Knowledge Creation Through Interactive Research:A Learning Approach

Per-Erik EllströmHELIX VINN Excellence CentreLinköping UniversitySE - 581 83 Linköpinge-mail: per-erik.ellstrom@liu.se

1. Introduction

Knowledge creation through the development of mutually productive forms of collaborationbetween research and practice, has for a long time been an important issue for researchers aswell as practitioners in different fields of working life. In the social sciences there is also along tradition of criticism of traditional research models, and a corresponding interest indifferent models of practice oriented and collaborative research

(e.g. Adler, Shani & Styhre,2004; Argyris, 1980; Clark, 1976; Reason & Bradbury, 2001). Traditional models of researchhas been be criticized for objectifying the participants, and for being too inflexible, closed,specialized, and of little practical relevance etc. According to many of its critics, one majorproblem with traditional research models is a too strict distinction between basic and appliedresearch, and in line with this, an assumed linear relationship between theory and practice,and a role model of the researcher as basically detached from practice (Brulin, 1998; Gibbonset. al. 1994; Svensson et al, 2002; Toulmin & Gustavsen 1996).Conversely, from a perspective of traditional (mainstream) social science research, differentvarieties of collaborative research have often been characterized by a number of difficultiesand alleged flaws, and the scientific value of collaborative research has for a long time been amatter of debate within the social science research community. A classical criticism concernsthe potential threats to the validity of the research results, due to the involvement of theresearcher in practical activities. On the other hand, there are also counter arguments to theeffect that a collaborative relationship between researchers and practitioners may contribute,first of all, to a better access to important processes, but also to more valid data compared totraditional research models with their typically more authoritarian relations between theresearchers and the subjects of research (Argyris, 1980; Eikeland, 2006).A perhaps more serious criticism against collaborative research models concerns the risk thatmaximizing the contribution to practice, tends to minimize the contribution to research, andvice versa (Sandberg, 1981; Seashore, 1976; Svensson, Ellström & Brulin, 2007). As arguedby the latter authors, action research is simply often too close to practice and too practicallyoriented with limited scientific ambitions. The objective to change things has often takenprecedence over the interest in producing general and critical knowledge. By implication,there is the risk, as stated by Seashore (1976), that the notion of action research becomes a

Paper to be presented at the ECER Conference, Gothenburg, September 10–12, 2008.

The notion of collaborative research is used here to refer to an umbrella concept covering a widerange of variants, including action research, interactive research and participatory research. In thispaper there will be a focus on the concept of interactive research.

2 justification for practical development work masquerading as research, and, conversely, forresearch being reduced to a more or less trivial service role.Among proponents of action-research a not too uncommon reaction to this kind of criticismhas been to try to circumvent and avoid it by claiming that action research represents adifferent and ”alternative” epistemology compared to mainstream research. One recentexample of this type of argumentation is pursued by Reason & Bradbury (2001). According tothese authors, any concerns about a trade-off between research and practice in the conduct of action research is just another expression of a ”positivist” research tradition. However, such adenial of a trade-off between research and practice usually has a price. For Reason andassociates this price means that they have to give up the fundamental aim of research, that is,to create new knowledge in the sense of concepts, models, and theoretical frameworks. Inorder to argue their case, they propose what they call an ”extended epistemology”. In essence,this means a shift in emphasis: ”from the traditional emphasis on propositional knowledge andthe written word to practical knowledge and the manifest deed.” (Heron & Reason, 2001). Of course, this shift in emphasis may be viewed as an illustration of the original concern that a lotof collaborative research tends to sacrify traditional aims of research for more practicalconcerns. According to my mind, this type of argumentation does not solve the basic problem,that is, the trade-off between the aims and interests of research and those of practice. Thisissue is still a compelling one, and a dilemma that has to be directly dealt with in one way orthe other (rather than avoided) if we are to become successful in conducting goodcollaborative research.How, then, can this dilemma be resolved or at least handled in a satisfactory way? Is it at allpossible to carry out collaborative research in a way that is productive both from a practicaland from a scientific perspective? Although much has been written about different forms of collaborative research, there is a lack of empirically grounded studies concerning the use of such a research approach in practice. In this paper, a model of what is called interactiveresearch is presented and discussed. Thus, rather than using the concept of action orcollaborative research, the notion of interactive research will be used.In line with Svensson, Ellström & Brulin (2007), the concept of interactive research as usedhere refers to a research approach which position itself in contrast to mainstream academicresearch on the one hand and action research on the other hand. The ideas and reflectionspresented in this paper has been developed through a series of research projects carried out inco-operation between researchers at the CMTO (”Centre for Studies of Humans, Technologyand Organization”), Linköping University (www.liu.se/cmto) and a number of industrialcompanies and public sector organizations for a number of years (see Ellström et al, 1999).The notion of interactive research as presented in this paper is also applied as an importantpart of the research strategy of the recently established HELIX VINN Excellence Centre atthe same university (www.liu.se/helix).What, then, could be meant by the notion of interactive research? How to organize interactiveresearch? What trade-offs may be involved? The purpose of this paper is to – based on theexperiences mentioned above – try to shed some light on these questions. This is done, first,by proposing a definition of the concept of interactive research, and, secondly, by giving anoutline of an emerging model of interactive research. In addition, the ideas and argumentspresented below are also attempts to deal with some of the classical criticisms againstcollaborative research (and, by implication, in many cases also against interactive research)that were previously mentioned.

2. On the Concept of Interactive Research

With certain ups and downs collaborative models of research have been part of the socialsciences at least since the 1930s and onwards (see e.g. Chein, Cook & Harding, 1948), withperhaps its most intensive and creative period during the 1960s and 1970s (Clark, 1976).However, in spite of its long history, it seems as if the collaborative research approach neverreally got off the ground. Still, the separation of social science and practice is stronglyinstitutionalized.However, there are signs of ongoing changes (and proposals for change) towards a strongerintegration of research and practice (e.g. Aagaard-Nielsen & Svensson, 2006; Etzkowitz,1998; 2003; Gibbons et. al. 1994; Nowotny et. al 2001; Sörlin, 1996). Specifically, in aSwedish context, there is a growing interest in interactive research. This is attested to, amongother things, by the establishment of the Swedish Association for Interactive Research (SIRA)a few years ago. This organization involves a number of research milieus with a focus oninteractive research. Furthermore, there is a legal requirement on the universities to engage inco-operative efforts concerning education, research and development with companies,agencies, different kinds of associations, and other organizations (the so called third task of the universities). It has also been argued that this new legal requirement on the universitiesmay prove to be an impetus to a new model for research, development and innovation basedon an interactive model of knowledge creation and use (Brulin, 1998).What, then, could be meant by the concept of interactive research? A general definition isgiven by Caswill & Shove (2000), which states that interactive research means a researchapproach:

”where researchers, funding agencies and ’user groups’ interact throughout the entire research process, includingthe definition of the research agenda, project selection, project execution and the application of researchinsights.” (Caswill & Shove, 2000).

More recently Svensson, Ellström & Brulin (2007) has argued that interactive research can beseen as a continuation of action research in some respects, but also with quite distinct ideasconcerning, among other things, the tasks and objectives of research and the researcher’s role.Specifically, these authors argue that there are a number of problems and difficulties withaction research that need to be attended to, and, if possible, eliminated or at least alleviated.For example, it is necessary to be aware of and try to deal with at least the followingproblems, which have tended to characterize much action research in the past:

•

The strong involvement of the researcher in practical development work, which may decreasethe attention and time that it is possible to devote to research activities (e.g. to the writing of research papers), and, thereby, also lead to an decrease in scientific productivity as usuallymeasured;

•

A risk that the strong proximity to practice and the personal involvement of the researchermakes it more difficult to conduct a critical analysis;

•

A focus on local understanding and the production of practical knowledge at the expense of amore general analysis and the production of theoretical knowledge;

•

A lack of acceptance and legitimacy in the general academic scientific community.

What then do we mean by the concept of interactive research? As used here, this concept isdefined as constituted by two basic ideas, called the idea of the threefold task and the idea of knowledge creation through collaboration between researchers and practitioners.