attribution of sacredness to their vision allowed the people to wait in will-ingness while this story of transformation happened over 20 years and continuesto move them because with a sense of the sacred, ‘vision’ becomes a hard earnedgift out of one’s connection with the universe.

Dailiness

This category was a result of my reflection on my engagement with the temporaldimension of the community in combination with a life experience that cameafter I returned from my first data collection trip. During the first few days of mystay, there were moments when I felt frustrated that I was wasting my time whenI was hanging out and not collecting ‘formal’ data. For instance, one of my earlierjournal entries reads, ‘Though the whole day seemed to be wasted, the eveningturned out to be pretty fruitful’. However, my experience with the communityenhanced considerably when I began to operate within their understanding ofhow time works, when I moved from an ambivalence to acceptance of their senseof time. At the same time, as a scholar I was trying to be self-reflexively aware ofthese changes in myself and learn from them. The following excerpt written aftera few weeks of stay with this community illustrates the shift that I had made:




I notice that I have even stopped dating my notes. Dates don’t seem to matter hereanyway. There is a sense of timelessness and one just can pass a whole lifetime herelike this. Sitting outside under the bamboo tree on the wicker chair, reading, writing,listening to the tapes, just day dreaming, the feeling of warm air on my body, beesand beetles buzzing by, watching the bhai clean the floor, listening to the cows andbirds, watching the peacocks glide by, drinking chai out of the matkas, the bell ring-ing from the mandir in the evening. Each of it is so unique and yet so part of thewhole. The air seems to hum with life and boredom at the same time.

This also resembles the shift that Rajendara Singh talked about making inhis own psyche; about how he had to unlearn a lot of stuff and learned to be partof the community. Moreover, during data analysis stage, my baby boy was bornand I was wrapped up in the caretaking activities. As a first time mother, I wasastounded by the amount of time I was spending on changing diapers, nursing mybaby, putting him to sleep – activities that I would have perhaps thought waste-ful before I became a mother but now I felt that these activities were not onlyimportant but sacred because they were centered around taking care of a new lifeand building a nurturing emotional and physical relationship with my son. Mypersonal, subjective experience helped me objectively understand my data onvision and long-term intergenerational commitment.

My everyday life during this period helped me live, appreciate and under-stand the category of ‘Dailiness’ I borrowed from Judy Long (1999). She uses thisterm to describe the never ending nature of women’s lives revolving around every-day activities. I could see its relevance not just to a woman’s life but to the livesof all human beings, because most of our lives are full of everyday routineactivities towards a larger end.

Discussion

The reification of the mutual paradigmatic incommensurability between subjec-tive and objective ontological and epistemological positions has been particularlyproblematic for action researchers because an assumption of subjective ontologyhas meant that the validity of their theoretical claims is suspect. Action researchers(Baldwin, 2001; Bradbury & Reason, 2001; Ladkin, 2005) explicit in theirconcern with theorizing in action research have examined ways of balancingsubjectivity and objectivity. Others have also argued for alternative paradigmaticconceptions like spiritually informed management theory (Steingard, 2005) or atranscendent epistemology of organization (Gustavsson, 2001) or Lonergan’sstructures of knowing (Benefiel, 2005). My work joins this stream of conversa-tion and adds value by articulating a holistic paradigmatic framework based onadvaita (non-dualism) philosophy and demonstrating its use in theory generationwith an example. To position this emerging discourse in existing paradigmaticunderstanding, I have developed a simple 2 x 2 matrix (Figure 1).




One axis of this matrix is ontology – subjective and objective. The secondaxis is the epistemology – subjective and objective. In this framework, there is noassumption of mutual incommensurability between ontological and epistemolog-ical paradigms. The objectivist cell is the home of research shaped by assumptionsof sociological positivism. This cell would then include radical structuralists andthe functionalists from the Burrell and Morgan matrix regardless of their interestin sociology of change or regulation. The subjectivists shaped by German ideal-ism and all research that is focused solely on consciousness falls in this cell andmay include strands of interpretive research, radical humanism, and social con-structionist approach. The third alternative, objective ontology and subjectiveepistemology is critical realism proposed by Bhaskar (1970). According to thisschool of thought, an entity is real if it can cause an effect. An entity may existindependent of our knowledge (objective reality) but our access to it is conceptu-ally mediated (subjective epistemology).

While critical realism broadens scientific thinking grounded in positivisticassumptions of objectivity by bringing in the idea of subjective mediation, andthus skepticism, it does not really advance new grounds for those bound by sub-jectivist assumptions. But, the fourth cell, that is, ontological subjectivity andepistemological objectivity reflects an emerging discourse. Scholars advocatingattention on human consciousness (Steingard, 2005), use of subject as an instru-ment to produce transcendent or transformative knowledge (Gustavsson, 2001)and objectivity as the fruit of authentic subjectivity (Benefiel, 2005), are examplesof this type of integration. Recent cognition and consciousness researchersadvance similar arguments. For example, Grush (2000) writes that a first-personperspective allows a system to conceive of itself as part of an independent, objec-tive order, while at the same time being anchored in it and act as a subject. I


SubjectivistsGermanIdealists

Critical Realists

ObjectiveSubjective

Ontology

Figure 1 Paradigmatic discourses

This studyEpis

tem

olo

gy

Subjective

Objective ObjectivistsSociologicalPositivists



believe that this can be a useful model for an action researcher who wishes todevelop valid theory using any other form of qualitative inquiry.

I believe that action research is particularly well positioned to developtheory using the holistic paradigm, because action research already has a well-developed rigorous understanding of first-person research (Marshall, 2001;Torbert, 2001), which can keep the researcher authentic (Benefiel, 2005) and actas an effective analytical device. As Reason and Bradbury (2001) point out,attempts at third-person research, which are not based in rigorous first-personinquiry into one’s purposes and practices, are open to distortion through unregu-lated bias. Adler (personal communication, 2004) says that good scholarshiphappens in a reflexive distance, when the scholar reflects on action from a dis-tance but not from outside of it. However, Marshall’s (2001) comment, ‘How towork with it generatively, rather than being self absorbed or self indulgent, is akey challenge of self reflective practice’ is a very valid one, given the danger ofself-referential spin that self-reflexivity could take.

Through the holistic paradigmatic framework, I have offered the conceptsof researcher as insider-outsider and the researcher’s process of exploring affirma-tions and ambivalences as methodological devices to develop the interplaybetween subjective ontology and objective epistemology. Based on research ineducational settings as consultant-researchers, Bartunek and Louis (1996) devel-oped the concept of ‘insider-outsider’ action research. Grounded in the construc-tivist paradigm, they advocate a team of insiders and outsiders work togethertempering each other’s reality and perceptions and constructing a mutually advan-tageous action and theory agenda, in a way, ‘triangulation’ constructivist fashion.While seemingly similar, based on the advaia philosophy, in the concept ofresearcher as insider-outsider proposed by me, a researcher is simultaneously aninsider and an outsider. Advaita philosophy also offers a way to do this; it advo-cates an active, intense engagement without attachment. Bhagavad Gita, one ofthe key Hindu scriptures, calls this state ‘detached attachment’. In this state, onesees the universe and creation as God’s ‘Lila’ or Play and yet engages with it. Mayais the term used by Hindus to denote this illusion. The closest I could come todescribing this concept for my own understanding was through an analogy of asimulated ride in an amusement center. Until we enter in and buckle the seat belts,we are fully aware that it is just a simulated ride and none of it is real but once weare in it, we continue to be aware that it is still a simulation but that doesn’t makethe ride and its effects any less real. One may refuse to play with it, or play with itbelieving that the play is the only reality and without being aware of the truth thatit is just a game, or play with it intensely but with complete awareness of the unrealnature of it of all. I believe that it is the third approach that is ideal for interplaybetween ontological subjectivity and epistemological objectivity.

Finally, considering that not many action researchers write about how theybuild theory (Dick, 2004), this article also contributes by transparently and




explicitly laying out how a particular theoretical category was developed using ajuxtaposition of constant comparative technique with self-reflexivity rooted in aholistic paradigm. Eden and Huxham (1996) write that focus on the individualpractitioner is an important area for action researchers who wish to developeffective professional practice. This kind of first-person research based theory is aparticular strength of action research. I hope this article will be a contribution tothe enhancement of the community of action researchers.

Conclusion

In this article, I describe a holistic paradigm based on the advaita (non-dualism)philosophy. I compare this with the conventional dualistic ontology and criticalrealism and argue that this paradigm is appropriate for developing theory inaction research because it facilitates interplay between ontological subjectivityand epistemological objectivity. I have suggested two devices to do this: researcheras insider-outsider and researcher’s affirmations and ambivalences. I have pro-vided examples of the use of this framework and the devices from my actionresearch study.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the community that has been profiled in this study, for theirwarmth, hospitality and generosity. I also wish to thank Hilary Bradbury for pointingme to this special issue. My thanks also go to the three editors of this special issue,Gerald Midgley, the two anonymous reviewers, Victor Friedman, Tim Rogers fortheir invaluable feedback. I particularly want to thank Bob Dick for shepherding thisarticle to maturity.

References

Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (2001). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for quali-tative research. London: SAGE.

Appadurai, A. (2000). Grassroots globalization and the research imagination. PublicCulture, 12(1), 1–19.

Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baldwin, M. (2001). Working together, learning together: Co-operative inquiry in thedevelopment of complex practice by teams of social workers. In P. Reason & H.Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and prac-tice (pp. 287–293). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Bartunek, J., & Louis, M. R. (2001). Insider/outsider team research. Thousand Oaks,CA: SAGE.




Benefiel, M. (2005). The second half of the journey: Spiritual leadership for organiza-tional transformation. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 723–747.

Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science. Hassocks: Harvester Press.Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2001). Conclusion: Broadening the bandwidth of valid-

ity: Issues and choicepoints for improving the quality of action research. In P.Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participativeinquiry and practice (pp. 447–456). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analy-sis. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life.Research in Organizational Change & Development, 1, 129–169.

Deetz, S. (1996). Describing differences in approaches to organization science:Rethinking Burrell & Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7(2),191–207.

Dick, B. (2004). Action research literature, themes & trends. Action Research, 2(4),425–444.

Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for management research. BritishJournal of Management, 7, 75–86.

Esteva, G., & Madhu, S. P. (2000). Grassroots post modernism – Remaking the soilof cultures. London: Zed Books.

Fals-Borda, O., & Mora-Osejo, L. E. (2003). Context and diffusion of knowledge: Acritique of Eurocentricism. Action Research, 1(1), 29–37.

Glaser, B. G., & Struass, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategiesfor qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Grush, R. (2000). Self, world and spaces: The meanings and mechanisms of ego andallocentric representation. Brain and the Mind, I, 59–62.

Gustavsson, B. (2001). Toward a transcendent epistemology of organizations: Newfoundations for organizational change. Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, 14(4), 352–378.

Kemmis, S. (2001). Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research:Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jurgen Habermas. In P.Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.) Handbook of Action Research: Participativeinquiry and practice. (pp. 91–102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ladkin, D. (2005). The enigma of subjectivity: How might phenomenology helpaction researchers negotiate the relationship between ‘self’, ‘other’ and ‘truth’?Action Research, 3(1), 108–126.

Long, J. (1999). A feminist approach to telling women’s lives. New York: New YorkUniversity Press.

Marshall, J. (2001). Self reflexive inquiry practices. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury(Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice(pp. 433–439). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Radhakrishnan, S. (1999). Indian philosophy, Volumes 1 & 2. New Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press.

Saravanamuthu, K. (2006). Emancipatory accounting and sustainable development: AGandhian-Vedic theorization of experimenting with truth. SustainableDevelopment, 14(4), 234–244.

Sachs, W. (Ed.) (1992). The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power.London: Zed Books.

Schulze, U. (2000). A confessional account of an ethnography about knowledge work.MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 3–41.




Steingard, D. S. (2005). Spiritually-informed management theory – Toward profoundpossibilities for inquiry and transformation. Journal of Management Inquiry,14(3), 227–241.

Swami Vivekananda (1907). Complete works of Swami Vivekananda. Retrievedfrom: www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/complete_works.htm.

Torbert, W. R. (2001). The practice of action inquiry. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury(Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 250–260). Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE.

Whiteman, G., & Cooper, W. H. (2000). Ecological embeddedness. Academy ofManagement Journal, 43(6), 1265–1282.

Latha Poonamallee is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior in theSchool of Business & Economics at Michigan Technological University. She receivedher PhD in Organizational Behavior from Case Western Reserve University. Herresearch interests are radical change, sustainable communities and globalization,inter-organizational partnerships, and qualitative research methods. Address: Schoolof Business & Economics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931,USA. [Email: [email protected]]




building grounded theory in action research through the interplay of subjective ontology and...

Documents