Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodology: Participatory Action Research via Industry-Academia Collaboration

  • Chapter
Social Innovation and Business in Taiwan

  • 635 Accesses

Abstract

Both suppliers and users of social science data are dissatisfied with their counterparty. Suppliers are not satisfied because the created knowledge is not taken as a lesson, whereas users are not satisfied with unheard-of needs (Lindblom & Cohen, 1979). The social science research based on real phenomena in general management studies has always been a lonely academic journey, while industry-based research can create useful knowledge for practitioners with value creation. For example, more and more reflections of business school scholars were originally intended to find more real-case solutions in order to fulfill the needs of societies since the 2008 financial crisis and several social events (e.g., Occupy Wall Street). Instead of profit maximization, some scholars distinguish themselves by incorporating strategy with CSR and social value (Porter & Kramer, 2011). However, though a number of scholars suggested filling the gap between academic theories and industry practices (e.g., Antonacopoulou, 2010; Antonacopoulou, Dehlin, & Zundel, 2011), how to implement it during the course of academic research is still not sufficiently discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. 2001. The practitioner-researcher divide in industrial work and organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74: 391–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonacopoulou, P. 2009. Impact and scholarship: Unlearning and practicing to co-create actionable knowledge. Management Learning, 40(4): 421–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonacopoulou, P. 2010. Making the business school more ‘critical’: Reflexive critique based on phronesis as a foundation for impact. British Journal of Management, 21: S6–S25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonacopoulou, P., Dehlin, E., & Zundel, M. 2011. The challenge of delivering impact: Making waves through the ODC debate. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(1): 33–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. 2004. Actionable knowledge. In H. Tsoukas & C. Rnudsen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta theoretical perspectives: 423–452. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C, & Schon, D. D. 1996. Organization learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashcraft, K. L. 2001. Organized dissonance: Feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1301–1322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, I. E. 2010. From organization to organization: On creating value. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1): 13–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, I. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. 2012. Collaborative value creation: Partnering processes and outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 4(6): 929–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, M. 2001. Why management research findings are un-implementable: An action science perspective. Reflections, 2(3): 58–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. 2000. Value creation versus value capture: Towards a coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management, 11: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., & Wilkerson, T. 1995. Strategic alliances: Choose your partners. Long Range Planning, 28(3): 18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C, & Stone, M. M. 2006. The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66: 44–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, B., Harris, M., & Hutchinson, R. 2010. Collaboration in the voluntary sector: A meta-analysis. London: Institute for Voluntary Action Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, T. L., Bryer, T. A., & Meek, J. W. 2006. Citizen-centered collaboration public management. Public Administration Review, 66: 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J. 1995. Comments on “What theory is not”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 391–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eikeland, O. 2007. The ways of Aristotle—Aristotelian phronesis, Arislotelian philosophy of dialogue and action research. Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Journal, 14(4): 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsstrom, B. 2005. Value cocreation in industrial buyer-seller partnerships—Creating and exploiting interdependencies: An empirical case study. Turku, Finland: Akadimi University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gephart, R. P. 2004. Sense-making and new media at work. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(4): 479–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gephart, R. P. 2006. Ethnostatistics and organizational research methodology. Organization Research Methods, 9(4): 417–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. 2000. Accessing inter-organizational collaboration: Multiple conceptions and multiple methods. In D. O. Faulkener & M. Derond (Eds.), Cooperative strategy: Economic, business, and organizational issues: 243–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. 2007. Tent-poles, tribalism, and boundary-spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 775–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. 2004. Incentives for knowledge production with many producers. ESRC Centre for Business Research, Working Paper, wp292, ESRC Centre for Business Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, C, Lawrence, T., & Philips, N. 2006. Swimming with sharks: Creating strategic change through multi-sector collaboration. International Journal of Strategic Change Management, 1: 96–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson, G. P., Herriot, P., & Anderson, N. 2001. Re-aligning the stakeholders in management research: Lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology. British Journal of Management, 12: S41–S48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isabella, L. A. 1990. Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construct key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1): 7–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. 1999. A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1): 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondrat, M. E. 1992. Reclaiming the practical: Formal and substantive rationality in social work practice. Social Service Review, 166: 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, M. A., Kuhn, T. R., & Pfarrer, M. D. 2012. A communicative framework of value in cross-sector partnerships. Academy of Management Review, 37(3): 332–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladkin, D. 2007. Chapter 30: Action research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: 478–491. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. 2007. Value creation and value capture: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(1): 180–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C, & Cohen, D. 1979. Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. 2006. Response: Van de Ven and lohnson’s “Engaged Scholarship”: Nice try, but …. Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 822–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, T. A. 1998. Nonprofit mergers and alliances: A strategic planning guide. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohrman, S., Gibson, C, & Mohrman, A. 2001. Doing research that is useful to practice: A model and empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 357–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, R. 1994. Critical theory and methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Cass, A., & Ngo, L. V 2010. Examining the firm’s value creation process: A managerial perspective of the firm’s value offering strategy and performance. British Journal of Management, 22(4): 646–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B. T. 1999. Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 711–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3): 267–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. M. 2001. Management research after modernism. British Journal of Management, 12: S61–S70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2011. Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, January: 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, I. M., & Daft, R. L. 2001. Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 340–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selsky, J., & Parker, B. 2005. Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31: 849–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. 1976. The business school: A problem in organizational design. In H. A. Simon (Ed.), Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization: 1–16. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torbert, W. R. 1991. The power of balance: Transforming self society, and scientific inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield, D., & Starkey, K. 1998. The nature, social organization and promotion of management research: Towards policy. British Journal of Management, 9: 341–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. 2007. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and research knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A., & Johnson, P. E. 2006. Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31: 802–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. I Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sheng-Tsung Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 I Han and Sheng-Tsung Hou

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Han, I., Hou, ST. (2016). Methodology: Participatory Action Research via Industry-Academia Collaboration. In: Social Innovation and Business in Taiwan. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137403810_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation