Intervention methodologies in management research Prof. Albert DAVID University of Evry-Val d’Essonne / Ecole des Mines de Paris Track : Collaborative Management / Research Approaches
Academic address : Centre de Gestion Scientifique Ecole des Mines de Paris 60, Boulevard St Michel 75272 PARIS Cedex 06 FRANCE E-mail address :
[email protected]
Abstract : A large number of research methods in the social sciences claim to be based on a field approach. The notion of intervention is at the heart of a certain number of methods developed in the different research communities. These research methods have the common ambition to produce practical knowledge that serves action, and also more general theoretical knowledge. In this article we argue that intervention research, taken in its widest sense, is a general framework capable of housing a great many different management sciences research practices. We show that interaction between field and theory constitutes a grounded management engineering, which embodies the general project that can be attributed to the management sciences.
Intervention approaches in management research Albert DAVID Introduction 1. Action research [Lewin, 1951] 1.1. THE FIELD AS THE METHODOLOGICAL BASIS OF AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL TURNING POINT IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 1.2. THE CHOICE OF EXPERIMENTAL METHOD 1.3. THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE ARE LINKED METHODOLOGICALLY 1.4. THE FIVE PRINCIPLES OF ACTION RESEARCH
2. Action science [Argyris et al., 1985] 2.1.1. 2.1.2. 2.1.3. 2.1.4.
A "MILITANT" SCIENTIFIC APPROACH: INDEPENDENCE, PARTICIPATION AND CRITICAL REFLECTION FOR ACTION KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION AT THE SERVICE OF ACTION, BY EXTENDING THE PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC DELIBERATION TO PRACTICAL DELIBERATION DISCOVERING TACIT KNOWLEDG: THE "REFLECTIVE PRACTIONER" NORMS FOR ON-GOING VALIDATION, DOUBLE-LOOP LEARNING
3. The Science of decision aiding [Roy, 1985, 1992] 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4.
A DUAL EPISTEMOLOGICAL BREAK DEMOCRATIC ROOTS OF MULTICRITERIA DECISION AIDING PRODUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE TO SERVE ACTION PROBLEM STRUCTURING METHODS [CHECKLAND, 1984; ROSENHEAD, 1989]
4. Intervention research in management sciences [Hatchuel, 1986, 1994b; Moisdon, 1984, 1997] 4.1.1. 4.1.2.
A LEARNING PROCESS USING RATIONAL MODELLING THE FIVE METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERVENTION RESEARCH
5. Intervention Research as a general methodology for the management sciences? 5.1.1. 5.1.2. 5.1.3. 5.1.4.
FOUR PRINCIPLES COMMON TO SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES TO INTERVENTION A FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATING APPROACHES TO RESEARCH IN THE MANAGEMENT SCIENCES INTERVENTION RESEARCH AS A GENERAL APPROACH TO RESEARCH IN THE MANAGEMENT SCIENCES? THE INTERVENER – RESEARCHER'S TOOL BOX
Conclusion References
Introduction A large number of research methods in the social sciences claim to be based on a field approach. Most research in the management sciences includes a so-called “field” phase, but the field has a very different function and provides very different knowledge depending on whether the researcher is an indirect observer (using questionnaires, for example) or whether, on the contrary, he voluntarily intervenes directly in the course of things, by establishing special relations with the actors in the organisation in question (by designing new management tools with the organisation’s actors for example). The notion of intervention is at the heart of a certain number of methods developed in the different research communities, for example in anthropology with the debates on applied anthropology [Bastide, 1971; Van Willigen, 1986], in social psychology with Lewin’s action research [1951], in sociology with Touraine’s actionalism [1965] or in operational research once the designers of models and tools started to address the question of their implementation in organisations [Hatchuel, 1994a; Landry, Banville and Oral, 1996; David, 1998b]. Grounded theory methodology [Glaser and Strauss, 1967], cooperative inquiry [Heron, 1971; Reason and Heron, 1986], action science [Argyris, Putnam and Smith, 1985], “engineering” management research [Chanal, Lesca and Martinet, 1997], diagnostic action research [Koenig, 1997], problem structuration methods [Rosenhead, 1989], participatory action research [Fals-Borda et Rahman, 1991], action inquiry [Torbert, 1981], decision-aiding science [Roy, 1992], intervention research in the management sciences [Hatchuel and Molet, 1986 ; Hatchuel, 1994b], to mention but a few, are research methods that have the common ambition to produce practical knowledge that serves action, and also more general theoretical knowledge. In this article we argue that intervention research, taken in its widest sense, is a general framework capable of housing a great many different management sciences research practices. We will answer the question “can the field be modelled?” with our view that the interaction between field and theory constitutes grounded management engineering, which embodies the general project that can be attributed to the management sciences. We will begin by comparing four of the most important approaches to intervention: action research [Lewin, 1951], action science [Argyris, Putnam et Smith, 1985], decision-aiding science [Roy, 1992] and intervention research in the management sciences [Hatchuel and Molet, 1986; Hatchuel, 1994], describing their main principles and the points they have in common. We will then propose an integrating framework for the different approaches to research in the management sciences that allows us to posit that intervention research can be a federating paradigm for the management sciences. However, we will also see in the conclusion that, although the intervener-researcher stance is more effective in the management sciences for gathering empirical observations, designing appropriate models and management tools and for drawing up grounded general theories for the management sciences, it is more complex on ethical, methodological and epistemological levels. 1. Action research [Lewin, 1951] 1.1. The field as the methodological basis of an epistemological turning point in social psychology. The notion of field is fundamental to Kurt Lewin’s work. For a group, he defines the field as a "living space" consisting of the group and its environment as it exists for the group. To fully understand the originality of this notion, Lewin’s work must be placed in the context of the development of social psychology. Before Lewin, few people thought it possible to gather reliable data on anything except "objectively observable" behaviour. The result was that only things that proceeded from the observation of the physical aspects of behaviour – movements of the body, movements from one place to another etc. - were considered scientific, and not the social aspects. Many researchers in psychology would have answered “no” if they had been asked whether a friendly or aggressive act could be
observed without interpretation, in the same way as the movement of an arm. According to Lewin, the paradox was that, as ordinary citizens these same researchers would probably willingly admit that they were perfectly capable of understanding their wives’ behaviour, for example. Hence, there are ordinary skills that enable us to interpret other people’s behaviour correctly and to “see through” the surface of things. Lewin put the proposition round the other way and stated that it must be possible to make objective social observations: the onus was on the psychologists to find a way to do in science what any three year old child does every day. If this had not been done in the past, it was because the scientific community was blinded by philosophical boundaries, considering that only physical facts had a scientific existence. Lewin drew up a framework for scientific social observation on two main methodological bases. The first was the systematic use of an empirical base consisting of facts from everyday life. The second involved a progressively deeper understanding of the laws of "social perception", i.e. the way in which individuals and groups perceive reality. The aim was therefore not only to describe a situation, but also to understand it. This stressed the importance of bearing in mind that "objects are also subjects", to quote Elias. Consequently, there was the need to start with empirical data, but also to draw up scientific methods for observing and gathering individual and collective perceptions. This concern to understand meant that the researcher required certain skills to ensure that both his perception and his understanding of things were correct. 1.2. The choice of experimental method Lewin went on to explain the need to develop experimental methods outside the laboratory, i.e. in "natural" social groups. From the outset, Lewin adopted a multi-disciplinary approach, at the crossroads of experimental psychology, experimental sociology and experimental cultural anthropology. However, there was the problem of the experimenter’s powers: on the one hand, there could be no question of interfering with the practical objectives of the organisation in which the experiment is taking place but, on the other, the experimenter must have the power to make a sufficient number of factors vary. The solution was to be found in co-operation between researcher and organisation: “It would not be surprising, therefore, if scientific studies on group life are soon considered as essential for the progress of any large organization, as today chemical research is considered essential for the chemical factory”. [Lewin, 1951, p. 167]. This co-cooperation proved the very close links between theory and practice. 1.3 Theoretical and practical knowledge are linked methodologically The concern to understand means that the researcher’s role is to find out how the system in question operates and, at the same time, how it would evolve if certain measures were adopted. Piaget was to say later that: " knowledge is not the discovery of necessities but the up-dating of possibles ". According to Lewin, it was not a researcher’s responsibility to decide, for example, what the ideal Scout movement should be like or whether a company should prefer high production coupled with relatively small status differences, or on the contrary, greater status differences at the price of lower production levels. Lewin defined the researcher’s role in these terms: “He can investigate what ought to be done if certain social objectives are to be reached. He can secure data which will be important for analysing a given policy and its effect, and which will be pertinent for any rational policy determination” [p. 168]. If there is co-operation between researcher and organisation, and if the aim is to produce knowledge that is valid in both scientific and practical terms, then it must be agreed that theory and practice are linked methodologically. This methodological link, if correctly handled,
“... could provide answers to theoretical problems and at the same time strengthen that rational approach to our practical social problems which is one of the basic requirements for their solution” [p. 169]. Consequently, even experiments designed to solve theoretical problems presuppose not only close cooperation between the researcher and the practitioner and sufficient power for the experimenter, but also "the recognition that any such research is, to a degree, social action" [p.168]. Defined in this way, action research not only posits, as is frequently accepted today, that attempting to face other people’s problems objectively can help change attitudes, but also that "active co-operation in fact finding opens up new horizons, creates better understanding, and often results in higher group morale". This marked an important epistemological break from traditional observation: the researcher’s place and the impact of the research on the action are explicitly taken into account, not from the angle of "bias" that must be limited but, on the contrary, as an actual principle of intervention and generation of scientific knowledge. 1.4. The five principles of action research In conclusion, with Argyris et ali [1985: 8-9], we can take five principles to summarize the action research approach initiated by Lewin: -
Action research involves change experiments on real problems in social systems. Lewin takes a different stance from observation here, whether participatory or not: the researcher plays the role of experimenter, and changes take place in the real world and not in the limited, decontextualised perimeter of the laboratory. One of the aims is to provide actors with assistance concerning real problems.
-
Action research involves iterative cycles of identifying a problem, planning, acting and evaluating. In this, the approach follows a practical process that, in its principle, is not different from "social management" in general. In other words, action research is by nature a social management activity, even if it includes a specific scientific dimension.
-
The intended change involves re-education, that is changing patterns of thinking and acting (norms and values expressed in action). Re-education can only be effective if the "clients" participate in the diagnosis and fact-finding, and if they have free choice to engage in new kinds of action. The actors are therefore considered as such and not simply as subjects of experiment. In other words, they contribute, to a certain extent, in the actual definition of the experimental process.
-
Action research challenges the status quo from a democratic perspective, coherent with the requirements of participation and free choice. This principle is logically in line with Lewin’s work on leadership and change. On leadership, Lewin underlined the importance and potential effectiveness of a participatory rather than authoritarian style, and on change, he invented the unfreeze-change-refreeze sequence that implies, amongst other things, that certain conditions must be created before initiating change, including in particular giving the different actors the means of preparing for it collectively.
-
Action research contributes simultaneously to basic knowledge in social science and to social action in everyday life. Theory and practice are therefore methodologically related in a partly common process of knowledge generation.
We shall be seeing a certain number of these principles again in the action science approach.
2. Action science [Argyris et al. , 1985] 2.1. A "militant" scientific approach: independence, participation and critical reflection for action With action science, Argyris adopted a more explicitly "militant" position than Lewin. Although the aim of action science is to produce knowledge that can serve action, it focuses on certain types of knowledge: “the aim of an action science experiment is to describe and to transform those aspects of our social world that present us with blind spots, dilemmas, and constraints of which we are unaware.” [p. 133] The researcher’s aim here is to discover a way of freeing the actors from the constraints that prevent them from acting in the most appropriate manner. More generally, the aim is also to produce data describing the present situation and also enabling its transformation. This goes back, in a different form, to Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze process. According to Argyris, action science must: “first offer an explanation that describes what happened in a way that implies how it might be changed. It then must formulate an alternative that transforms what was described. And finally it must develop a pathway for getting from here to there” [p. 229]. The hypothesis is that the theories in use prevent actors from evolving. A learning process must therefore be introduced to help individuals explore and redesign their action theories. 2.2. Knowledge production at the service of action, by extending the principles of scientific deliberation to practical deliberation Action science is focused on the production of knowledge at the service of action. Similarly to action research, action science works in the field to produce this knowledge, which is therefore contextual and not deduced from general normative theories. Knowledge is not produced for its own sake, but to help individual and collective action. Action science aims to "enact" communities of inquiry in communities of social practice, thereby extending scientific ethics and practices to deliberation and to concrete action. This idea, taken from Dewey’s work [1929], is fundamental. Dewey criticised the separation of knowledge and action: "science in becoming experimental has itself become a mode of directed practical doing" [Dewey, 1929: 24, quoted by Argyris et al.: 6]. Following on from Dewey and Lewin, action science emphasizes the continuities between the activities of science and the activities of learning in a concrete action context. 2.3. Discovering "tacit" knowledge: the "reflective practitioner". There is an underlying epistemology of practice in principles 1 and 2: practical knowledge is the realm of tacit knowing, that can be made explicit through " reflective inquiry ". Theories in use can therefore be made explicit by collective reflection on action. This refers back to Schön’s figure of the “reflective practitioner” [1983]. Going beyond the traditional split between empirical and interpretative approaches, the domain of action science is characterised by the interpenetration of empirical, interpretative and normative claims: in particular, this means that knowledge stemming from action sciences’ experiments is empirically "grounded" in the sense that the group formed by the researcher and the actors is, by construction, collectively responsible for the knowledge and its normative implications in terms of action.
Action science uses theoretical constructs designed to deal with concrete situations and to produce scientific generalisations. It puts more emphasis on the meanings and logic of action than on regularities that may stem from contingent events. 2.4. Norms for on-going validation, double-loop learning The validation of knowledge in action science, as in traditional science, calls on norms for public testing, falsifiability, intersubjective agreement on data and explicit inferences. What is important here is that the norms not only serve in validating the data retrospectively, but also in the actual process of its production by the actors in the experiment process: “the ground of knowledge claims in action science is the community of practice insofar as it enacts norms for valid information, free and informed choice, and internal commitment” [p. 79]. Contrary to the traditional sciences, the context in which knowledge is produced and the context in which it is validated cannot be clearly distinguished. Action science strives to create alternatives to the status quo by double-loop learning and a systematic “frame breaking” approach by individuals and groups. Argyris demonstrates that the application of a "Model I" single-loop learning system leads to very limited learning, involving inhibition, strategies for protection and self-preservation, camouflage and an increase in double binds for individuals [1985: 95]. On the contrary, the use of "Model II", a double-loop system, encourages a virtuous transformation process: increased participation and independence, better appropriation of innovations, an increase in the changeability of systems. Action scientists justify their normative stance through criticism of the epistemic principles of the client system, which remains the ultimate judge of the validity of the criticism; action science is a critical theory in the sense that it: "seeks to engage human agents in public self-reflection in order to transform their world" [1985: 2]. The science of decision aiding, in Roy’s sense of the term, is also a critical approach, and also implies a form of collective reflection. One of the main features that distinguishes it from action science is the almost systematic use of formalised models, particularly multicriteria modelling. 3. The science of decision aiding [Roy, 1985, 1992] 3.1. A dual epistemological break The multicriteria decision aiding approach [Roy, 1985; Roy and Bouyssou, 1993] represents a dual epistemological break. On the one hand, the multicriteria approach breaks away from traditional operational research, which works on single criteria formulations of problems that it aims to optimise. It explicitly takes into account that there can be different opinions on what constitutes reality: in this respect, the multicriteria approach represents a "de-optimisation" of operational research [Roy, 1968]. On the other hand, the relation of prescription expressed by the concept of decision aiding breaks away from the traditional idea of "decision-making science" in the sense of a normative approach enabling a prescription of the "best decision", independent of the actors and the organisational context. Roy [1992] shows that it is impossible to uphold this normative position in concrete situations, and supports the apparently more modest, but actually more sophisticated idea of a "science of decision aiding": "The science of decision aiding seeks to establish a network of concepts, models, procedures and results capable of constituting a structured, coherent set of knowledge - in relation with a body of hypotheses – serving as a key to guide decision-making and to communicate about it in accordance with objectives and values" [Roy, 1992: 522]. Like action research and action science, decision aiding is open to collective exploration of an existing state and possible ways of transforming it.
3.2. Democratic roots of multicriteria decision aiding Although multicriteria decision aiding borrowed from operational research the idea of working on a model to help design and select solutions, it is genealogically derived from social choice theories. As several authors have noted [Pomerol and Barba-Romero, 1993; David, 1996b], there is conceptual similarity in the problem of the aggregation of the opinions of judges on potential actions and the aggregation of the evaluations of actions on multiple criteria. Social choice theories as studied by Borda, Condorcet or Arrow, were interested in whether or not voting procedures were democratic. Hence, there is a significant democratic dimension to multicriteria decision aiding that is not only found in the formal models mobilised, but also in the philosophy behind its interventions. We can also add that the organisational model implicitly conveyed by multicriteria decision aiding is, ideally, a cooperative negotiation involving a group that, in the first analysis, can be said to be close to groups formed by participants in action research or in an action science experiment. 3.3. Production of knowledge to serve action Fundamentally, multicriteria decision aiding offers scientific support for decision-making processes: -
"by highlighting objective and less objective issues, separating robust conclusions from fragile ones, dispelling certain forms of misunderstandings in communication, avoiding the trap of false reasoning, highlighting incontrovertible results once understood, and by designing software for decision aiding or even for automatic decisions" [Roy, 1992: 523].
Although the stance is more directly cognitive than the action science approach - in the sense that work in multicriteria decision aiding is focused directly on knowledge, independent of relations between the actors - we find the same principle of a contribution to more rigorous debates, with actors who are better informed and more aware of the potential traps set by knowledge. The aim here is to ensure that the decision-making process is less the scene of purely political games: the appropriateness and the shared nature of knowledge, the use of multicriteria modelling to explicitly take different points of view into account should, as in action science, make it possible to introduce virtuous learning loops. 3.4. Problem structuring methods [Checkland, 1984; Rosenhead, 1989] A large number of research projects, particularly after Checkland’s soft systems methodology [Checkland, 1984, 1989], have attempted to combine the principles of systems analysis with principles stemming from operational research. These methods are usually grouped under the name of problem structuring methods [Rosenhead, 1989]. They can be seen as the application of rational modelling to the early stages of the decision-making process, i.e. to structuring and defining problems. The different methods in this research movement use systemic modelling and tools that handle field data in a more formal way. Amongst many others, we can mention such methods as SODA– Strategic Options Development and Analysis [Eden, 1989], Total Systems Intervention [Flood, 1995] and the Strategic Choice approach [Friend and Hickling, 1987]. They all claim a “soft” approach, compared with the traditional “optimising” approach of operational research. The tools are designed and used as means of exploring reality. Rosenhead [1989] summarises what these methods have in common: -
“No optimisation: search for acceptable alternatives in distinct areas, without trade-offs Limited need for data, more integration of hard and soft data by taking into account the actors’ individual and collective judgements
-
Simplicity and transparency, aimed and clarifying the terms of the conflict Consider people as actors Facilitate a bottom-up process Accept uncertainty and keep a certain number of options open for future solutions” [Rosenhead, 1989: 12].
As we can see, they contain a certain number of the underlying principles of both action science and decision-aiding science. We will now go on to look at the principles of intervention research in management sciences. 4. Intervention research in management sciences [Hatchuel, 1986, 1994b; Moisdon, 1984, 1997] 4.1. A learning process using rational modelling Like the above approaches, intervention research in management sciences is designed to produce knowledge that is scientific and can serve action. Hatchuel [1994b] proposes a general view of intervention, adapted to the problems encountered by organisations today and also to the need to produce scientific knowledge: "Organisational life is born with the training of necessarily diverse actors, constantly seeking a basis for their relations. It is also affected by the death of these actors or by their transformation. Researchers seeking to establish intervention processes cannot escape from this "law of nature". But if an intervention is to have a meaning, they must fight against this law when it is based on a mutilated version of the facts and of the relations between the actors" [p.60]. This last sentence clearly justifies the normative position of the intervener, which we have already noted in the approaches analysed above. According to Hatchuel, managerial techniques, organisational watchwords such as decentralisation, total quality, participation, the teaching firm or reengineering all work like rational myths, that is like utopian systems possessing both the mobilising properties of the myth [Cassirer, 1953; Eliade, 1963] and the operating properties of reasoning. The learning process will not result from collective work by a group confronting its different ideas about itself, as in action science, but from the dynamics of collectively building the management innovation. In this case, the learning process materialises simultaneously "by the production of new knowledge and by the building of new figures of actors, whose difficulties, impact and possible exemplarity can be analysed by the researcher " [p.74], whether or not he co-produces the rational myth. From a methodological standpoint, intervention research is structured on five principles: increased rationality, open-endedness, scientific nature, isonomy and the two levels of interaction. 4.2. The five methodological principles of intervention research [Hatchuel, 1994] The principle of increased rationality indicates that the researcher’s intervention must "favour a better balance between the knowledge of the facts and the relations that they enable between the actors" [p.68]. This principle clearly breaks away from universal rationality, whilst at the same time specifying the researcher’s role in relation to the actors in the organisation in which he is working. It is not only a question of introducing dialogue between the actors or of providing expert knowledge from outside, but also of addressing the compatibility of relations and new knowledge, and it is precisely this operation that constitutes the principle of rationalisation. The principle of open-endedness, already used in action science, indicates that it is impossible to specify in advance the path that intervention research will take and the results to be obtained from it: the aim of the system is only to produce new knowledge capable of making the organisation change.
The principle of scientific nature corresponds to the ideal of truth. It is the methodological result of the principle of increased rationality: the researcher must constantly have a critical attitude to the facts. The researcher is not the "expert of experts" but must ask himself questions about the conditions in which the knowledge mobilised during the intervention is validated, whether the knowledge is of a technical or of a more sociological nature. The principle of isonomy corresponds to the democratic ideal, that we have also seen in the action research, action science and decision aiding science approaches. It indicates that "the effort of understanding must be applied equally to all the actors involved" [p.68]. The intervention itself must therefore result, in concrete terms, in the introduction of a system of exchange between the actors that respects both the search for truth and democracy. The principle of the two levels of interaction indicates that intervention research implies an intervention mechanism and also a search for knowledge. In the intervention mechanism, the relationship between the researcher and the actors is not set in advance: "any intervention makes the initial operating more complex, in a very particular way: [...] delocalised actors emerge, i.e. individuals whose relations with the other actors are not yet coded, but will be built up depending on the way in which the intervention takes place" [p.69]. The search for knowledge speeds up the process, with the researcher stimulating the production of new points of view: "the new relations created by the intervention mechanism are aimed at creating a new dynamic of knowledge and confrontation between the intervener’s knowledge and that of the actors concerned" [p.69]. In short, "the intervention involves not only exploring the system, but also producing knowledge and concepts that serve to imagine the trajectories that a collective could follow" [p.70]. In particular, rational modelling plays an important role in research intervention practices in the management sciences. The model is a rational myth around which the intervention gradually becomes structured: "Rational models are a means of designing idealised behaviour - rational myths - in structured situations. They are not primarily designed to be implemented or applied: they are a reference, which the analyst can use to confront the behaviour observed in certain actors. [...] This confrontation enables the analyst to construct, with the actors, a new view of the constraints and objectives under which they operate". [Hatchuel and Molet, 1986: 377]. 5. Intervention research as a general methodology for the management sciences? Intervention research as described in the previous paragraph has particularly been used for designing and implementing management tools in the field [see, for example, Moisdon, 1997]. However, in a wider sense, the concept refers back to and generalises the basic principles of the other approaches presented here, whether it be action research, action science, decision aiding science or problem structuring methods. Similarly, the rational models referred to by Hatchuel and Molet [1986] do not simply amount to mathematical formalisations. We will therefore begin by looking at the principles the different approaches have in common, before going on to see how intervention research, in the widest sense, could be a generalisation of a certain number of management science research methods. 5.1. Four principles common to scientific approaches to intervention -
Principle n° 1. The aim is to gain an in-depth understanding of the way in which the system operates, to help it to define possible paths for change, to help it to choose one, to implement it and evaluate the results. This concern to understand implies a particular line of investigation: the researcher uses his position to co-produce knowledge from inside of the system, not from outside. A consequence in terms of methodology is that the research is not limited to highlighting the regularities of the universe studied.
-
Principle n° 2. Knowledge is produced in interaction with the field. The researcher is included in the research project, but holds a special, delocalised position. A consequence in terms of methodology is that the place where the knowledge is produced and the place where it is validated cannot be clearly distinguished: this takes us away from the traditional process whereby data is collected in the field and analysed elsewhere by the researcher. The production of knowledge and its integration in the change process is therefore carried out in a particular rational way which, with Ponssard, we can call interactive rationality: "The construction of a rational method in a management situation involves a limited operationalisation of the actors’ common interfaces, each preserving, for reasons of efficiency, a certain independence with respect to their own stakes and their own savoir-faire. The aim is to build up a common theory of rationality for an identified interaction, rather than a theory of the rationality of actors who would then confront each other in an interaction defined independently from this theory" [Ponssard, 1997, p. 214].
-
Principle n° 3. The researcher runs through different theoretical levels: presentation of facts, intermediate theories, general theories, axiomatic level (basic concepts) and paradigmatic level (basic premises). The theoretical level of operating is that of intermediate, grounded theories (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), that enables both dialogue with the field and dialogue with the general theories. One of the consequences in terms of methodology is that there is a transversal validation of knowledge on several levels, by horizontal, vertical and oblique comparisons, as shown in the diagram below. This also means that it is difficult, with such research, to establish a fully pertinent review of the literature at the beginning of the process, before going into the field, as existing theories are constantly being revised thanks to empirical materials.
Axiom / paradigm
General theory
other axiom / paradigm
other general theory
Intermediate theory
other intermediate theory
Facts presented
other facts presented
Figure 1: a given research project runs through, questions and feeds different theoretical levels.
The dotted lines indicate all the possible comparisons. During a given research process, only certain comparisons will be used. For example, the lines printed in bold type in the above diagram indicate that the facts presented as a result of the intervention have given rise to an intermediate theory then a general theory, but the presentation of other facts and intermediate theories coming from other interventions, together with another general theory, also took part in this process.
-
Principle n° 4: The normative position of intervening with reality is justified with reference to scientific principles (search for the truth) and democratic principles (equal respect for all actors). This methodological principle also gives grounds for the rationality of intervention research in terms of value, to use Weber’s categories, and justifies the prescriptive nature of a certain number of results for the action. It is under these conditions that the management sciences escape from over-functionalism and acquire a critical dimension.
5.2. A framework for integrating approaches to research in the management sciences At the very least, interventions consist in an observation of what is happening in the field, and they can go as far as the design and implementation of concrete changes within the organisations studied. Let us go back to the table in chapter 3. If we now attempt to qualify the four approaches (observation, "armchair" design of models and tools, action research and intervention research) according to their capacity to effectively produce changes, we can do so using two complementary dimensions [David, 1996a]: -
the degree of formalisation, indicating the degree to which the changes produced or to be produced by the research are formally defined;
-
the degree of contextualisation, indicating the degree to which the changes produced by the research integrate the context.
By "change", we refer to any intentional transformation of the system by a group of actors - which may include the researcher - from a management standpoint, i.e. the introduction of new "ways of doing things". The expression "formalisation of change" refers to the process of formal definition of new elements and the expression "contextualisaton of change" to the two-way process whereby the existing organisation adapts to the planned innovations, and the innovations to the organisation [David, 1996a, 1996b, 1998]. Formalisation is complete when the new element is defined in detail. Contextualisation is strong when the new element is adequate and well adapted to the organisation, irrespective of its degree of formalisation. A two-dimensional diagram can model each of the approaches: Purpose Mental construction of reality I. Observation Approach Starting from existing Contextualisation situation (observation of of change facts or group's work on its own behaviour) ?
Concrete construction of reality IIa. Action research Contextualisation of change
?
Formalisation of change
Starting from an idealised situation or a concrete transformation project
Formalisation of change
IIb. "From the lab” design of III. Intervention research management models Contextualisation of change
Contextualisation of change
?
Formalisation of change
Formalisation of change
Table 2 - Formalisation and contextualisation of change in the four research approaches The bold lines indicate what is effectively done during the research. The thin lines indicate the logical follow-up to the process that is not touched on during the research, hence the question marks.
If the result of the observation is limited to proposing a representation of the way in which the system studied operates - and on the condition that the actors observed are informed of the results of the observation - it only provides potential changes: at the most, it can be assumed that the representation informs the actors and is likely to favour certain changes. Therefore, the formalisation and contextualisation process does not start off in concrete terms, which explains the graphical representation in box 1 of the above table: the spot shown below the dotted line symbolises the fact that describing the way in which a system operates does not, in itself, give rise to concrete changes. "Armchair" design of management models, whether it concerns extremely concrete management tools or various sorts of utopian ideas (e.g. the "ideal firm"), consists in a fairly detailed formalisation of the tool or the model, but without knowing whether it can be contextualised. There is a minimal form of contextualisation, given that the designer always has a vision in mind, however simplified it may be, of the type of management situation concerned, but this type of design is only very slightly interested in the contextualisation of the resulting inventions: the research approach, represented by the thick line in the diagram, stops at the horizontal dotted line, at the threshold of the contextualisation process. Decision-aiding, in Roy’s sense of the term, and the problem structuring approaches studied above are intermediate approaches: they use tools designed in the laboratory, but as they are aimed at intervention, this brings them closer to intervention research. Action research, as we have seen, tends to stem from the idea of preparing a group for change: the participatory process and the independence given to the actors leads to a form of liberation of the individuals and the collective, and therefore a change in relations that is in turn capable of sparking off concrete transformations in the decision-making process. It is as if the change was being contextualised beforehand. The concrete transformations in the organisation’s management are only formalised at a later stage, in a phase that is no longer concerned by research or at least, in which the
researchers do not intervene directly so as not to disturb the organisation’s practical objectives. The research approach, represented by the thick line in the diagram stops at the vertical dotted line, on the threshold of the formalisation process. Intervention research enables the formalisation and contextualisation of models and management tools to progress in an interactive manner. The approach is therefore pictured by progression in the form of a staircase, with alternate phases of formalisation and contextualisation, of varying length and intensity. In this respect, it is a special model for designing and steering change, in which design and implementation of new elements are managed simultaneously, contrary to " armchair " design of models and tools (formalisation without contextualisation) and action research taken in the most traditional way (contextualisation without formalisation). But, in its widest sense, intervention research can also be seen as a generalisation of the different approaches to management research. 5.3 Intervention research as a general approach to research in the management sciences? If we put aside the idea of supposed neutrality on the part of social sciences researchers and, on the contrary, start to study the conditions under which their interventions in constructing reality are the result of a scientific approach, we can go beyond the limits associated with observation and consider that all management researchers are actually, or potentially, interveners. Intervention research can be considered a general approach to management sciences research for three reasons: -
First, graphically: if we accept that the diagrams in Table 2 above give a true picture of the research approaches analysed in this article, then we can note that each of the diagrams I, IIa and IIb constitutes a particular case of diagram III (intervention research), as shown in Figure 1 below. By deduction, we can therefore put forward the hypothesis that intervention research, in its widest sense, is a generalisation of the other approaches.
I
IIa
IIb
III
Figure 1 - Diagrams I, IIa and IIb are particular cases of diagram III. -
Second, on a practical level: intervention research combines on the one hand the organisational focus and grounded nature - in Glaser and Strauss [1967] sense of the term - of action research (box IIb) and, on the other, the engineering focus specific to design activities
in box IIa. In this sense, it is a more general approach than the other three: 1) it does not have the limitations of simple observation, 2) it does not suffer from the lack of organisational vision of "armchair" design of models and tools and 3) it does not limit its intervention tools to work on collective relations, and permits intervention concerning the organisation’s practical objectives, contrary to action research and action science as respectively defined by Lewin and Argyris1. As the researcher is given a position "at the heart of management", it therefore also gives access to a far wider range of knowledge concerning organisations and the way in which they are managed. -
Finally, on the level of underlying principles: we can note that it is in intervention research that these principles are expressed in the most general way: the principles of increased rationality, open-endedness, isonomy, scientific nature, and the two levels of interaction are all extensions of the principles underlying action research, action science and decision-aiding science.
It is obviously possible for observation to lead to recommendations for action. The researcher can go on, from the “armchair”, to design the models and tools that he believes appropriate to the context that he has studied. In this case, the research method is a combination of boxes I and IIa. Alternatively, he can work with the actors on the basis of the results of his observations in an action science type of approach, hence combining boxes I and IIb. Finally, he can follow up the observation phase by an intervention research phase, hence managing the formalisation and the contextualisation of the new elements simultaneously. Similarly, intervention research can include phases of observation (e.g. interviews or analysis of documents), "armchair" phases for designing management models and tools and phases of group work comparable to practices in action research. 5.4. The intervener - researcher’s tool box A researcher’s intervention in a firm represents the sudden arrival of a new actor in the collective action process and is likely, to a greater or lesser extent, to transform the course of things. As we have seen, the intervener - researcher model is therefore sophisticated:
1
-
the clear distinction between the researcher and the system he is observing, which is found in traditional, non-participatory approaches based on experiments or observation, becomes more complex in intervention research. On the one hand, the researcher participates in the action in a concrete manner, and on the other, the actors are led to reflect on their own system of action. There is two-way learning (Hatchuel, 1994) between the intervener - researcher and the reflective practitioner (Schön, 1983);
-
the intervener - researcher and the actors with whom he is working form a group of actors, collectively involved in a learning process;
-
one of the consequences is that the researcher will have to be able to analyse himself in the process of acting; the researcher’s action is one of the events subjected to analysis;
-
from a scientific standpoint, it is of vital importance to be able to find out how, with what legitimacy and up to what point the researcher should design and prescribe the transformations of an organised system, and under which conditions the knowledge stemming from the intervention can be considered scientific.
For recent developments in action research see, amongst others, the special issue published on this theme in 1993 by the review Human Relations (Action Research, Special issue, Volume 46, Number 2. February 1993. Pages 121-298).
The intervener - researcher’s "toolbox" will contain four compartments: - epistemological principles, - theories, concepts and analytical grids, - an experimental device, - methodological rules. 5.4.1. Respecting the five epistemological principles of intervention research These are the principles of increased rationality, open-endedness, isonomy, scientific nature and the two levels of interaction that we described in paragraph 4.2. above. 5.4.2. Mastering the concepts of the theory of organisations, being acquainted with management tools and knowing how to acquire technical skills Satisfactory interpretation of organisational and management phenomena obviously implies that the intervener - researcher must have the appropriate analytical grids in his toolbox: he must master the concepts of the theory of organisations and be acquainted with all the management and organisation tools. But he must also be capable of dealing with technical questions in order to rapidly acquire at least general skills on the actors’ professional activities. In this respect, the project of rationalisation represented by intervention research consists in partly re-designing collective action by undertaking technical and organisational learning processes.
5.4.3. Using the design and implementation of management tools and organisation procedures as a knowledge device In intervention research, the knowledge device is on two levels (principle of the two levels of interaction). Let’s take the case of an intervention aimed at designing and implementing a decisionaiding tool. Interviews, documentary analysis and observation of the actors at work will produce a first set of knowledge on the system studied and help elaborate a series of conjectures on its possible trajectories, particularly with respect to the decision-making process to be instrumented. However, on a second level, the transformation process sparked off by designing and implementing the tool will in turn produce scientific knowledge, both about the tool designed (progress in management techniques in this case, a new decision-aiding tool), on the organisational implications (compatibility tool/organisation, for example in terms of the possibility of decentralising decisions or improving coordination), on change or steering change (how to design and manage change). 5.4.4. Applying three major methodological principles in the field Three methodological principles can be used to translate the above points: the principle of exploratory investigation, the principle of design and the principle of free movement between theoretical levels. The principle of exploratory investigation means that research must be conducted bearing in mind that the aim is to design or support transformation projects and propose possible collective trajectories for the system studied, and not simply to provide static analysis: for example, in research intervention interviews are only rarely in the form of semi-directive questionnaires with all the actors being given a list of identical, pre-determined questions to answer, and are carried out more in the spirit of a police investigation. The principle of design implies that the researcher rapidly leaves the interview stage, to go on to the intervention stage as such, i.e. to designing and implementing the management and organisation tools that are the most appropriate to the management problem identified.
The principle of free movement between theoretical levels means that the researcher constantly works on the basis of recursive abduction - deduction - induction reasoning (David, 1999), linking the observed facts with intermediate or more general theories. At the same time, he must clarify the inferences made using observations in the field or using theories at different levels, to guarantee the scientific nature of the results on the technical level: the internal validity (logical coherence) and external validity (conditions of generalisation), whilst respecting the search for the truth and preserving democratic values. Conclusion In this article, we have studied four approaches to intervention in the social sciences. We have seen that they have a certain number of points in common, both in terms of methodology and of epistemology, and these are expressed in the most general terms in intervention research, which we can define as follows: Intervention research consists in helping to design and implement appropriate management models, tools and procedures in the field, on the basis of a more or less well-defined transformation project, with the aim of producing both knowledge that serves action, and management science theories of a more or less general nature. In this type of research, the "field" is more important than in traditional approaches based on observation. Far from being reduced to an "aquarium"-style place for experiments, observed by the researcher from the outside, the field is, on the contrary, a place where practical knowledge and theory emerges. The field cannot be dissociated from theories that help interpret what happens there and what the researcher himself does there and, in return, it contributes to the elaboration of theories at different levels, from the presentation of facts to general theories, or even paradigms and axioms. However, in the management sciences these theories cannot be reduced to a "general grammar", even though it may be made up of precise, formally well-related concepts. The concepts used in the theory of organisations (structure, change, learning, actors, areas of uncertainty, power, culture, etc.) or in institutional economics (transaction costs, agency relation, etc.), for example, are useful but insufficient. A truly management-oriented perspective is required, which implies working at intermediate, more contextual theoretical levels. The grounded nature of such theories guarantees that they are pertinent and can serve action, and the level at which they are formulated, which goes beyond a simple presentation of the facts, also enables the elaboration of general theories. With this in mind, the researcher can claim, amongst other things, that what he observes during the intervention is the local, contextual materialisation of more general phenomena. Consequently, the field is not somewhere where researchers go simply to extract constants and regularities. In intervention research, the field is both a place for engineering (designing appropriate management models and tools, including models and tools for steering change) and a source of grounded theories (what the designing and implementation of these tools reveals about the way in which the organisations operate, and which enriches the corpus of theoretical knowledge in management science). By analogy with Glaser and Strauss’ formula, we can describe management sciences research as grounded management engineering. This description is also compatible with the idea long defended by Simon [1969] that the management sciences are not only sciences of action which is the case of many sciences - but also sciences of the artificial. Finally, although intervention research can be considered as the generalisation of different research approaches in the management sciences, it is also the most complex to manage as far as respect for ethical, methodological and epistemological principles is concerned. "Armchair" observation and design of management models and tools can hide behind the principle of non-intervention. Action research as defined by people such as Lewin or Argyris focuses the intervention on the emancipation
of the players and the introduction of participatory procedures, which are as such acceptable values which automatically give action research and action science their critical dimension. If we are not careful, intervention research risks excessive functionalism. Nonetheless, it does have a critical dimension - particularly to be found in the principles of isonomy and scientific nature, which help found its normative position - but this dimension requires further precision. The position of the intervener - researcher is therefore, from this angle, the most sophisticated but also the most risky. On the other hand, it is also potentially the most favourable position for producing grounded theoretical knowledge in the management sciences.
Références Argyris, C., Putnam, R., McLain Smith, D. (1985), Action Science, Jossey-Bass. Bastide, R. (1971), Anthropologie appliquée, Payot. Chanal, V. , Lesca, H. , Martinet, A.C. (1997), « Vers une ingénierie de la recherche en gestion », Revue Française de Gestion, novembre-décembre Checkland, P. [1984], « Systems thinking in management : the development of soft systems methodology for real-world problem solving », in Self Organisation and management of social systems (Eds H.Ulrich and G.J.B. Probst), pp. 94104, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Checkland, P.B (1989), « Soft systems mehtodology », in Rosenhead, J. (1989) Rational analysis for a problematic world, Wiley. David, A. (1996a), « Structure et dynamique des innovations managériales », cahiers du Centre de Gestion Scientifique de l’Ecole des Mines de Paris, n° 12, juillet. David, A. (1996b), « L’aide à la décision entre outil et organisation », Entreprise et Histoire, n° 13, 9-26, décembre. David, A. (1998a), « Outils de gestion et pilotage du changement », Revue Française de Gestion, septembre-octobre. David, A. (1998b), « Models implementation : a state of the art », Actes de EURO Conference, Brussels, 12-16 juillet. Dewey, J. (1929), The quest for certainty, New York: Minton, Balch. Eden, C. (1989), « Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis (SODA) », in Rosenhead (1989), Rational analysis for a problematic world, Wiley. Elden, M. et Chisholm, R. (Eds), Varieties of action research [Special issue], Human Relations, 46, 2. Fals-Borda , O. et Rahman, M.A. (Eds), (1991), Action and knowledge : breaking the monopoly with participatory action research, New York : Intermediate technoloy/Apex. Flood, R.L. (1995), « Total Systems Intervention (TSI) : a reconstitution », Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46, 174-191. Friend, J.K. and Hickling, A. (1987), Planning under pressure : the strategic choice approach, Pergamon, Oxford. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The discovery of grounded theory : strategies for qualitative research, Chicago : Adline. Hatchuel A. et Molet H. (1986), « Rational Modelling in Understanding Human Decision Making : about two case studies », European Journal of Operations Research, n° 24, 1986, p. 178-186. Hatchuel, A. (1994a), « Frédéric Taylor : une lecture épistémologique. L’expert, le théoricien, le doctrinaire » in Bouilloud, F. et Lécuyer, J.P. (Ed.), L’invention de la gestion, L’Harmattan. Hatchuel, A. (1994b), « Les savoirs de l’intervention en entreprise », Entreprise et Histoire, n° 7, pp. 59 à 75. Heron, J. (1981), « Experiental research methodology », in Reason, P. and Rowan, J. (Eds), Human inquiry : a sourcebook of new paradigm research, Chichester, UK, John Wiley. Koenig, G. (1997), « Pour une conception infirmationniste de la recherche-action diagnostique », Revue Management International, Vol. 2, n° 1, automne. Landry, M. , Banville, C. , Oral, M. (1996), « Model legitimization in operational research », European Journal of Operational Research n° 92. Moisdon, J.C. (1984), « Recherche en gestion et intervention », Revue Française de Gestion. Moisdon, J.C. (Dir.) (1997), Du mode d’existence des outils de gestion, Séli-Arslan. Lewin, K. (1948), « Action research and minority problems » in Resolving social conflicts (G. Lewin, Ed.), Harper & Row. Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper and Row. Ponssard, J.P. (1997), « Formalisation des connaissances, apprentissage organisationnel et rationalité interactive », in Dupuy, J.P. et Livet, P. (Dir.) Les limites de la rationalité, La découverte, tome 1. Reason, P. and Heron, J. (1986), « Research with people : the paradigm of co-operative experiental inquiry », Person centred review, 1, 456-475. Rosenhead, J. (Ed.), (1989), Rational analysis for a problematic world, Wiley. Roy, B. (1968), « Il faut désoptimiser la recherche opérationnelle », Bulletin de l’AFIRO, n° 7. Roy, B. (1985), Méthodologie multicritère d’aide à la décision, Economica. Roy, B. (1992), « Science de la décision ou science de l’aide à la décision », Revue Internationale de Systémique, Vol. 6, n° 5, 497-529. Roy, B. et Bouyssou, D. (1993), Aide multicritère à la décision – Méthodes et cas, Economica. Simon, H.A. (1969), The sciences of the artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge. Schön, D. (1983), The reflective practitionner, New York : Basic Books. Torbert, W.R. (1976), Creating a community of inquiry : Conflict, collaboration, transformation, New York : John Wiley. Touraine, A. (1965), Sociologie de l’action, Seuil.
