Understanding Change Through Action Research

Details
Action Research Process diagram with five steps: form relationship, diagnose need, introduce intervention, evaluate and stabilize, disengage consultant.

Traditional change management theory often begins with diagnosing an organization's issues, assuming this step precedes intervention. However, Edgar Schein (1995) challenges this notion by arguing that diagnosing itself is an intervention that alters the organizational dynamics. He elaborates on Kurt Lewin's idea that understanding an organization is intrinsically linked to changing it, stating, "Everything we do with a client system is an intervention… unless we intervene, we will not learn what some of the essential dynamics of the system really are" (Schein, 1995, p. 65). This perspective underscores that diagnosing and changing an organization are intertwined processes.


Fundamental Assumptions of Action Research

Action Research, introduced by Kurt Lewin in 1946, embodies both an action and research orientation using a systems approach:

  • Action Orientation: This involves altering attitudes and behaviors within the organization. The primary aim is to drive change by actively diagnosing problems and then implementing solutions.
  • Research Orientation: Here, the focus is on testing theoretical models in real-world scenarios. This approach involves applying a theoretical framework to see how well it explains and addresses organizational issues, thereby refining theory through practical application.
  • Systems approach: Action Research adopts a systems approach, recognizing that organizations are complex systems with interdependent parts (McShane & Von Glinow, 2005). This method encourages participatory change where organizational members diagnose, intervene, and stabilize new cultural norms. The process includes:
     

    • Gathering and analyzing data.

    • Setting intervention objectives.

    • Implementing change strategies.

    • Evaluating the effectiveness of the change and ensuring its sustainability.


Criticisms of Action Research

David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastava (1987) highlight two main criticisms of Action Research:

  • Negative Focus: Action Research often starts with problem identification, potentially overlooking positive aspects or opportunities within the organization. This has led to the development of Appreciative Inquiry, which focuses on strengths and potentials. However, the dichotomy between focusing solely on problems or opportunities can be overstated; ideally, both should be considered for a comprehensive understanding.
  • Mutual Exclusivity: Critics argue that the practical consulting aspect of Action Research might overshadow the theoretical research component, suggesting these roles are inherently separate. Yet, Lewin did not delineate these functions, allowing for a more integrated approach.

Conclusion

Action Research remains a pivotal methodology in organizational development, bridging the gap between theory and practice. While it faces criticisms regarding its focus and methodology, its foundation in diagnosing and intervening simultaneously offers a nuanced way to understand and facilitate organizational change.

References

Cooperrider, D. L., & Suresh, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. Organizational Change and Development, 1, 129-169.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.

McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2005). Organizational behavior: Emerging realities for the workplace revolution (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Schein, E. H. (1995). Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Reflections, 1(1), 59-74.