Action Research in Inter-organisational Networks –

Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

René Chester Goduscheit1,

Carsten Bergenholtz2,

Jacob Høj Jørgensen1,

Erik S. Rasmussen3

1 Center for Industrial Production, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

2 Center for Organizational Renewal and Evolution, Department of Management, Aarhus School

of Business, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

3 Department of Marketing and Management, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Corresponding author:

René Chester Goduscheit Center for Industrial Production

Aalborg University Denmark

Fibigerstræde 16 DK-9220 Aalborg

Ph. +45 2635 0699 E-mail: chester@production.aau.dk

Abstract: This article addresses the distinct ethical challenges of action research in inter-organisational projects. Traditionally, the literature on action research has distinguished between two researcher roles: The problem-solver and the observer. Based on an action research project in a Danish inter-organisational network, a third role as legitimiser is identified as an ethical challenge. Potentially, the legitimacy that the researchers carry as academic knowledge-generating actors may be used by a particular company to involve other companies in the network. Thus, the researchers may be perceived as bringing into the other organisations a Trojan Horse containing the interests of this particular company. Lack of clarity in defining the role of the action researcher may thus jeopardise the trustworthiness of the researchers and the action research project. On the basis of the case study analysis, the article develops a number of preliminary points of ethical consideration for future research analysis. Keywords: Action research, Ethics, Inter-organisational networks, Researcher roles.

1

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

1. Introduction

Action research (AR) consists of a dual approach: It both helps the research subject with

his predicament and gives the researcher access to valuable information (Eden &

Huxham 1996; Reason & Bradbury 2008). In other words, AR aims at both taking action

and creating knowledge or theories about that action (Coughlan & Coghlan 2002).

In his seminal article, Rapoport (1970) stated that:

‘Action research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework’, p.499

The double nature of AR poses significant challenges to the researcher: The distinction

between 1) the observer (knowledge-gathering role) and 2) the problem-solver is

delicate and, to a certain extent, arbitrary. How the researcher should address this issue

has been thoroughly discussed in the literature on AR (Chisholm & Elden 1993; Grant,

Nelson & Mitchell 2008). These discussions have dealt with the two-way relation

between the organisation and the researcher. This paper addresses inter-organisational

research, beginning at the time when the network group had not yet been formed. To

remedy the said inter-organisational problem, a third potential role for the researcher is

identified, namely as legitimiser. This third role is related to the ethical aspect highlighted

in Rapoport’s quote on ‘a mutually acceptable ethical framework’.

In the case study of an inter-organisational network presented in this paper, the two

classical roles of action-research are obvious. The researchers are working both as

observers and as problem-solvers and they have to handle the delicate balance between

these two roles.

2

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

The aim of this paper is to address the ethical challenges of carrying out action research

in an inter-organisational network, in which one of the participating companies has co-

funded the researcher. The researchers should be aware that the fact that they are

funded by a profit-seeking company poses some substantial ethical challenges to their

relation to the funding organisation as well as to their relations to the rest of the

participating organisations. If the researchers do not manage these relations in an

expedient manner, they run the risk of being regarded as bringing a Trojan Horse,

containing the interests of the funding organisation, into the rest of the participating

organisations. The trustworthiness and legitimacy of the researcher may be used by the

funding organisation to establish contact to relevant network participants, which might

not have been interested if the funding organisation had contacted them directly. The

paper will discuss how to avoid this situation and how the researchers may retain

credibility in this sort of research setting. A clear statement about the roles that the

researchers occupy in the network development is a central aspect of handling these

challenges. The preliminary considerations forwarded here will be tested in future case

studies.

3

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

2. Literature Review

The literature review will initially deal with AR in general so as to position AR as a

scientific approach. In this connection, the two traditional roles in AR (the observer and

the problem-solver) and how these different researcher roles are handled will be

described. Finally, the third researcher role (as legitimiser) will be discussed. The

literature review will focus upon the ethical challenges involved in managing the three

AR roles, in particular the challenges that arise when doing AR in an inter-organisational

setting.

AR is a generic term that covers numerous different action-based research approaches.

Coughlan & Coghlan (2002; 2006) have provided an excellent account of the AR

method. As a common denominator for these various definitions of AR, Coughlan &

Coghlan describe AR projects as involving two sub-projects; the core project, which

refers to the actual project of change involving action, and the research project, which

seeks to generate knowledge from the action project. This dual approach to science

contains a normative perspective on social inquiry condensed in Lewin’s statement,

‘Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice’ (Lewin 1948: 203).

Like any scientific method, AR involves an array of methodological issues: validity,

generating theory, methods applied, designing an AR setting, implementing an AR

project, the different roles involved, and AR vs. consulting (Aguinis 1993; Chisholm &

Elden 1993; Coughlan & Coghlan 2002; Cronholm & Goldkuhl 2002; Eden & Huxham

1996; McCutcheon & Jung 1990; Susman & Evered 1978).

4

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

According to the literature, the two main methodological issues seem to be a) questions

of validity, and b) the methodological issues concerning the distinction between action

and research. The issue of validity has been thoroughly treated in the literature. Aguinis,

Eden & Huxham and Susman & Evered discuss how the AR method relates to a more

general conception of ‘scientific method’. In this context, the term ‘scientific method’

refers to the practice of providing a hypothesis about the relation between variables. This

hypothesis must be empirically falsifiable (Popper 1934). The intention is to be able to

describe, explain and predict reality.

Aguinis (1993) refers to Lewin, the founding father of AR, who argues that AR is by no

means inferior in quality to ‘pure science’ (Lewin 1946). The aim is to be able to expand

current science. Eden & Huxham (1996) also express the same complementary

perspective, but argue that AR provides results that are different from the ’scientific

method’. Basically, the results can be more subtle and contain more particular truths.

Whether AR can live up to the standards of ‘scientific method’ and can be empirically

tested is discussed in the literature. The intention of the present discussion is not to

arrive at any conclusion on this point, but simply to acknowledge the existence of a

number of disagreements among the contributors in the field.

2.1 Action and Research – the Researcher’s Two Roles

Numerous studies discuss the characteristics and challenges of the two central roles that

the researcher can have: 1) Observer and 2) Problem-solver (Chisholm & Elden 1993;

Levin 1993; Eikeland 2006; Coghlan & Shani 2008; Sæther 2007).

5

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

It seems obvious that the distinction between observer and problem-solver activities is

ambiguous. Pettigrew (2003) addresses this role ambiguity by stating that the action

researcher has to operate and behave discreetly so as to avoid confusion of roles and

loyalties. Being involved both as researcher and employee of one of the participating

organisations in the project, Pettigrew found it challenging to maintain impartiality in his

function as an action researcher.

In continuation of the considerations on role ambiguity and impartiality, the action

researcher has to maintain his credibility in relation to the persons and organisations

involved in the AR project. In addressing this issue, Rapoport (1970) emphasises that a

common value set and a detailed clarification of the dual expectations of the researchers

and the sponsor of the project are crucial.

An issue related to the dubious distinction between observer and problem-solver is the

question of ownership. Cronholm & Goldkuhl (2002) explain that there are many different

types of ownership, depending on whether one is referring to the project, the process,

the initiative, the question of control, funding, and so forth. Avison, Baskerville & Myers

(2001) deal with the same perspective when they call attention to the questions of

control and ownership in an intra-organisational setting, i.e. the two-way issue between

the funding organisation and the researcher. As the following section will illustrate, the

case study exemplifies the inter-organisational version of this issue.

The issues mentioned above point to the number of ethical challenges that are prevalent

in AR. The overall relation between researchers and ‘subjects’ is substantially different

(Eikeland 2006), and issues about confidentiality, use of information, anonymity, and

6

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

protection of research subjects must therefore be handled differently than in traditional

research (Coghlan & Shani 2005; DeTardo-Bora 2004; Gaventa & Cornwall 2008;

Walker & Haslett 2002; Williamson & Prosser 2002). Furthermore, the action

researchers must balance their focus on generating valid scientific knowledge on the

one hand and, on the other, providing a problem-solving service to organizations

(Coghlan & Shani 2005; Morton 1999). Related to this issue is the reciprocal relation

between benefiting from the research and causing potential harm to the involved

(Coghlan & Shani 2005; Khanlou & Peter 2004).

Since AR is an emergent and cyclical process, rigid ethical principles will not be

adequate (Walker and Haslett 2002). According to DeTardo-Bora (2004), review boards

need to appreciate this fundamental aspect of AR. Finally, due to the participatory and

emergent nature of AR, potential political and ethical conflicts are dominant issues,

particularly in relation to the different roles of the researcher (Pettigrew 2003; Sæther

2007).

The present paper addresses both the ethical challenges of handling the two roles

described above and the distinct ethical challenge of doing AR in an inter-organisational

setting in which one of the participating organisations has funded the researchers. The

other participants might possibly perceive the researchers as bringing a Trojan Horse

into their organisation.

2.2 Action and Research in Inter-organisational Networks: The Third Role

In order to explore the potential ethical challenge, the third role, as legitimiser, needs to

be elaborated. As this section will demonstrate, the ethical challenge depends on the

inter-organisational setting in which the action researcher is working.

7

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

The applicability of an AR approach to inter-organisational network development is

substantial for both industry and research (Chisholm 1998; Middel et al. 2006). Creating

commitment to the visions of a network and making participants share information about

their business is a primary target in an inter-organisational collaboration (Coghlan &

Coughlan 2005; Coughlan et al. 2003). And the action researcher has a crucial task in

promoting the creation of this commitment and information-sharing. Chisholm & Elden

(1993) describe how in their case the researcher’s role was not only to generate

empirical data for research and solve problems that arose once the network was

established. The researcher was also involved in legitimising the formation of the

network and the project, thus bringing the different parties together.

In Chisholm & Elden’s case (1993), the legitimisation role seemed unproblematic, since

all involved partners where equal in that none of the participating companies initiated or

funded the network. All the partners might not have been equally interested in the

development of the network, but the researchers were not partial to one of the

participating organisations due to project funding. The aim of the present paper is

different from Chisholm and Elden’s article in dealing with inter-organisational co-

operations where a funding organisation could potentially benefit the most from the

gathering of a network: The funding organisation may use the creation of the network to

realise its business plan.

A number of inter-organisational AR projects have been carried out within the public

sector (Engelstad & Gustavsen 1993; Huxham & Vangen 2000; Levin 1993). The

legitimising role of the action researcher and the partiality towards one of the

8

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

participating organisations are not necessarily trivial factors in a public sector network,

but the issues in the private sector are of a different nature. Issues like intellectual

property rights, market competition and profit generation tend to be more prevalent in the

private sector. The action researcher in an inter-organisational network in the private

sector has to face different challenges than action researchers in public sector

collaboration.

Trust is an essential part of all kinds of inter-organisational networks (Child, Faulkner &

Tallman 2005: 50-52; Huemer 2004). Whether a partner is regarded as trustworthy

depends upon general reputation, but more important, on past performance in similar

settings (Thorelli 1986). As participants in the networks, researchers are subject to the

same requirements of trustworthiness and ability to build relationships (Grant, Nelson &

Mitchell 2008). Handling this issue involves the delicate balance of ensuring the network

initiation and development on the one side, and complying with academic ethical

standards on the other. An overt agenda concerning the close contact between the

researcher and the funding organisation could enhance the scepticism of the other

participating organisations, while a more covert relationship could potentially enhance

the network development. As Pettigrew (2003) explains this dilemma:

‘The action researcher has to built trust with partners operating in different styles of organization and at different levels, yet playing the partnership game and building multilateral trust paradoxically cannot always be achieved by openness, honesty and transparency’, p.384

If a researcher or a group of researchers, however, have been covertly promoting the

interests of one organisation (cf. the Trojan Horse metaphor) and this impression takes

root among the companies, it will influence the mutual trust among the participating

organisations in future networks. The ability of the researchers to be legitimate door-

9

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

openers may be jeopardised if the researchers do not handle their role in an expedient

manner.

With regard to role ambiguity and openness about the relationship between the

researchers and the funding organisation, Pettigrew proposes that network progress

may be enhanced by handling the role covertly (while jeopardising the trustworthiness of

the researchers). This proposition differs from that of Coghlan & Shani (2005) which

states that the greater the role clarity among the different actors involved in the AR

process, the more willing will participants be to participate in the process. This

discrepancy in propositions can probably be explained from the researchers’ different

perspectives on clarification. Role clarity, in the actual networking process, will most

likely enhance network progress (e.g.: ‘At this network meeting, the researchers will

serve as process consultants and initiate various games in order to generate potential

solutions to the challenges of the network’). Conversely, if the researcher involved in

initiating the network acts as the right hand of the funding organisation, this might be

suspect in the eyes of the other participants, making it tempting for the researcher and

the funding organisation to conceal the connection. By concealing this relationship, and

thus bringing the funding organisation into collaboration with organisations with which it

would otherwise not be able to cooperate, the action researcher can be seen as bringing

a Trojan Horse into the other network partners.

The literature review illustrates that previous studies have addressed ethical challenges

in AR, AR in inter-organisational settings and, to some extent, action researcher

involvement as a way of legitimising an inter-organisational network. However, there

seems to be a gap in the literature when it comes to the distinct ethical challenges of

10

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

researchers being funded by a company that might benefit from initiating an inter-

organisational network.

11

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

3. Case Description and Methodology

The paper will be based on a case study of a Danish inter-organisational network within

the energy sector. The network analysed is part of a comprehensive project consisting of

six networks. This comprehensive project is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 here

The overall project was initiated by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation

and was aimed at developing new business models in inter-organisational networks. As

illustrated in Figure 1, the participating universities are cooperating with a number of

focal organisations, which have all initiated a network.

3.1 Case Description

The energy sector network is one of the six networks of the overall project. The focal

company has co-funded the project and will henceforth be described as the funding

organisation.

The funding organisation is a profit-seeking company and one of the major IT solution

providers for the utility sector in Denmark. It provides ERP systems to a number of the

utility providers, and an essential part of these ERP systems is the processing of data

from private household meters.

A new business idea was conceived in 2004 by the area director of the funding

organisation’s energy division. His idea was triggered by the fact that automatic metering

solutions were being implemented in the majority of private Danish households. The

12

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

implementation of automatic metering has positive effects for both the energy consumers

(they no longer have to read and report their meters) and for the companies in the

energy sector (the automatic metering produces valid information about energy

consumption accessible to the companies). The area director envisaged that the access

to the consumer data through the automatic meters might be an important way of

expanding activities on the consumer market.

It soon became clear to the area director that his idea could not be realised without

active participation from other companies in the development of the relevant services.

This led the area director to formulate some ideas about establishing a network in an

effort to launch new automatic metering services into the consumer market. At a

business development seminar held by the funding organisation in the summer of 2005,

a researcher (RX) from one of the participating universities presented a portion of his

research. He introduced the area director of the energy division to the network project

(see figure 1), and the director was keen on initiating one of the networks of the overall

project.

In addition to the participation in and funding of the network project, there was

agreement that a PhD researcher should follow the project. The PhD position was partly

financed by the funding organisation. The funding of the network project was settled

from the beginning. Thus, payment of the researchers did not depend on how many

partners might be rallied for the project.

The area director of the funding organisation and the project leader (the latter had been

appointed to handle the day-to-day management of the network) met with two

13

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

researchers in December 2005. The funding organisation presented their visions to the

researchers. The focal point of discussion at this meeting was how to develop the project

from idea to feasible study (e.g. which partners to invite and how to involve them in the

project).

In addition to the description of the academic value of the project, the researchers

defined their roles in three points:

• participation in network meetings

• helping to identify partner organisations and build up the network

• provision of input and feedback to the management of the funding organisation in

developing the plan of action for the network.

The three points were discussed on an overall level, and the funding organisation

accepted the researcher role definition.

The double purpose of the project (both to support the network development and to

generate insight of academic value) is much in line with an AR project. As in other AR

projects, the researchers were expected to provide input on what the managers of the

funding organisation should do and how they should do it (Coghlan, Coughlan &

Brennan 2004).

In order to initiate and involve relevant partners, the funding organisation and the

researchers contacted potential participants by post in December 2005. This initial

contact letter was written and signed by RX. The funding organisation is mentioned once

in the letter and merely as a catalyst for the network.

14

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

As a follow-up on the letters, the researcher and the project leader of the funding

organisation visited the potential partners in January and February 2006. At the

meetings, the researcher presented an introduction to the overall project and the

academic interest of the network project. The presentation was based on a general slide

show about the university consisting of about 50 slides. The majority of the slides were

not presented. This was due to ’lack of relevance for this particular purpose,’ as RX

stated during the presentation. Afterwards, the project leader of the funding organisation

took charge and discussed potential involvement in the network.

The organisations that expressed their interest in joining the inter-organisational network

were invited to the first network meeting in March 2006. Three researchers took part in

the meeting. RX was chairman of the meeting, and he was actively involved as

moderator of the intense discussions on how to innovate in a network setting. After the

discussions, all partners agreed to meet again within a few months in order to become

more specific about what services to provide and define the potential customers of these

services.

The next meeting in the network was in August 2006. Contrary to the recommendations

of RX, the funding organisation chose to engage an external organiser to host the

meeting. Three researchers took part in these meetings on equal terms with the network

organisations: They were involved in the lively idea-generating sessions and the general

debate about the services.

15

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

The network partners met in September 2006 and February 2007. These meetings were

aimed towards being more specific about services and customer segments. The

researchers were not consulted before these meetings. Only the PhD researcher was

informed about the meetings and participated merely as an observer.

3.2 Methodology

The data, on which the present paper is based, is partly meeting observations and

meeting minutes, partly in-depth interviews with the organisations involved in the

process.

As described above, the researchers participated in all four network meetings. The

duration of the network meetings was between four and eight hours. Two of the network

meetings were documented on audio recorder and transcribed. The researchers made

extensive field notes throughout the network meetings. Due to the fact that the funding

organisation did not feel comfortable about having the other two network meetings audio

recorded, these two meetings were merely documented through field notes. In addition,

one of the researchers took part in the pre-meetings with potential partners.

Observations from the pre-meetings were documented in field notes.

The researchers have carried out thirteen interviews with persons from eleven of the

participating organisations. The interviews have been set up as explorative interviews

covering a variety of aspects of the network process, out of which the role of the

researchers in the network was one. The duration of the interviews was between 50

minutes and one hour and 55 minutes. The interviews were recorded and transcribed.

16

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

The researchers have employed various types of data analysis. They have carried out

an ‘external’ analysis of the generated data. Through triangulation (Denzin 1978) of field

notes and other sources of data, they have, furthermore, sought to establish a common

understanding of the development. In addition to the external data analysis, the

researchers have presented the perception of the development to the funding

organisation and some of the other network participants. This external-internal exchange

of perceptions has generated new knowledge about the network development and has

been used as valuable input to the case study analysis.

17

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

4. Discussion

The literature review identified a gap in existing literature in understanding the ethical

challenges that are immanent in inter-organisational AR projects. In order to discuss

these challenges in relation to the presented case, the analysis aims both at the two-way

relation between the funding organisation and the researcher, and at the perception of

the role of the researchers by the other participating organisations in the network. The

analysis will address the researcher’s ability to tread the fine line between taking action,

solving problems, and legitimising the network formation on one side, and maintaining

credibility as a researcher on the other.

The following discussion is divided into three sections. The first will address the

researchers’ own understanding of the development of their role in the project. The

second will discuss the questions of the relation to the funding organisation

representatives and their perception of the researcher role. The third will examine the

participating organisation’s perception of the researcher role.

4.1 The Researchers’ Perception of Their Role in the Project

From the case description in the previous section we may define the development in the

researcher role. Table 1 illustrates the development over the full duration of the project.

The figure depicts the researchers’ own interpretation of their roles at the different

meetings.

Table 1 here

18

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

As it becomes clear, the researcher role at the beginning of the project is quite different

from that of the later stages. In the beginning, the researchers are the point of reference

for the funding organisation and the participating organisations. During the project

period, however, their importance diminishes, and at the meeting in February 2007, only

one researcher was notified of the meeting, and his role was strictly defined as observer.

4.2 Relation to the Funding Organisation

The interview with the project leader from the funding organisation showed that he saw

the universities as a door-opener in relation to the other organisations:

‘The fact that we are in it together with the university opens up doors – maybe faster and more easily. If it is straight business to business, you easily become very formalised and have to have deals and contracts sorted out […] It was easier [for the researchers] to open up the doors than it would have been for us. I think that is a plus’.

(Project leader from the funding organisation, 21 February 2007, translated from Danish to English)

The project leader did not perceive the role of the researchers as drivers of the process.

According to him, the universities were involved for two reasons: to facilitate the initial

contact among the organisations and to observe the network process and progress. In

his opinion, the role of the universities in the project was restricted to that of observers

after the initial introduction at the pre-meetings with potential partners. Thus, he

disregards the two latter points in the role of the researchers described in section 3.

Once the researchers managed to get the network partners into the network, the funding

organisation should assume ownership of the project.

The perception of the researchers as a legitimising door-opener in the initial stages is

emphasised by the fact that the funding organisation arranged meetings with one

potential partner without involving the universities. The funding organisation had already

an established relationship with this potential partner, and the project leader stated that

19

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

he did not need the researcher to be present because he knew that he could convince

the partner to participate himself. Thus, at this pre-meeting, the academic involvement in

the project was neglected. The project leader indicated that the participation of RX might

have changed the focus of the pre-meeting.

The description of the relation between the funding organisation and the researchers

seems to indicate that the transition of the researcher role was deliberately intended by

the funding organisation. This perception of the role of the universities contrasts with the

view of the researchers, who adopt the problem-solver role, as indicated in the original

application for the entire project. From this perspective, the researchers might be

regarded as nothing but a means of bringing in the Trojan Horse, containing the interests

of the funding organisation to get access to interesting partners that otherwise would be

reluctant to participate in the network.

4.3 Relation to the Overall Network

As mentioned above, the researchers were responsible for the initial written contact with

the participating organisations. The letter was signed by the researcher RX. It focused

on the academic value of the project and emphasised the scientific research on the

importance of inter-organisational collaboration. It also highlighted the role of the

universities in the network to which the organisations were invited to participate. The

funding organisation was only mentioned once on the second page of the letter: The

organisation was designated as a ‘catalyst’ for the network. Neither the term ‘catalyst’,

nor the academic foundation of the project (‘Development of Global Networks, Business

Models and Processes’) were explained in any detail.

20

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

The interviews with the participants reveal their uncertainty about the researchers’

involvement in the project. Respondent 2 describes the role of the funding organisation

as quite blurred in the initial stages of the network. He did not realise that the funding

organisation was one of the prime actors in the network until he participated in the first

network meeting. He stated that he received the letter from the university and that, to a

certain extent, he decided to participate for the sake of the university:

’I just thought that I would participate and that it would be nice to hear whether new opportunities had occurred and if I could help the university then fine by me.’

(Respondent 2, 11 December 2006, translated from Danish to English)

Respondent 4 perceives the role of the researchers as the initiator of the network and

believes that the funding organisation merely accepted the invitation in order to become

part of the network after the universities had established the project. She did not realise

that the funding organisation actually initiated the project idea together with the

researchers. She stressed that the universities’ involvement in the project added

credibility to the project.

Respondent 6 was not sure about the role of the researchers. He stated that he was left

to guessing when asked to explain the researchers’ function in the project. He described

the researchers as part of the core group of the network but was unable to define the

task and exact size of this core group.

Table 2 illustrates these different perceptions of the researchers’ roles.

Table 2 here

21

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

In spite of the fact that the role of the researchers was defined as problem-solvers with

continuous input and feedback to the funding organisation’s management (see the three

points above), table 2 illustrates that the project leader of the funding organisation

thought of the researchers as observers and as legitimating the project in the formative

phase. Thus, the initial agreement between the researchers and the funding organisation

does not seem to be reflected in the project leader’s perception.

The bulk of the participating organisations thus regarded the researchers as observers

who merely collected data for their research. Two respondents view the researchers as

being problem-solvers. However, the understanding of the problem-solver role is

unclear, as is illustrated by the respondent who expects the universities to be part of the

core group without being able to define the exact role of this core group.

The respondents do not suggest any feeling of having been subjected to a covert

partnership between the funding organisation and the universities – or that the

universities have brought in a Trojan Horse favouring the agenda of the funding

organisation. However, they were not able to define the structure of the network in terms

of initiator, ownership of content and process of the network, etc. The only respondent

who is clear about the role of the researchers is the project leader of the funding

organisation. And his understanding of the role is dissimilar to the role that was defined

in the initial meeting in December 2005 between the researchers and the funding

organisation.

22

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

5. Considerations for Future Action Research Projects

In the present section, a number of points for consideration that have been extracted

from the literature review and the case analysis are presented. The points are

preliminary and the intention is to test them in future case studies. While the paper

acknowledges that the list of considerations cannot substitute ‘professional morality’

required in carrying out AR (Williamson & Prosser 2002), the aim of the present

considerations is to help researchers avoid pitfalls that may jeopardise AR projects and

possibly damage the credibility of the researchers. The considerations relate to inter-

organisational settings and should thus be seen as a supplement to the strategies for

addressing ethical concerns in AR outlined by Brydon-Miller, Greenwood & Eikeland

(2006).

5.1 The Funding Organisation

The present paper indicates that it is important to clarify the researcher role in relation to

the funding organisation from the beginning of the project. This clarification may be

challenging because the practitioners of the funding organisation might not be familiar

with the terms and concepts of AR (Morton 1999). It is suggested that researchers and

the funding organisations should:

1. Agree on the overall academic and business objectives, ambitions, and

ownership of the project.

2. Define the role of researchers in the different stages of the project (for instance,

the role of the observer, the problem-solver, and the legitimiser/facilitator – and a

clear distinction between the different roles).

3. Develop a consistent, unambiguous vocabulary about the content of the

researcher roles to be used in relation to potential network participants. The

23

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

straightforward description of the researcher role will help in overcoming the

potential gap between the terminology of the researchers, on one side, and the

practitioners, on the other.

4. Negatively define the researcher’s role by stating which actions cannot be taken

by the researcher when applying a specific role (for instance, whether the

researchers will author and sign a letter for potential partners).

The analysis of the case shows that an overall description of the researcher role as

‘participating in network meetings’, ‘helping to identify and build network’ and ‘providing

input/feedback to managers’ is not enough to ensure actual involvement of the action

researcher. Instead, the funding organisation and the researchers should have

addressed the four points mentioned above early on in the process and committed each

other to the agreement resulting from this discussion. The discussion should have

defined which roles would be used, when they would be used, how these roles would be

performed, and who had ownership and so responsibility in the different stages of the

project.

5.2 Participating Organisations

The researcher relationship to the participating organisations is closely related to the

researcher relationship to the funding organisation. The demand for clarity increases as

a growing number of participating organisations are brought into the project. It is

suggested that future research should address the following points:

1. Provide clear and consistent information on the researcher role from the first

contact and onwards.

2. Use the accepted vocabulary on which the researchers and the funding

organisation have agreed.

24

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

3. Relevant changes in researcher role should be communicated directly to each

participant.

Clear and consistent information from the first contact concerning the role, ownership,

funding and academic objective of the project is a key issue in ensuring transparency in

AR projects. By taking these considerations into account, the researchers can help

ensure that the participating organisations engage in the network on a sound basis –

and that they do not feel that a Trojan Horse has been brought into their organisation.

25

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

6. Conclusion

The initial literature review illustrates that an array of ethical issues have been dealt with

in AR, particularly in relation to the different roles that the action researcher can perform:

observer and problem-solver. This paper contributes to the ethical discussion by

identifying a potentially critical third role when doing AR in inter-organisational networks.

It combines the research on ethical aspects of AR in general and AR in inter-

organisational settings with the issues that face researchers when these are funded by a

participating organisation. Furthermore, the paper provides a number of ethical

considerations for future AR projects in inter-organisational settings.

The reflections are based on an on-going AR case, in which the authors participate. Both

the problem-solver role and the observer role can be clearly identified in the case. The

paper has argued that the researcher is performing a third role, i.e. as legitimiser of the

initiation of an inter-organisational network. As a point of departure, this role is positive

for all the participants in the network because it can help create business opportunities

that otherwise would not have been created and generate empirical data for the

researchers that otherwise would not have been generated. However, the legitimiser role

has the potential for failure if the researchers do not handle the role in a proper manner.

The researchers may be reduced to bringing in a Trojan Horse through which the

funding organisation may get access to a large number of organisations. This ethical

issue is essential, since the credibility of the researchers may be devaluated if the other

organisations get the impression that the researchers have a covert agenda together

with the funding organisation. The loss of trust in the researchers will jeopardise potential

future establishment of projects between the universities and the organisations.

26

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

The case study shows that the organisations participating in the network were uncertain

about the role played by the researcher (whether as observer or problem-solver). The

relation between the funding organisation and the researchers was blurred to the

interviewees and it was not clear whether the initiator was the funding organisation or

the universities.

The funding organisation explicitly described the researchers’ role as being a “door-

opener”, a facilitator and legitimiser in the initial phase of the project. The problem-solver

role which was defined (though not very explicitly) at the inception of the project and

agreed upon between the researchers and the funding organisation, tended to be

neglected by the project leader after the actual start of the project.

On the basis of the case, a number of considerations to which researchers should pay

attention when dealing with AR in inter-organisational networks, have been extracted.

The main message is that researchers have to be open and consistent in relation to all

the network organisations, in general – and agree with the focal organisation on the

terms of cooperation during the entire project period, in particular. This approach to AR

projects will both assist the researchers in ensuring that the project actually becomes an

AR project and help the researcher in avoiding the ethical pitfalls in cooperating closely

with the funding organisation.

AR in inter-organisational networks has huge potential because of its promise to both

generate valuable data for research and solve problems for organisations. Through the

involvement of universities, it may also set up inter-organisational networks, which

27

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

otherwise would not have been initiated. The techniques of approach, however,

represent a delicate balance in being used and misused as a researcher. The proactive

role of the researcher in an inter-organisational AR project is very different from the

traditional ‘passive’, positivistic observer role and poses new challenges to the

researcher. The contribution of this paper has been to explore this balance in an

expedient way by addressing the forwarded points of consideration.

28

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

References

Aguinis, H. (1993). "Action research and scientific method: Presumed discrepancies and actual

similarities", The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 416-431.

Avison, D., Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. (2001). "Controlling action research projects",

Information Technology & People, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 28-45.

Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Eikeland, O. (2006), "Conclusion: Strategies for addressing

ethical concerns in action research", Action Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 129-131.

Child, J., Faulkner, D., & Tallman, S. B. (2005). Cooperative Strategy. Oxford University Press.

Chisholm, R. F. (1998), Developing Network Organizations: Learning from Practice and Theory.

Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

Chisholm, R. F. & Elden, M. (1993). "Features of emerging action research", Human Relations,

vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 275-299.

Coghlan, D. & Coughlan, P. (2005). "Collaborative Research Across Borders and Boundaries:

Action Research Insights from the CO-IMPROVE Project," in Research in Organizational

Change and Development, R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore, eds., Elsevier, Oxford, UK,

pp. 275-296.

Coghlan, D. & Coughlan, P. (2006). "Designing and implementing collaborative improvement in

the extended manufacturing enterprise: Action learning and action research (ALAR) in CO-

IMPROVE", The Learning Organization, vol. 13, no. 2/3, pp. 152-165.

Coghlan, D., Coughlan, P., & Brennan, L. (2004). "Organizing for Research and Action:

Implementing Action Researcher Networks", Systemic Practice and Action Research, vol. 17,

no. 1, pp. 37-49.

29

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

Coghlan, D. & Shani, A. (2005). "Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design", Systemic

Practice and Action Research, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 533-546.

Coghlan, D. & Shani, A. (2008), "Insider Action Research: The Dynamics of Developing New

Capabilities," in The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry and Practice,

P. Reason & H. Bradbury, eds., Sage, London, pp. 643-655.

Coughlan, P. & Coghlan, D. (2002). "Action research for operations management", International

Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 220-240.

Coughlan, P., Coghlan, D., Lombard, F., Brennan, L., McNichols, T., & Nolan, R. (2003).

"Managing collaborative relationships in a period of discontinuity", International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1246-1259.

Cronholm, S. & Goldkuhl, G. (2002). "Conceptualising Participatory Action Research - Three

Different Practices", Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 47-

58.

DeTardo-Bora, K. A. (2004), "Action Research in a World of Positivist-Oriented Review Boards",

Action Research, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 237-253.

Denzin. N.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New

York: Praeger

Eden, C. & Huxham, C. (1996). "Action Research for Management Research", British Journal of

Management, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 75-86.

Eikeland, O. (2006), "Condescending ethics and action research: Extended review article", Action

Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 37-47.

Engelstad, H. & Gustavsen, B. (1993). "Swedish network development for implementing National

Work Reform Strategy", Human Relations, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 219-248.

30

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

Gaventa, J. & Cornwall, A. (2008), "Power and Knowledge," in The SAGE Handbook of Action

Research. Participatory Inquiry and Practice, P. Reason & H. Bradbury, eds., Sage, London,

pp. 172-189.

Grant, J., Nelson, G., & Mitchell, T. (2008), "Negotiating the Challenges of Participatory Action

Research: Relationships, Power, Participation, Change and Credibility," in The SAGE

Handbook of Action Research. Participative Inquiry and Practice, P. Reason & H. Bradbury,

eds., Sage, London, pp. 589-601.

Huemer, L. (2004). "Activating trust: the redefinition of roles and relationships in an international

construction project", International Marketing Review, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 187-201.

Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2000). "Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration

agendas: How thing happen in a (not quite) joined-up world", Academy of Management

Journal, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1159-1175.

Khanlou, N. & Peter, E. (2005), 'Participatory action research: considerations for ethical review',

Social Science and Medicine, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 2333-2340.

Levin, M. (1993). "Creating networks for rural economic development in Norway", Human

Relations, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 193-218.

Lewin, K. (1946) "Action Research and Minority Problems", Journal of Social Issues, vol. 2, pp.

34-46.

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving Social Conflicts. Harper & Row, New York.

McCutcheon, G. & Jung, B. (1990). "Alternative Perspectives on Action Research", Theory Into

Practice, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 144-151.

31

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

Middel, R., Coghlan, D., Coughlan, P., Brennan, L., & McNichols, T. (2006). "Action research in

collaborative improvement", International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 33, no. 1,

pp. 67-91.

Morton, A. (1999). "Ethics in Action Research", Systemic Practice and Action Research, vol. 12,

no. 2, pp. 219-222.

Pettigrew, P. J. (2003). "Power, Conflicts, and Resolutions: A Change Agent's Perspective on

Conducting Action Research Within a Multiorganizational Partnership", Systemic Practice and

Action Research, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 375-391.

Popper, K. (1934). Logik der Forschung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Rapoport, R. N. (1970). "Three Dilemmas in Action Research: With Special Reference to the

Tavistock Experience", Human Relations, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 499-513.

Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. 2008, "Introduction," in The SAGE Handbook of Action Research.

Participative Inquiry and Practice, P. Reason & H. Bradbury, eds., SAGE, London, pp. 1-10.

Susman, G. I. & Evered, R. D. (1978). "An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action

Research", Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 582-603.

Sæther, B. (2007), "From Researching Regions at a Distance to Participatory Network Building:

Integrating Action Research and Economic Geography", Systemic Practice and Action

Research, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 15.

Thorelli, H. B. (1986). "Networks: Between markets and hierarchies", Strategic Management

Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 37-51.

Walker, B. & Haslett, T. (2002). "Action Research in Management - Ethical Dilemmas", Systemic

Practice and Action Research, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 523-533.

32

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

Williamson, G. R. & Prosser, S. (2002). "Action research: politics, ethics and participation",

Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 587-593.

33

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

Figure 1: Overview of the overall project

Network 1

Universities

Focal organisation 1

Network partner 1

Network partner 2 Network

partner 3

Network partner 4

Network partner 5

Network partner 6

Network 2

Focal organisation 2

Network partner 1

Network partner 2 Network

partner 3

Network partner 4

Network partner 5

Network partner 6

Network 3

Focal organisation 3

Network partner 1

Network partner 2

Network partner 3

Network partner 4Network

partner 5

Network partner 6

Network n

Network partner 1

Network partner 2 Network

partner 3

Network partner 4

Network partner 5

Network partner 6

Focal organisation n

34

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

Table 1: Development of researcher role during the project

Role 1st role: Observer 2nd role: Problem-

solver 3rd role: Legitimiser for the network formation

and progress Pre-meetings with partners X

March 2006 X X August 2006 X X September 2006 X February 2007 X

35

AR in Inter-organisational Networks – Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?

Table 2: Respondents’ perception of researcher role

Role 1st role: Observer 2nd role: Problem-

solver 3rd role: Legitimiser

for the network formation and

progress Respondent 1 (project leader of the funding organisation) X X

Respondent 2 X Respondent 3 X Respondent 4 X Respondent 5 X Respondent 6 X

36