Greenwood, D. J. and M. Levin (1998). Introduction To Action Research: Social Research For Social Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (pp. 187-202)


Jeneen Mucci
April 5, 2008

Chapter 11: Greenwood and Levin, Action Science and Organizational Learning
In choosing to read the Greenwood and Levin article on action science and organizational learning, I was drawn to and agreed with the idea that there is a disconnection between how we are engaged in and practice the field of social science. Although this is a field that is focused on building knowledge for action, without using an action research approach, the focus to evoke change on a strategically, theoretical level is not intentionally produced. Greenwood and Levin stressed that action science, through Argyris et al.’s design, is a “science of practice” (p.189), and that the group process is relevant in order to evoke change that works to modify behavioral strategies, not solely individual behavior. In order to bring about a change that is socially grounded, those involved in developing and promoting change must identify how to move from single-loop learning to double-loop learning. That is, moving from encouraging change solely in behavior, to encouraging a group to process their problems, needs, wants and hopes in order to develop strategies/models to bring about change on a systematic and continuous level. Therefore, the process becomes inherently ingrained in the work.

Furthermore, the article stresses that in order to initiate this inherent group process, those involved in the process must view themselves as “interventionists.” As interventionists, the main focus becomes moving people beyond single-loop learning, which in many cases involves moving individuals beyond defensiveness. As does Greenwood and Levin, I too questioned, as interventionist, how does one look beyond defensiveness and engage and support the group process in the realm of absolute objectivity? How does one do this effectively and continuously in order to not only maintain the process, but also to maintain the desired change? Also, as stated, in order to maintain this objective, fluid group process, the action science of Argyris et al.’s design does not identify the importance of group structure (i.e. gender, culture, economic strata and hierarchy), and how this can influence the strategies and change that the group is trying to build. Although I do agree that the field of conventional, social science may sometimes exist within a vacuum, how can those involved in action science develop this domain to exist on a level that encourages and supports the group process, while recognizing the multi-layered learning and development that must be a part of that process?





Scott Goddess
May 6, 2007

If we have a proposed theory, or are concerned about a social issue that we wish to challenge, how do we gain the knowledge to do so?

I chose the piece by Greenwood to gain a better sense of the concept of action research. I found it helpful in the way that it places substantial emphasis on the practice of intervention.page numbers needed I interpret this as a committed routine to challenge what is not fully determinable. Hence, the practice of intervention allows greater understanding to be ascertained.

In their work Argyris et al, reference needed refer to a study conducted by Stanley Milgram (1974) where he essentially tested people’s willingness to obey the wishes of authority. Without getting into the gritty details of a bait and switch study where person a was charged with the task of electrically shocking participant b for every wrong answer except for the fact that the joke was on person a. This study is an example of a scientifically solid study that if conducted under the guise of action research may have challenged variables related to human nature.

Milgram drew the conclusion that people were ultimately weak willed and prone to follow orders of authority. Proponents of action research are not as inclined to accept Milgram’s claim. They would prefer to inquire further by altering various elements of the execution of the study. If Argyris et al had their druthers, they would alter the parameters of the experiment in a way that altered the outcomes. It is in this desire to challenge parameters, or the process, where deeper learning via intervention takes shape. What possible factors contribute to a perception of a particular situation but remain hidden? How can what's hidden be challenged?

I am glad I chose this piece; it offers an explanation to a similar feeling one might experience between this course and driving with my father. A feeling of speeding up and slowing down, speeding up and slowing down, speeding up and slowing down. “At every turn, action science practitioners challenge participants to be explicit and to explain their actions, and they repeatedly make explicit their own reactions and explanations as a model for this behavior. This quasi-Socratic intervention often leads participants to make their own analytical breakthroughs rather than allowing them to hide in the interstices of group process. This requires skill in confronting people without silencing them, being strong yet open, sympathetic yet critical, and unusually attentive to the details of speech and action…”

Now it’s starting to make sense - I think!
_

David Frias
May 7, 2007 (4:30am)

I chose to read this article for two reasons, it was the shorter of the two and due to time constraints seems practical, but also becaues it seemed like a great article.

One aspect that intrigued me was that of confronting. I always think of arguing with someone when I think of confronting, but this definition was made me realize that at times you have to confront your own thoughts and biases when conduction action reasearch, or any research for that matter. The definition given in the article is that 'confronting' is when social actors are forced to come to terms explicitly with their own defensive reactions to change and perceived threats by inquiring into the causes of those reactions an analyzing the consequences of giving into them. Argyris et al think that these behaviors are the key causes for widespread observation that groups often cycle endlessly between conflicting demands. This explained to me that you have to always look at all factors when trying to understand behavior in action research. I agree with Argyris's critique of Milgram's study that was given as an example because Milgram made assumptions without checking other variables.

Lastly the method of study that intrigued me was that of the 'ladder of inference.' It intrigued me because it seems so subjective to make these assumptions in order to assign meanings to actions. I just don't see that as being a good way to conduct social experiments...It just doesn't feel right I guess.

The article was interesting and has made me be even more cognizant of the fact that one must always be trying to find the root causes of problems and not just noticing the effects.

Jeremy Szteiter
April 6, 2008

Chapter 11:

Main themes:
-action science seeks a way to balance the need of scientifically rigorous research of action with the spirit of action research
-science of practice: how people design and implement action in relation to each other
-espoused theory, theory in use, single-loop learning, double-loop learning, Model I and II
-because human behavior often represents single-loop learning, failures often come from not changing the wider circumstances/context of our actions, and therefore changes to the actions themselves allow for less "real" change than we intend
New insights:
-action science, as a methodology of "intervention" might then necessarily slow down the way that things change and the way that actions take place; they serve as a type of bottleneck to the usual form of actions
-Milgram experiment - action science can suggest ways to do something with knowledge that is recognized to be important and relevant, perhaps in the form of finding out more about causes of behavior
-universities are unlikely to confront the theory-practice divide sufficiently, so they are not likely candidates to embrace action science
Remaining questions:
-What is the source of the perception in social science that those things most "relevant" are not subject to rigorous knowledge and research? Does this really exist?
-What are the difficulties found in the core action science assumption that intervention is beneficial to human behavior? Can defensiveness to changing one's action be presented in such a way to make the change seem unreasonable?
Applications to own project:
-consider espoused model in collaborative play - when people refer to "collaboration" or "play", are they reflecting upon their action in the same way that others would do so? If not, does this mean that collaboration might not actually be happening, or that there is a disconnect between people in establishing common intentions?
-consider my own action research as a way to make the outcome of collaborative play MORE LIKELY, rather than discover that it simply does or does not happen - my actions might be about making it easier for others to take action, even in small ways
-How can my actions reveal to myself and others ways to improve the use of collaborative play, rather than suggesting that this is what must be done? In other words, how can my action research present that the use of collaborative play might be useful in some circumstances and is a valid tool to be used, rather than present that it is an answer to a problem?
-action science can help alleviate the "threat" of silences and "vacuums" in group processes - this can be useful in collaborative play situations which specifically and directly ask the participants to refrain from discussing certain elements of play or even play in silence; this might help to lift some of the self-consciousness of adult play



Summary Notes by Tara Tetzlaff

Authors’ review of the book Action Science
- claims this book is “one of the best efforts to deal with the relation between AR and scientific method.”
- book focuses on ‘knowledge that can be used to produce action, while at the same time contributing to a theory of action’ and “argues for a link between theory building and theory testing in action as a single repertoire of actions.”
- claims social sciences have long assumed that what is relevant cannot be a source of rigorous knowledge
- book says that “the road to rigor” is found by applying theory to action

Confronting: “a process by which social actors are forced to come to terms explicitly with their own defensive reactions to changes and perceived threats by inquiring into the causes of those reactions and analyzing the consequences of giving into them”
- can only make progress by confronting and resolving those conflicts

- book claims action science is “an inquiry into how human beings design and implement action in relation to one another”
- book tries to create a process that people can use to “‘create and maintain behavior worlds conductive to generating valid information [under] conditions in which agents can make free and informed choices and feel internally committed to their choices’”

- book claims one cannot begin to be objective until one has confronted and dealt with his/her own defensive behavior

- book claims in studying social science a scientist is “engaged in a parallel practice of practice, reflection, defensiveness, and objectification” with those he/she is studying

Espoused theory: “the account actors give of the reasons for their actions”
Theory-in-use: “the observer-analyst’s inferences about the theory that must underlie the observed actions of the same people if their actions are to be made sense of”
- the above theories often “are at direct adds with each other”
- action science focuses on the difference between the above mentioned theories to learn about the group’s actions and move it to “a more liberating dynamic”

Singe-loop learning: “[people] alter their behavior but do nothing to change the behavior strategies” that caused a problem in the first place
Double-loop learning: stepping back from a problem to examine its possible larger contexts; immediate problem is symptom of a larger issue that must be dealt with

Theories of Action:
Model I: “unilateral control over others”
Model O(pposite)-I: “center is broad participation, a focus on win-win approaches, and a strong emphasis on expressing feelings while suppressing intellectual analysis
Model II: “minimally defensive … relationships, high freedom of choice and high risk taking”
Model O(pposite)-II: creates a “community of inquiry in which issues and conflicts can be opened up”

Ladder of Inference: conceptual model used for “connecting the links between of analysis between the utterances and the interpretation arrived at”; examines how conclusions are drawn, and what is ignored or paid attention to

- in commenting on the Milgram experiments (in which people electrically shocked others when they made a mistake) Action Science claims Milgram did not try to learn how to change the observed behavior, and therefore we did not learn what alternatives are possible and how to manage that behavior

-Action Science claims the goal of action science is “to increase the possibility of unlikely but socially beneficial (liberating) outcomes”

Authors’ Criticism of Action Science
- book does not consider the complexity of human behavior and focuses only on defensiveness
- book never explains how people can overcome that defensiveness
- book does not address how changes are decided on and who does that deciding
- speaks of “genuine organizational change” without explaining what it means to be genuine
- Ladder of Inference relies on rules of behavior and does not take the complexity of human behavior into account
- shows an ultimate “inattention to larger issues of social structure and political economy”

Authors’ notes on the book Organizational Learning II
- written by authors of Action Science
- book discusses “organizational politics and show an awareness of the complexities that the symbolic-cultural life of organizations create”
- however, still offers a limited perspective of organizational culture
- “does not speak strongly to the issues of the normative and ethical ends of organizational learning”

Conclusion

- “Good action science practice focuses heavily on group practice skills”
- action scientists need to be very patient and persistent
- practitioners must allow for awkward moments to allows participants time to reflect
- requires a “quasi-Socratic intervention that often leads participants to make their own analytical breakthroughs
- that action science and organizational learning has “gaps and problem does not make them different than other approaches”