Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [TOBB Ekonomi Ve Teknoloji]On: 20 December 2014, At: 09:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Further and HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20
Practising what we teach: vocationalteachers learn to research throughapplying action learning techniquesBarbara Lasky a & Irene Tempone ba School of Business , Swinburne University of Technology , PO Box218, Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122, Australia E-mail:b Swinburne University , Hawthorn, Melbourne, Victoria, AustraliaPublished online: 07 Aug 2006.
To cite this article: Barbara Lasky & Irene Tempone (2004) Practising what we teach: vocationalteachers learn to research through applying action learning techniques, Journal of Further andHigher Education, 28:1, 79-94, DOI: 10.1080/0309877032000161832
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877032000161832
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Journal of Further and Higher EducationVol. 28, No. 1, February 2004
Practising what we Teach: vocationalteachers learn to research throughapplying action learning techniquesBarbaraLaskySwinburne UniversityHawthornMelbourneVictoriaAustraliablasky@swin.edu.auBARBARA LASKYSchool of Business, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218, Hawthorn,Victoria, 3122, Australia. Email: [email protected]
IRENE TEMPONESwinburne University, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
ABSTRACT Action learning techniques are well suited to the teaching of organisationbehaviour students because of their flexibility, inclusiveness, openness, and respect forindividuals. They are no less useful as a tool for change for vocational teachers, learning,of necessity, to become researchers. Whereas traditional universities have always had aresearch culture, new Australian universities, such as the one under study here, have, untilrecently, concentrated on consulting to industry, and teaching. Faced with strong compe-tition for government research funds to enable its survival and growth, Swinburne Univer-sity set in place a number of strategies aimed at changing the old consulting culture into athriving research culture. One such strategy was to hold a colloquium to promote andsupport teachers’ research efforts. A number of iterations of an action learning process tookplace over a period of time, with each iteration addressing a different research question. Theresult of academics’ engagement with the process of feedback and reflection has beeninstructive. Unquestionably, the majority of the academics who initially engaged in the‘learning by doing’ process were encouraged to actively address the problems that beset them,resulting in significant changes in behaviour and a dramatic increase in research output.However, without a commitment to the process that is ongoing, and critical, further interestin research and development as researchers may come to a standstill, predetermining a levelof research output that may yet see the School succumb to the internal and external pressuresto which it is subject.
Introduction
‘Action research is systematic inquiry by collaborative, self-critical communities ofpractitioners. It is pursued by educators out of a desire to improve their knowledgeand practice. It … helps educators become aware of and interested in the problemareas of their practice’ (Watt, 1999, p. 1). Well suited to the teaching of organisa-
ISSN 0309-877X print; ISSN 1469-9486 online/04/010079-16 2004 NATFHEDOI: 10.1080/0309877032000161832
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
80 B. Lasky & I. Tempone
tional behaviour students because of its flexibility and openness, respect for individ-uals and inclusiveness, and its ability to facilitate learning through experiential workin the classroom, it is no less useful as a tool for change for vocational teachers,learning, of necessity, to become researchers.
The context within which the Australian higher education sector operates is oneof economic rationalism. Federal Governments in Australia, over the last twodecades, have been engaged in a concerted effort to ‘transform the public sector byimposing market-based models of competition and efficiency’ (Baldwin & James,2000, p. 139). The tertiary education sector has not escaped this effort, although forthe best part, higher education is still publicly funded, making it impossible for atruly free market to operate. That is, students are not entirely free, in the way thefree market model supposes, to choose the university and the course or subject(s)they want to pursue. There are several reasons for this—first, as higher education isstill publicly funded to a large degree, the government imposes limits on the numberof students to whom a university can offer a place; second, admission is largelydetermined by secondary school academic results; and third, courses are fairlylengthy and universities are not able to respond instantly to market fluctuations(Baldwin & James, 2000).
These difficulties aside, government efforts have been directed at reducing theamount of public funds invested in universities on a per capita equivalent full-timestudent (EFTSU) basis, and have emphasised instead, funding to support researchand other scholarly activity (such as the writing of learned books). It is the view ofthe government that universities derive their reputation among students from theirresearch profile. Ipso facto, teaching academics have to develop a research profile sothat students will be attracted to the University. This view presents a difficulty forthe ‘new’ Australian universities, such as Swinburne, whose reputation was wellestablished as a vocationally focused institution.
The difficulty arises out of the historical development of these universities. Due tothe federal government move towards a corporatised, market-based higher edu-cation sector, where there had been a three-tiered structure comprising technicaland further education (TAFE) colleges, colleges of advanced education (CAEs), anduniversities, in the early part of the 1990s the Australian government required thatthe CAEs merge with the established universities. In a very small number of cases,a CAE became a university in its own right. One such case is Swinburne Universityof Technology, in Melbourne, Victoria.
Considerably smaller in size than the older, established universities, and with ahistory of excellence in vocational teaching, rather than in the traditional universityrole of research, new universities such as Swinburne have been faced with strong andcontinual competition for a portion of the research funds available from the govern-ment, for universities with a proven research record. New to the role of research, anddependent on government funding for survival and growth, new universities view theresearch dollar as a critical component of their budgets. As a consequence, they aretrying to develop a thriving research culture, quickly.
Traditional universities, of course, have always had a culture that encouraged andsupported research. Arguably, however, CAEs in Australia have been, if anything,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Action Learning Techniques 81
explicitly anti-research (Cargill & Nicholls, 1999). Such, indeed, was the case atSwinburne where the culture valued links with industry and business, and ‘rewardedstaff who were clearly credible and capable in the eyes of business and industry’(Cargill & Nicholls, 1999, p. 567). That is, the Business Staff in particular were, inmany respects, rewarded for not researching, but for consulting to industry andbusiness and for producing graduates that met the needs of industry and business.In fact, in 1990, only five of 90 business staff held doctoral qualifications, while onlyanother five were actually engaged in working towards their doctoral qualification.These staff had ‘no institutional support whatever … and any research activity eachwas able to initiate would certainly have been seen as ‘maverick’ in nature’ (Cargill& Nicholls, 1999, p. 568).
This paper will be structured as follows. It begins with a short discussion on theconcepts of organisational culture and change, as they pertain to this study. Then,two major strategies for the management of research output are detailed. A dis-cussion follows on the action research methodology that informs the study, and thepaper concludes with a consideration of the implications of using action researchtechniques within a culture transforming itself from one focused on consulting andteaching, to one recognised for its research.
The Concept of Organisational Culture
As already mentioned above, the Swinburne culture was, initially, anti-research. Itshould be noted, however, that although the concept of organisational culture ismuch talked about, exactly what it is, is a matter of debate (Langan-Fox & Tan,1997; Lee & Barnett, 1997). The differences in approach derive from differences inbasic assumptions that are made, not only about ‘culture’, but about ‘organisations’per se. Smircich (1983) outlined many of the ways that culture has been understood,including as an instrument serving human needs; an adaptive-regulatory mechanismuniting people within social structures; a system of shared cognitions; a system ofshared meanings and symbols, and a projection of the unconscious; organisationmay be thought of as social instruments designed to accomplish tasks; adaptiveorganisms in a process of exchange with the environment; systems of knowledge;patterns of symbolic discourse, or forms and practices that express unconsciousprocesses. More recently, culture has been described as ‘temporary webs of individ-uals loosely connected by the issues they are interested in [and as] organizationalsense making’ (Choo, 1998, pp. 102, 103).
In the case in point the School of Business could, until the late 1990s, have beenunderstood as a social system designed to ‘turn out’ graduates with professionallyrecognised qualifications and the skills to find employment, in the areas of account-ing, human resource management, marketing, and information technology, quicklyand easily. Further, the academics in each of these disciplines, loosely connectedunder the rubric of a School of Business, shared a vision of themselves as excellentvocational teachers and consultants to industry in their particular areas of expertise.
Culture has also been described ‘as a contested process of meaning-making’(Wright, 1998, p. 10) where the contest is over who has the power in the organis-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
82 B. Lasky & I. Tempone
ation to be heard—in this case, the well-entrenched, older, long-serving academicswho had risen through the ranks from technical teacher in the TAFE and CAEconfigurations of the whole organisation to become Deans and Heads of Disci-pline—and who is allowed to challenge the practices and rules. Those ‘mavericks’who did challenge the rules, in the days before Swinburne became a university, bycompleting PhDs and writing research-based articles, found that their efforts wereignored, at best, or openly derided. With the promulgation of Swinburne as auniversity in its own right, however, it suddenly became critical to develop anexternally recognised research profile. At the same time, many of the Heads in theSchool of Business retired, leaving the way open for a change in leadership to tacklethe problem of changing the embedded anti-research culture to a positive culturewhere research could flourish, researchers could thrive, and the School of Businesscould prosper.
Arguably, when we talk about culture we are referring to ‘the pattern of develop-ment reflected in a society’s system of knowledge, ideology, values, laws, andday-to-day ritual’ (Morgan, 1986, p. 112). When culture is viewed from a func-tionalist perspective, the focus is ‘on the role of cultural objects in organizationalmaintenance’ (Lee & Barnett, 1997, p. 395). That is, it is seen as an organisationalvariable, such as the organisational structure, rewards system, training and develop-ment program, or technological system for example. As such it can be moulded bymanagement to suit current purposes. In other words, culture is seen as one toolamong many to be ‘cultivated by management for the purpose of control andlegitimation of activity’ (Smircich, 1986, p. 346). In this case management hopesthat by developing strategies for the management of research activity and quantumwithin the school, the culture will stretch to include research as a legitimate andvalued activity.
There is another view that favours the notion that culture is something anorganisation is (Smircich, 1983; Morgan, 1986; Hatch, 1997). That is, culture is notheld to have an objective existence apart from human beings, but is instead ‘asocially constructed reality [made up of] artifacts, symbols, norms, values, beliefs …assumptions … and physical, behavioral, and linguistic symbols … interrelated in aweb of interwoven meanings … accessible to all members of the culture’ (Hatch,1997, p. 236). Although within this view the nature of culture can be understood ascognitive, symbolic, structured, or psychodynamic, all these understandings dependon the context in which the artefacts, symbols, behaviours and so on are to be found(Hatch, 1997). It is the socially constructed and changing reality that becomesapparent through the ‘learning by doing’ methodology employed here.
Clearly, culture is not just one simple variable among many, but is, rather, ‘anactive, living phenomenon through which people create and recreate the worlds inwhich they live’ (Morgan, 1986, p. 131), but could be generally said to be: resistantto change; be taken for granted and less consciously held; derive its meaning fromthe organisational members, and incorporate sets of shared understandings (Lan-gan-Fox & Tan, 1997); provide its members with socially legitimate patterns ofbehaviour, and a hierarchical motivational structure linking their identity to cultur-ally relevant roles, and finally, provide a symbolically integrated framework that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Action Learning Techniques 83
regulates social interaction (Lee & Barnett, 1997). Given its complexity and embed-dedness within organisations, it should be given due consideration whenever thereis an attempt to carry out a change process within an organisation, even if theproposed change affects only a small part of the organisation, let alone a majorcultural shift of the kind required in the School of Business at Swinburne.
Organisational Change
Change, like culture, is a widely used term with an imprecise meaning. Classicalmanagement theorists and early modernists saw change as the ‘intended result ofdoing more of a good thing’ (Hatch, 1997, p. 350). Modernist models of plannedchange are patterned on the idea of a change agent who introduces change indeliberate ways. This idea gave way to a model of emergent change, that locates theagency for change in the external environment, and thus outside the organisation’sdirect control. More contemporary models, however, suggest that change is aninternal process that is the result of organisational learning (Hatch, 1997).
Change may be of varying intensity. It may be ‘apparent’, occurring within aculture but with no effect on the culture; it may be ‘revolutionary’, being imposedby outsiders who destroy old symbols and create new ones; or it may be ‘incremen-tal’, stretching the organisational culture to include new values alongside old ones(Gagliardi, 1986). Frequently, change is mentioned at the same time as strategy, andculture: in the former instance, it is used with reference to the basic rethinking ofbeliefs and values required by an organisation as it redefines its strategic direction;in the latter instance it is used to explain resistance. Within the Swinburne Schoolof Business the change is of incremental intensity, stretching the old teaching,consulting cultural values to include the new research value. Two major interven-tions for the management of research output took place within the School ofBusiness, commencing in 1998. The first was a management imposed complianceintervention. The second was a staff initiated series of workshops to support theteachers learning to become researchers.
The Management Compliance Intervention
Traditionally, research output from the School of Business, for the reasons outlinedabove, had ‘lagged behind that of other Schools that have a technical bias … this[however could] no longer be allowed to continue with the threat of a reduction inresources very real’ (School of Business, 2001, p. 4). To counteract this state ofaffairs, management implemented two strategies—the first, known as the Head ofSchool’s Minimum Yearly Research Output Requirement, and the second, knownas the Research Quantum Management Model (RQMM) (School of Business,2001). These two strategies impacted on the amount of research output producedby the school in a number of ways.
The Head of School’s Minimum Yearly Research Output Requirement resulted ina little less than half of the academics producing at least one approved publicationin the first year (1998) of the operation of the strategy, while subsequent years have
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
84 B. Lasky & I. Tempone
seen a progressive rise of academics meeting their minimum requirement (94% in2001). Further, the percentage of academics producing more than one approvedpublication in any given year has risen from 6% in 1999 to 37% in 2001(School ofBusiness, 1998, 2001). The Office of the Director of Research conducts an annualaudit with regard to this requirement, each academic being required to submit acopy of a paper or article as it appears in published proceedings or a journal,together with other documentation that clearly shows reviewers comments, guideli-nes to contributors, ISSN or ISBN numbers, and letter of acceptance, among otherthings. It may appear to some that the inclusion of such proofs is somewhatexcessive, however, it must be understood that these are the very same proofs thatthe Australian government requires before accepting that a paper or article consti-tutes research and is therefore a fundable piece. (Note that there is a yearlycollection by Australian universities of all items that they claim as research orresearch activity, that is submitted to the government for audit. If the university’sproofs are deemed by the auditors to meet government requirements, fundingfollows. If they are found not to meet requirements, the university is fined). Thesestringent demands have not only stimulated research activity per se, but have also‘trained’ the academics to produce research of sufficient quality for acceptance atconferences and in journals. This strategy also stimulates a desire, in most of theacademics, to avoid an increase in their teaching week base workload (School ofBusiness, 2001)—an automatic consequence of failing to meet the Head’s minimumrequirement.
The RQMM strategy has its own specific objectives and purposes. First, itprovides a relative measure of research output. All academics are categorised eachyear according to the output recorded for them over the preceding three years. Thiscategorisation approach has been adapted from the successful UK model used at theUniversity of Luton and elsewhere, and employs a three-year moving weightedaverage as the basis of the calculation. Second, it provides some incentives to staffby recognising their efforts ‘in an objective and transparent way’ (School of Busi-ness, 2001, p. 7). Third, it interfaces with the Workload Model (WLM). The wholeprocess thus allows for the identification of those needing support to learn toresearch, as well as of those who are potentially professorial candidates. It identifiesthe top non-professorial performer, who is nominated as Researcher of the Year andwho receives encouragement, through access to funds ($5000) to spend on researchrelated items, such as conference attendance and text books, and some fuss andgood natured notoriety within the school. It also enables the school ‘to determinewhat time allowances should be allocated to specific staff for research in the WLMthrough the teaching week base workload’ (School of Business, 2001, p. 7).
A further note regarding the WLM and its relationship to the RQMM may helpin understanding the ways in which it is hoped these models act as a stimulus toresearch. The WLM allocates the hours per annum available in a 48-week year in astandard workload (1640 hours). It subdivides those hours between a teaching-weekbase workload—that is, 1188 hours for the teaching, research, and administrativeactivities one would normally expect from an academic, calculated on an 11 contacthour week x 4.5 hours to account for related activities such as writing course
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Action Learning Techniques 85
outlines; finding sessionals; setting exams; marking papers; consulting with studentsand so on, x 12 weeks per semester x two semesters; 252 hours to devote to meetingthe minimum requirement; 100 hours for committee work and the like; 100 hoursfor professional development; and 200 hours of personal time to account forcorridor discussions, photocopying and so on.
The interaction of the RQMM with the WLM works such that the teaching-weekbase workload of 1188 hours contains differing proportions of time for teaching andresearch, depending on the individual’s researcher category for the particular year.The incentive offered, then, to those wanting to research, is to increase theirresearch activity to levels that result in a higher research categorisation. This resultsin a higher proportion of the 1188 hours being available for research, with aconcomitant lowering of the hours to be given to teaching. Workload hours are alsoaudited on a semester basis, and hours allocated to activities are adjusted accord-ingly.
Models of change are many and varied, conflicting and confusing, and it is beyondthe scope of this article to discuss them at length. Others have done so elsewhere.Nevertheless, the authors agree with Kets De Vries and Balazs (1999) that althoughthere are a multitude of ways organisational change can occur, and models toexplain the process, the underlying principles stay relatively the same. First, theremust be some form of continuous, underlying discomfort that leads the organisation,or specific individuals, to consider alternatives to the situation. Second, there is afocal event, or significant happening, that leads to a moment of insight and thenceto a readiness to take action. Finally, there is a public declaration of an intention totake particular, new, actions.
These principles can be discerned in the Swinburne School of Business, andunderstood at two levels. At the level of management, the principle of underlyingdiscomfort can be seen in the reduction in total government education expenditureAustralia-wide, from an average of 1.9% of Gross Domestic Product (1991–1992;1995–1996) to 1.6% in 1998–1999, and the deterioration of the student–staff ratiofrom 14.4 in 1989 to 18.5 in 1998 (Kalantzis, 2000). This reduction in federalgovernment education spending has not only led to the deterioration of the student–staff ratio just mentioned, it has also resulted in, among other things, reducedcontact hours with students, an exodus of staff, and the fear that ‘intellectual virtue[has become] secondary’ (Kalantzis, 2000, p. 154) to minimum completion times,quality audits and mastering the art of on-line communication. These externalfactors alone have been sufficient to cause academics through-out Australia to feeluncomfortable about the quality of teaching and learning they are able to deliver(Kalantzis, 2000), but coupled with this, the School of Business that is the focus ofthis study has also had to cope with continuous internal budget cuts of 7%, or more,yearly since 1998 (School of Business, 1999–2001), which have, arguably, createdhardship for the school. No wonder, then, that the management of the school felt theneed to consider alternative strategies. The principle of significant event can beperceived in the threat to downgrade the school, still present, that served to focus thethinking of the Head of School and the Director of Research. This threat wasoutlined to the school community at a meeting convened for that purpose in 1998.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
86 B. Lasky & I. Tempone
This meeting was also, arguably, a significant event in the life of the academics withinthe school, giving, as it did, an appreciation of the university’s governing body’s viewof the school that was in direct opposition to the view that the school held of its selfand its position within the university. Finally, the principle of public declaration to takeaction is apparent in the declaration to the academics, by the Head of School and theDirector of Research, of the intention to overcome the threat to downgrade, and todo so through the institution and operation, closely monitored, of the WLM and theRQMM, along with, among other strategies, the appointment of an EducationalDevelopment Facilitator (EDF).
At the level of the teaching academics, the principle of underlying discomfort can alsobe discerned in the speculations and rumours amongst the staff about possibleretrenchments and loss of educational integrity. The principle of significant event canbe seen not only in the special meeting, mentioned above, but also in the institutionof the WLM and RQMM. Finally, the principle of public declaration to take action isapparent in the attendance, by some staff, at the first colloquium designed to helpthem in their initial, tentative efforts at research.
The Supportive Staff Initiated Intervention
As mentioned above, management had also created a new role within the school—that of Educational Development Facilitator (EDF). The EDF’s initial brief was to‘enhance teaching’. However, as the EDF says, ‘research is the way teaching has togo, and I now see that to enhance teaching there needs to be a bridge between theteacher’s role as teacher, and their role as researcher. I can see that to promote andsupport good teaching I also need to promote and support teachers’ researchefforts’.
With these thoughts in mind, the EDF arranged a colloquium, titled Getting GoodResearch from Teaching and Learning. Teachers who had recently written a confer-ence paper or journal article on some aspect of teaching and learning were invitedto participate and make short presentations. The aim was to share, not so much thecontent of their paper or article, but the process they had experienced in developingtheir idea, and the problems or difficulties they encountered along the way. TheEDF also invited an already published colleague to join the colloquium in the roleof discussant, to offer her learnings and experiences of the process and to helpfacilitate learning in the participants. The hope was that a vibrant exchange of ideas,experience, and advice would take place, and that some research syndicates wouldform as a result. The EDF, the discussant, and five other participants attended thecolloquium, and a lively discourse ensued, culminating in the discussant’s challengethat ‘some-one could write a paper about today’s process’. This comment, plusnumerous appreciative remarks to the EDF in corridors, elevators, and the wash-room following the colloquium, led to a request by the EDF for interested peoplewho had attended it to collaborate in developing and writing such a paper.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Action Learning Techniques 87
Practising what we Teach: learning by doing
The methodology that informs this research is focussed on ‘learning by doing’. Assuch, the researchers (and authors here), are also subjects of the research, theirlearnings, together with those of the other colloquium participants, constitute thedata to be analysed. It should be noted that in the course of the years since thecolloquium was held, different colloquium participants have joined together invarious combinations (sometimes in pairs, sometimes in a trio) to produce researchthat has been published, largely at conferences. Some combinations have writtenpapers based on their classroom experiences, while others have produced researchthat has emanated from the Getting Good Research from Teaching and Learningcolloquium. In either case, learnings from the original seminar were evident.
The authors here have produced multiple papers individually, together, and incollaboration with others. The Getting Good Research colloquium has proven to be afruitful source for their research, and it is their involvement with the learning bydoing methodology that is the focus of it. As a pair that was derived from thecolloquium participants, they might be seen as a microcosm of the wider group.Thus, their early problems and difficulties in identifying a research question;generating data; interpreting, evaluating, and monitoring results; and writing a paperor article for publication, mirror the problems and difficulties experienced by thecolloquium group (and the larger research community of the School of Business atSwinburne University, generally) in their engagement with the work of research.Their initial difficulty was in over-coming the ‘first-timers’ low self-esteem as aresearcher, evident in such comments as ‘no-one will be interested in publishing mymaterial’, ‘I don’t write well enough’, and ‘others have already done this material todeath’. It was no easy matter to overcome these feelings of inadequacy, and itrequired ‘an act of faith’ and a good deal of ‘positive stroking from my colleagues’to go ahead. For most, however, the decisive push into research was motivated bythe need to ‘do something in terms of keeping my job and meeting the minimumrequirement’.
Learning by doing, or ‘action learning’, popularised in the 1940s by Kurt Lewin,and systematically applied in education by Stephen Corey in the 1950s (Glanz,1999) is ‘a powerful and very cost effective ... approach to learning by using personalexperience and reflection, group discussion and analysis, trial and error discovery,and learning from one another’ (O’Shea, 1999, p. 58). Essentially a method of socialresearch, action methods look at those aspects of a social system that are dynamicand changing, and focus on the experience(s) of those in the system. Not so verydifferent from scientific methods, indeed, often incorporating the traditional meth-ods of survey, interview, and experiment, the emphasis, however, is on ‘discoveryrather than hypothesis testing; on inductive rather than deductive thinking; on fieldrather than laboratory work’ (Long, 1998, p. 1).
The social system under scrutiny is, as noted above, the School of Business of theSwinburne University of Technology. The context in which the school operates is,to say the least, uncertain. The external environment is placing increasing pressureon the tertiary sector for financial strictness and accountability, funds have been
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
88 B. Lasky & I. Tempone
reduced, and enrolments forcibly curtailed by one-third by the federal government.As a consequence, in this school, it is no longer an economic proposition to runclasses of less than 24 in number, run courses in which only a handful of studentsare enrolled, or produce only a sporadic few publications. Staff numbers were cut by50% over the years 1996–2000, and further cuts of between 2–3% may still be apossibility. Two major restructures of the university since 1997, coupled with anoften inadequate leadership, complete the picture. Faced with this constantlychanging, insecure environment, ‘failure to secure a more research-oriented culture,and a significant research output … would place the School ... at very grave risk interms of future viability’ (Cargill & Nicholls, 1999, p. 571). It was important,therefore, to observe what was happening in regard to research activity and outputin the school, as staff strove to develop a collective ‘research frame of mind’.
In this research, one can discern elements of three types of action method—actionresearch; participative action research; and action learning.
Action Research
Action research is predicated on the understanding that social systems are dynamicand changing. When the people in the system are open to change in the environ-ment, change tends to come about. The process of knowing about the system is alsoa part of the system, and people use their knowledge to make decisions and to act.In the Swinburne School of Business, information about the environment is gainedformally at school- and university-level meetings, email, and through newslettersand memos, and informally through chance comments by colleagues in the corridorsand elevators, lunch meetings and washrooms, the coffee shop and so on. Througheach of these channels the message about the importance of increasing the researchquantum is reinforced. Arguably, however, it is the academic’s personal reflectionson the experience of doing research, facilitated in part through the EDF’s now wellestablished colloquia series, that best influences the system in which they work andbecomes a source of change within it. This supportive intervention, with its focus onthe encouragement and facilitation of reflection on past practices and the sharing ofnew ones, and the direct involvement of the authors in collaborative research groupshave all contributed to a change in culture, at least sufficient to help drive up theschool’s research output by 38% between 1998 and the year 2000 (School ofBusiness, 1998, 1999, 2000). Action researchers also aim to ‘make their learningprocess and its results public … using accessible terminology’ (Riding et al., 1999,p. 3) and this article is an effort to do just that.
The process of action research is as follows: a research question is formulated andinformation is gathered. The information is then analysed and fed back to the systembeing researched. Members of the system are invited to reflect on the data, and, asmeanings are developed in this way, new knowledge is generated. Out of this newknowledge comes opportunities to act in new ways. These ‘new ways’ can then betried out and evaluated, and the results fed back and reflected on. The researcher(s)are then able to study the changes that occur, incorporating their own experience aspart of the data. In the case in point a number of iterations of the action learning
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Action Learning Techniques 89
process have taken place. In the first instance the participants in the colloquiumwere invited to reflect on their research experience in writing a paper or article, andthen, some weeks later, they were invited to reflect on the experience of thecolloquium itself. The initial collaborative group, derived from the colloquium,concurrently reflected on the process of researching and writing their first jointpaper. Subsequent to these feedback and reflection sessions a number of otheropportunities were presented to the original colloquium participants at various timeintervals over the past years, varying in form from one-on-one interviews, to focusgroups and seminars, the results from which have appeared in several conferencepapers (Lasky et al., 2000; Tempone et al., 2000; Lasky et al., 2001; Lasky &Tempone, 2001; Tempone et al., 2002), and which show that research activity, andoutput, rose.
Participative Action Research
Participative action research is predicated on the assumption that no social researchis value-free, nor is the researcher outside the system being researched. Participativeaction research also assumes that system members are best located to have knowl-edge of their system, and will also be best able to use the results of the research toimplement change in the system. Any changes made can then be studied as part ofthe research. Certainly the participants at the colloquium agree that ‘networking isimportant because you can see how others go about research’, and there are strongindications of a change in thinking as a result of their obtaining new knowledge. Thiscan be seen in comments such as: ‘I feel encouraged that you can just write on onesmall point; you don’t have to write an epic’; ‘you can’t just wait for the motivationto do something; you have to make a start, and the motivation follows’; and ‘I’vemoved from asking what will I write on, to asking how am I going to tackle this’, andin the rise in research output by the colloquium participants by 51% between 1998and the year 2000 (Lasky et al., 2001).
Action Learning
Persons involved in action learning work on a ‘live’ project in ‘real time’. This islearning by doing, and involves bringing together theory, professional and organisa-tional knowledge, and intrapersonal, interpersonal, and group dynamics. This is, inessence, an experiential model, and is not unlike the learning cycle model of Kolb(1984). This manner of learning involves formulating questions; developing solu-tions to problems; taking action; observing results; reflecting on the process, andreturning to formulating questions. As one of the authors observed, ‘what we aredoing is action learning in action’. According to this view, practitioners ‘not onlylook for ways to improve their practice within the various constraints of the situationin which they are working, but are also critical change agents of those constraints,and of themselves’ (Riding et al., 1999, p. 2). In this instance, however, thepractitioners (who are the researchers) are not able to change the externally imposedconstraints as they result from changes in both government and central university
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
90 B. Lasky & I. Tempone
policy. Furthermore, most staff are unable to influence the internal environment,although a small number of them, as members of the School Research Committee(including one of the authors here) are able to have some input into the developmentof supplementary research strategies and their implementation. All staff, however,can change their attitudes and practices, and indeed, must continue to develop asresearchers if they are to survive the ongoing crisis.
Implications of Using Action Research Techniques
As a consequence of applying ‘learning by doing’ techniques, a number of insightshave been gained by the colloquium participants into the research process, and bythe authors alone into the action research process itself. These different sets ofinsights will now be discussed.
The Research Process
The first period of reflection engaged in by the colloquium participants identified thedifficulties these novice researchers faced, including such things as how to make timeto research; how to generate ideas; and whether to collaborate, or not. This periodof reflection and sharing of the personal solutions developed by some individuals tothese difficulties, to that point in time, enabled participants to identify somesolutions to their problems they thought worthy of trying for themselves. Forinstance, a number of participants realised that they had been in the habit of ‘puttingthe non-research demands of others first’, and now concluded that ‘I have to put myown work first. Unless I do that I’m not going to have time to do my research’. Thiswas a particularly hard lesson to learn for those with strong collegial sensitivities andvalues that incorporated feelings of responsibility towards furthering the researchefforts of the school community, as much as of their own. Other solutions to theinitial problem of time management included ‘not coming in to the office at leastone day a week’; ‘coming in on Saturday when it’s quieter’; and ‘tak[ing] the ‘phoneoff the hook when a deadline is looming’.
Subsequent opportunities to reflect on actions taken, and results achieved, al-lowed participants to compare their pre-research behaviours and use of time withtheir new responses, and to judge the efficacy of these, and identify new areas forchange and improvement. Although some participants, including the authors here,found that their new responses to the research challenge had resulted in an increasein their own research output, and a greater level of activity ‘within my discipline byoffering to collaborate on research, review articles’ and so on, for others the situation‘hasn’t really changed’, with concerns about ‘not having developed a strategicmethod’ or ‘a conscious articulated plan’ still niggling.
Over time, successive reflection sessions by the original colloquium participantsalso shifted focus, from the importance of establishing a firm strategy of creatingtime to research, to how to build trust between colleagues with whom one had nothad close contact before. When participants focused on this problem it became clearthat the ‘pre-research’ attitude of each discipline to the others might not best serve
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Action Learning Techniques 91
the school as a whole in its drive to become research competent. Where once itappeared acceptable for disciplines to further their own ends at the expense of theothers, now the RQMM was deliberately encouraging joint research activity. Someinitially found it difficult to overcome their suspicions about the motivation of thoseseeking to collaborate with them, and raised questions about ‘whose name goes firston an article? and ‘what is the most equitable way to allocate the work?’. Theseconcerns are understandable, to a degree, when it is realised that this is a staff thathave worked side-by-side for the best part of 10 years or more, and therefore havelong-standing views, friendships, and in some cases animosities, concerning others.Many of the colloquium participants however felt that by ‘choosing collaboratorswhom I trust and genuinely care for, a layer of collegiality is added to my work’. Theauthors here represent one example where reaching out to an ‘unknown’ colleaguehas been efficacious to the school as well as to themselves. Coming from theaccounting and the human resources disciplines, they were unaware of each other’sinterests and style. Working together for the first time as EDF and discussant at thecolloquium Getting Good Research from Teaching and Learning, they discovered, totheir mutual delight, that not only was their association productive in terms ofresearch output, but they really liked each other and could offer support to eachother in a number of ways.
More recently, the focus has been on questions of the acceptability and effective-ness of mentoring, and how to achieve it in a research culture that can, at the timeof writing, no longer be considered fledgling, but that continues to demand increasesin output while emphasising different criteria each year (both externally and intern-ally imposed) by which the academics are to be judged as meeting their researchobligations. The authors’ reflections on the continuing process of research develop-ment within the school lead them, however, to hypothesise that the majority of theacademics in the school, having solved the problem of how to meet their minimumyearly research requirement, again feel comfortable and settled, and see no furtherreason, five years down the track, to do more. The authors also hypothesise that upto half the original colloquium participants may also now be content to ‘jog alongquietly’ without too much more effort than is necessary to meet the minimumrequirement (Note that at the time of writing the research audit for 2002 has yet tobe completed. When it is, the authors will analyse the research output with thesehypotheses in mind).
The Action Research Process
The degree of commitment to the process of ‘learning by doing’ evident in theschool has also been given consideration by the authors. In so doing it was felt thatinsufficient time and space may have been given, through the agency of thecolloquium series, to making sure that the social system that is the school receivesfull feedback on the new actions that have worked -such as networks, and informalmentoring systems, and collaboration across disciplines. Space for new questions tobe raised and discussed may also have been inadequate to date. There was also therealisation that the action learning process itself, was intimidating to some, as it has
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
92 B. Lasky & I. Tempone
the capacity to raise the unpleasant and negative, as well as the positive and exciting,and therefore may make some people feel acutely uncomfortable. This may alsomean that the less confident researchers feel exposed to their colleagues—anotheruncomfortable place to be. These feelings may then contribute to any lack ofenthusiasm to do more than just meet the minimum requirement. The use of theprocess may also be misunderstood. This became apparent to the authors who weretold, on one occasion, that they were simply using their colleagues as researchsubjects. This attitude resulted in a number of people deliberately absenting them-selves from certain workshops/seminars. Reflection has also led to the realisationthat neither the management’s compliance intervention, nor the staff initiatedsupport intervention offers any real incentive to the staff to engage with the actionlearning process. Arguably, it is also clear that the management’s intervention per sefailed to generate any excitement about the research process or any willingness to domore than what was necessary to meet the minimum requirement. The staff initiatedsupport intervention did initially generate excitement, however, the authors hypoth-esise, there appears to have been no long lasting effect for most people—it beingconceivable that those who have progressed as researchers most probably wouldhave done so regardless of either type of intervention, whereas those who werebasically disinterested, or scared of involvement at the start, have remained so.Finally, it was realised that most of the academics in the school had not asked forhelp or talked about their research difficulties, nor had they attended workshops orseminars over the last five years. Some took up offers of help when made to thempersonally, but failed to contribute much to the offered relationship, nor continuedon, on their own, to produce more than the required minimum. Again, the extentto which these things have occurred will become more apparent at the conclusion ofthe 2002 audit.
Summary and Conclusion
Clearly, there has been a significant change in behaviour, if not of the entire Schoolof Business culture, at least where some of the academics are concerned. Althoughthe majority of the School of Business academics may have felt, at least initially, thatthe RQMM and WLM strategies were revolutionary in nature, being an unpre-cedented departure from practices of many decades standing, this strategic responseto the internal threat to the existence of the school, at least at a superficial level, andthe external threat posed by the economic-rationalist decisions of the federalgovernment, has succeeded in stretching the culture of the school to incorporateresearch, without destroying the older value of excellent vocational teaching. Un-questionably, the EDF’s supportive intervention strategy (the colloquium) initiallyencouraged those participants who attended to actively look at the problems thatbeset them and begin to identify possible solutions. However, five years down thetrack, the degree of commitment to either the action learning process per se, or toproducing more than the Head’s Minimum Yearly Research Output Requirement,is questionable. It may well be the case that after overcoming their initial difficultieswith producing research output, the majority of the academics in the School of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Action Learning Techniques 93
Business have been content to meet the minimum requirement, and leave it at that.The original colloquium participants may have remained enthusiastic about researchfor a year or so longer, while a very small number of non-professorial academics havecontinued to learn and to develop as researchers. These reflections, at the time ofwriting, are hypothetical, but will be the subject of scrutiny at the completion of the2002 research audit. Suffice it to say that vigorous involvement in a process of actionlearning can be a very useful tool for change for vocational teachers learning, bynecessity, to become researchers. However, without a commitment to the processthat is on-going, and critical, further interest in research and development asresearchers, may come to a standstill, predetermining a level of research output thatmay yet see the school succumb to the internal and external pressures to which it issubject.
References
BALDWIN, G. & JAMES, R. (2000) The market in Australian higher education and the concept ofstudent as informed consumer, Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 22(2),pp. 139–148.
CARGILL, B. & NICHOLLS, M. (1999) Establishing a research culture and output in a hostileenvironment within an emerging Australian university—A case study, Proceedings of theWestern Decision Sciences Institute, 27th Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada.
CHOO, C. W. (1998) The Knowing Organization (New York, Oxford University Press).GAGLIARDI, P. (1986) The creation and change of organizational cultures: a conceptual frame-
work, Organizational Studies, 7(2), pp. 117–134.GLANZ, J. (1999) A primer on action research for the school administrator, Clearing House,
May/June, 72(5), pp. 301–304.HATCH, M. J. (1997) Organisation Theory: modern symbolic and postmodern perspectives (New York,
Oxford University Press).KALANTZIS, M. (2000) The trouble with universities, Meanjin, 59(4), pp. 151–163.KETS DE VRIES, M. F. R. & BALAZS, K. (1999) Transforming the mind-set of the organisation: a
clinical perspective, Administration and Society, 30 (6), pp. 640–666.KOLB, D. A. (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall).LANGAN-FOX, J. & TAN, P. (1997) Images of a culture in transition: personal constructs of
organizational stability and change, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,70(3), pp. 273–295.
LASKY, B., EVANS, B. & TEMPONE, I. (2000) From washroom to conference room. Getting goodresearch from teaching and learning, Proceedings of the South East Decision Sciences Institute,30th Annual Meeting, Wilmington, North Carolina.
LASKY, B., TEMPONE, I. & EVANS, B. (2001) Getting good research from teaching and learning:one year on, Proceedings of the South East Decision Sciences Institute, 31st Annual Meeting,Charlotte, North Carolina.
LASKY, B. & TEMPONE, I. (2001) Multiple authorship the road to developing a research profilequickly: a case study, Proceedings of the Decision Sciences Institute, Annual Meeting, Novem-ber, San Francisco, California.
LEE, M. & BARNETT, G. A. (1997) A symbols-and-meaning approach to the organizationalcultures of banks in the United States, Japan, and Taiwan, Communication Research, 24(4),pp. 394–413.
LONG, S. (1998) Action research, participative action research, and action learning in organisa-tions, Management Paper Series, Swinburne University of Technology, 1, pp. 29–40.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
94 B. Lasky & I. Tempone
MORGAN, G. (1986) Images of Organisation (CA, Sage Publications).O’SHEA, B. (1999) Put action into learning, HRMonthly, May, pp. 58–59.RIDING, P., FOWELL, S. & LEVY, P. (1999) An action research approach to curriculum develop-
ment, Idaho Virtual Campus, pp. 1–5.SCHOOL OF BUSINESS (1998) Business research database, School of Business, Swinburne
University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria. Available at: Australia. Retrieved fromwww.swin.edu.au/business/s…y/researchother/resoutput98.htm.
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS (1999) Business research database, School of Business, Swinburne Univer-sity of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia. Retrieved from Research output 99.xlsData.
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS (2000) Business research database, School of Business, Swinburne Univer-sity of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia. Retrieved from Research output 2000.xlsData.
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS (1999–2001) Head of School Advisory Group, Minutes of Meetings, Schoolof Business, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS (2001) Strategies for the Management of Research Activity and Quantumwithin the School of Business The Research Quantum Management Model and the Headof School’s Minimum Yearly Research Output Requirement, School of Business, Swin-burne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.
SMIRCICH, L. (1983) Concepts of culture and organizational analysis, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, pp. 339–358.
TEMPONE, I., LASKY, B. & EVANS, B. (2000) Teaching academics learning to research. The roleof educational development workshops in academic learning, Proceedings of the WesternDecision Sciences Institute, 29th Annual Meeting, Maui, Hawaii.
TEMPONE, I., LASKY, B. & EVANS, B. (2002) Supportive Learning Communities and ComplianceIntervention: a means of increasing research output, Proceedings of the Australian and NewZealand Academy of Management, Beechworth, Victoria, Australia (on CD).
WATT, M. L. (1997) Action research: evolving professional practice through collaborative inquiry,Action Research Collaborative of Greater St. Louis. Available at: http: info.csd.org/www/re-sources/arc/essay1.html (retrieved 25.6.99).
WRIGHT, S. (1998) The politicization of culture, Anthropology Today, 14(1), pp. 7–16.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 09:
02 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
