Journal of Change Management

ISSN: 1469-7017 (Print) 1479-1811 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjcm20

Knowledge Production in Organization

Development: An Interiority-based Perspective

David Coghlan, Abraham B. (Rami) Shani & Patricia C. Dahm

To cite this article: David Coghlan, Abraham B. (Rami) Shani & Patricia C. Dahm (2019):
Knowledge Production in Organization Development: An Interiority-based Perspective, Journal of
Change Management, DOI: 10.1080/14697017.2019.1628086

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2019.1628086

Published online: 11 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 37

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjcm20
JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2019.1628086

Knowledge Production in Organization Development:

An Interiority-based Perspective
David Coghlana, Abraham B. (Rami) Shanib and Patricia C. Dahmb
a
Trinity Business School, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland; bCalifornia Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Contemporary social science philosophy is bedevilled with debates Organization development;
about the nature of knowledge production. This article introduces Mode 1 and Mode 2
the philosophical notion of interiority whereby, by focusing on the knowledge production;
operations of knowledge production in the human mind, OD interiority
scholars and researchers can ground Modes 1 and 2 in a bigger
picture of what is common to all research. This perspective which
recognizes different ways of knowing in different situations cuts
through the polarized differences between Modes 1 and 2. Rather
than looking at what is different between them this article
explores their complementarity through an interiority-based OD
research framework.

MAD statement
This article focuses on how knowledge is produced in the field of
organization development (OD). Mode 1 produces knowledge in a
disciplinary context and aims at producing scientific knowledge.
Mode 2 focuses on creating knowledge for practical use through a
partnership between researchers and practitioners. Both modes
are valuable for managers and OD practitioners for how they
contribute to knowledge production. A comprehensive framework
based on six macrophases in OD knowledge production is advanced
by focusing on kind of knowledge that is needed for what purpose
(an activity of the human mind which we call interiority).

Introduction
The history of philosophy is replete with explorations of the nature of human knowing
(Meynell, 1998; Tekippe, 1996). Disagreements and debates about the role that experience
plays in knowledge creation have bedevilled philosophical discourse over the centuries
and polarized philosophical positions on the subject. These disagreements found their
way into the notion of a philosophy of social science that emerged at the beginning of
the twentieth century and consolidated what might be termed schools of approaches
(Delanty & Strydom, 2003). One outcome of these debates has been the polarization of
explanation and understanding, theory and practice, with its corollary polarization of
rigour and relevance (Hollis, 2002).

CONTACT David Coghlan dcoghlan@tcd.ie

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 D. COGHLAN ET AL.

While there has been a great deal of research done in organization development (OD)
over the past sixty years, there is limited emphasis on an underpinning philosophy of
science for OD (Coghlan, Shani, & Hay, 2019). In their review of the ups and downs of
OD’s history and current position, Burnes and Cooke (2012) reflected how OD has
always been driven by academic rigour and practical relevance as it is practiced by
both a scholar and a consultant community, confirming its dual identity, defined as
both a science of organizational change and an art of changing organizations
(Woodman, 2014). Schein (2010), in his reflection on the nature of OD, referred to the prac-
tical social science that Lewin practiced as the tap root of OD. Schein reflected that what
‘created OD was a combination of a new inquiry approach based on a willingness to gather
data in the field by non-traditional methods, with the vivid concerns of a set of prac-
titioners who wanted to improve organizations’ (2010, p. 93). Coghlan (2017) drew on
the notion of differentiated consciousness and argued for the need to explore the inter-
play between meaning, practical knowing and theory. In a metalogue with Schein,
Coghlan (2018) expanded Schein’s perspective in terms of identifying OD as engaging
in a philosophy of practical knowing, inquiring in the present tense and in interiority.
Pasmore and Woodman (2017), reflecting on three decades of research in the field,
suggest the need to revisit the philosophical points of departure taken by scholars and
scholar-practitioners. It is in this spirit that this article is written.
In 1994, Gibbons and colleagues introduced the notion of Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowl-
edge production in their book, The New Production of Knowledge, a classification that
generated a lot of interest and which opened up applications to management research
(Huff, 2000; MacLean, McIntosh, & Grant, 2002). To date there has not been any extensive
reflection on the application of Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge production to the field of
OD. Organization development’s dual identity as a professional field of social action and
an area of scientific inquiry poses a challenge to the social science of knowledge pro-
duction. In this article we engage the dual identity of OD with the construct of Mode
1 and Mode 2 knowledge production not by emphasizing the polarity between Mode
1 and Mode 2 OD but by focusing on the process of knowledge production from the per-
spective of how we come to know through different forms of knowing. We ground our
reflection on the notion of interiority, that is, a process through which we can under-
stand how we know in different modes (Cronin, 2017). The article is structured as
follows. First, we explore the invariant process of human knowing, concluding with
the notion of interiority. Second, we introduce the notion of Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowl-
edge production and relate it to the field of organization development. Third, we illus-
trate two examples of Mode 1 and Mode 2 OD research respectively, and explain how
they are both produce knowledge through different ways of knowing. In the discussion
we explore how the notion of interiority as a higher viewpoint mediates between Mode 1
and Mode 2 and present six macrophases of knowledge production that allow us to
reflect on the value of both. Finally, we discuss implications for OD research theory
and practice.

Knowledge Production
Drawing on the work of Bernard Lonergan, Cronin (2017) suggests that the way to study
human knowing is through an empirical method of self-appropriation, that is, to become
 JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT 3

aware of our intellectual activities when we question and seek to come to know and move
to decision and action. He uses the term, self-appropriation, meaning to take possession of
our intellectual activities by attending to them, learning to distinguish the relationship
between the different activities within the knowing process and being able to make
them explicit.
What are the activities of human knowing or of knowledge production? Lonergan
(1957/1992) presents the structure of knowing as a dynamic, heuristic three step
process: experience, understanding and judgement. There is the level of experience
where we engage with what we see, hear, smell, taste and touch (data of a sense).
Sensory data are what we experience but do not yet understand. So we ask questions.
What was that noise? Is it raining? What did she mean? What is happening? However,
we not only experience external data through our five senses, but we also experience
internal data (data of consciousness) as we think, feel, remember and imagine. What
am I feeling? Why am I angry? How am I imagining the possibilities? Am I jumping to con-
clusion? We also experience ourselves as seeing, hearing, thinking, feeling, remembering
and imagining at the same time, as when watching a tearful movie we can be aware of
ourselves as feeling sad. Answers to our questions come in the form of insights, which
are acts of understanding, of grasping and formulating theories, hypotheses, concepts,
patterns, unities, relationships and explanations in response to questions posed to our
experience. The noise sounded like the doorbell ringing. The water running down the
window means it is raining. While we might not know yet what a particular search will
yield, we anticipate intelligent answers. Insight or understanding occurs at the intellectual
level of consciousness as we move beyond description to explanation. Yet, while insights
are common they are not always accurate, correct or satisfactory answers to our questions.
The question then is, is the insight correct or does it provide a satisfactory answer to the
question posed to experience? This opens up a question for reflection. Is it so? Yes or no?
Maybe. I don’t know. I can verify that the doorbell rang. I can verify and affirm that it is
raining and that the water on the window is not due to a leak overhead. So we move
to a new level of the cognitional process, where we marshal and weigh evidence and
assess its sufficiency in a judgement. We are then at the rational level of consciousness
(i.e. judgement).
These three activities of experience, understanding, and judgement constitute the
operations of knowledge production. This pattern is invariant in that it applies to all set-
tings of cognitional activity, whether solving an everyday problem or engaging in scientific
research. They can be applied systematically and verified personally and communally
(Coghlan, 2017). To reject or dismiss this pattern involves experience, understanding
and judging and, paradoxically, confirms it. We note in addition that we do not merely
know. We also make judgements of value, make decisions and take action (the responsible
level of consciousness). At this level we ask what courses of action are open to us and we
review options, weight choices, judge what is worthwhile and decide. From the operations
of experience, understanding, judgement and making decisions/taking action a general
empirical method may be deduced: being attentive to data in experience, envisaging
possible explanations of that data in understanding, preferring as probable or certain
the explanations which provide the best account for the data in judgement and being
responsible for our actions (taking action). Table 1 captures the central elements of the
empirical method of human knowing. As Coghlan (2008) describes, being faithful to this
4 D. COGHLAN ET AL.

Table 1. The structure of human knowing and doing.

Operations of Human Levels of General Empirical
Knowing Consciousness Activity Method
Experience Empirical Level Attentiveness Be attentive
[to data of sense and of consciousness]
Understanding Intellectual Level Intelligence Be intelligent
[Envisaging possible explanations of that data]
Judgement Rational Level Reasonableness Be reasonable
[Preferring as probable or certain the explanations
which provide the best account for the data]
Action Responsible Level Responsibility Be responsible
[for action]

method: be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable, and be responsible constitutes per-

sonal and communal authenticity.
Lonergan’s articulation of cognitional structure applies across different forms of
knowing and provides a way of understanding how we know in different settings, both
practical and scientific. For instance, when he discusses the aesthetic pattern of experience
he says, ‘the artist establishes his insights, not by proof or verification, but by skilfully
embodying them in colours and shapes, in sounds and movements, in the unfolding situ-
ation and action of fiction’ (1957/1992, p. 208). Coghlan (2016) in his exploration of the
realm of practical knowing describes knowledge production as (i) a flow of questions
and (ii) a cluster of insights as we catch on to one thing then another, building up a
cluster of insights into addressing the concerns of human living and the successful per-
formance of daily tasks and discovering immediate solutions that work. In the realm of
science, explanation has to be accurate, clear and precise and special rigorous methods
are required to govern different types of investigation so as to ground the movements
from understanding to judgement.
The notion of an extended epistemology or that there are several forms of knowing has
been prevalent in philosophy since Plato (Tekippe, 1996). Heron and Reason (1997) intro-
duced an extended epistemology in terms of four ways of knowing: experiential, presen-
tational, propositional and practical. Experiential knowing is described as knowing directly
through experience, presentational knowing as knowing through artful means, prop-
ositional expresses knowing conceptually and practical knowing as knowing through
skilful doing. Heron and Reason (1997, p. 281) argue that practical knowing is primary
as it ‘fulfils the three prior forms of knowing, brings them to fruition in purposive deeds
and consummates them with its autonomous celebration of excellent accomplishment’.
The notion of an extended epistemology provides a useful conceptual and practical
lens for exploring the philosophical underpinnings of Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge pro-
duction within organization development. Catching how we know in particular contexts,
such as in different forms of research, and engaging in the form of knowing appropriate
for that context is a process of a differentiation of consciousness (Coghlan, 2017).
The general empirical method underlies the specific modes of inquiry across the natural
sciences, critical scholarship, social science and practical living in asking intelligent ques-
tions about experience and providing and verifying reasonable answers to those questions
(Coghlan, 2010). The general empirical method of being attentive, intelligent, reasonable
and responsible is a normative heuristic pattern of related and recurrent activities that
yield ongoing and cumulative results. It envisages all data, both data of sense and data
 JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT 5

of consciousness. It doesn’t treat objects without taking into consideration the operations
of experience, understanding and judgement. Questions for understanding specific data
(What is happening here?) have a different focus from questions for reflection (Does
this fit?) or from questions of responsibility (What ought I do?). As conscious subjects
we can attend to what is going on both inside and outside of ourselves, inquire intelli-
gently, judge reasonably, decide freely, and act responsibly. As conscious existential sub-
jects we can accept and confront the fact that it is up to us to decide that our actions will
be responsible, that our judgements be reasonable, our investigations be intelligent. How
do we understand and work with knowledge production across different realms of experi-
ence? As an answer we explore the notion of interiority which we will then provide as a
foundation for working with Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge production.

Interiority
Interiority is a philosophical theory and method that enables us to take a higher viewpoint
enabling us to relate the different forms of knowing to one another by focusing on the
operations of human consciousness (Cronin, 2017). By knowing how we know in
different realms, such as, experiential, presentational, propositional and practical, we
can hold complementary yet contradictory perspectives, such as appreciating the
beauty of a sunrise in a presentational or an experiential form of knowing, while at the
same time knowing that scientifically the sun does not rise. In the philosophy of interiority
the emphasis shifts from formal logic to method. Interiority involves shifting from what we
know to how we know, a process of intellectual self-awareness. Interiority analysis involves
using one’s knowledge of how the mind works to critique an intellectual search for truth in
any area.
Interiority involves being faithful to the deepest and the best inclinations of mind and
heart. It allows us to discover, reflect on, and investigate how we are thinking, interpreting
and deciding. It enables us to have insights into our biases and mistakes. Then we inves-
tigate the source of our misunderstandings and false judgements, how we did not attend
to all the data or how we jumped to conclusion. Coghlan (2017) provides an example of
interiority as he explored his engagement in learning about the field of OD research across
twenty-four volumes of the series, Research in Organizational Change and Development. He
describes how his inquiry unfolded as he attended both to the content of the chapters he
was surveying and to how his own understanding and judgement developed from his
questioning and insights. It is from a standpoint of interiority that we can best appreciate
the complementary value that Mode 1 and Mode 2 research contribute to the field of OD.

Mode 1 and Mode 2 Knowledge Production

Gibbons et al. (1994) introduced Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge production approaches
in their book, The New Production of Knowledge and subsequent writings (Nowotny, Scott,
& Gibbons, 2001, 2003). The authors describe Mode 1 research as characterized by the
explanatory knowledge that is generated in a disciplinary context. It is research that
arises from the academic agenda and that agenda usually takes place within a singular dis-
cipline and is accountable to that discipline. In many respects, Mode 1 captures the normal
meaning of the term ‘science’. By this is meant that the aim of the research is to produce
6 D. COGHLAN ET AL.

universal knowledge and build and test theory within a disciplinary field by drawing causal
inferences from the data to test hypotheses. The type of knowledge acquired is universal
knowledge in that the data are context free and validated by logic, measurement and con-
sistency of prediction and control. The role of the researcher is that of an observer and the
relationship to the setting is detached and neutral.
In contrast, Gibbons and colleagues present Mode 2 as the ‘new’ knowledge production
and as a ‘socially distributed’, system-based process. They describe Mode 2 knowledge
production as an emerging paradigm that is increasingly pervasive alongside the incum-
bent Mode 1. While knowledge production has been traditionally located primarily at
scientific institutions (universities, government institutes and industrial research labs)
and structured by scientific disciplines, Mode 2 locations, practices and principles are
much more heterogeneous (Gibbons et al., 1994; Hessels & Lente, 2008). There are five
main characteristics of Mode 2 knowledge production that distinguish it from Mode
1. First, Mode 2 knowledge is generated in the context of application. Mode 1 knowledge
can also result in practical application, but is separated from the actual knowledge pro-
duction in space and time. In Mode 2, there is no such division between knowledge pro-
duction and application. Second, Mode 2 knowledge production is transdisciplinary,
mobilizing a range of theoretical perspectives and practical methodologies to solve pro-
blems. Transdisciplinarity goes beyond interdisciplinarity in that the interaction of scien-
tific disciplines is much more dynamic. Once theoretical consensus is attained, it cannot
easily be reduced to disciplinary parts. In addition, research results diffuse to practitioners
during the process of knowledge production. Third, Mode 2 knowledge production is
reflexive, through a sensitivity to the process of the research itself and to, for example,
the dynamics of transdisciplinarity. Compared to Mode 1, Mode 2 knowledge is a dialogic
process and incorporates multiple views. The Mode 2 researcher is explicitly sensitive to
broad social consequences. Similar to Mode 1, Mode 2 knowledge production requires
quality control, but it takes on a different form. Traditional discipline-based peer review
systems are supplemented by additional criteria along various combinations of economic,
political, social, and cultural criteria. It becomes more difficult to determine ‘good science’
because knowledge is evaluated against quality criteria extending beyond the judgement
of academic peers and is not conducted using the traditional scientific method. In Mode 2
knowledge production, knowledge is tested, not in the abstract but rather under concrete,
local circumstances. This is to ensure that the knowledge is socially robust and produces
consequential outcomes. Mode 2 knowledge producers are concerned with solving pro-
blems. They produce generalizable knowledge only as a by-product.
The Mode 2 knowledge producer, as described by Gibbons et al. (1994), combines
theoretical knowledge with applied, practical knowledge to solve particular scientific
and organizational problems. In contrast to Mode 1 knowledge producers, who seek to
find generalizable laws across contexts taking a disengaged, scientific approach
(Gibbons et al., 1994; Van de Ven, 2007), Mode 2 knowledge producers are closely tied
to applied contexts. They are charged with achieving concrete results by creating action-
able knowledge that can advance organizational causes. Their point of contact is closer to
practice and involves investigating problems of high interest and practical import that
sometimes cuts across disciplines (Mohrman, 2011; Shani, Mohrman, Pasmore, Stymne,
& Adler, 2008; Van de Ven, 2007). Table 2 captures the key features of Mode 1 and
Mode 2 research orientations. The central presentation of Mode 1 is generally presented
 JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT 7

Table 2. Mode 1 and Mode 2 research orientations: brief synopsis.

Mode 1
Dominant research Based on Newtonian model of science –
orientation – key described as traditional or positivistic
features science
Universal knowledge creation as context free
Disciplinary based
Characterized by homogeneity
Theory building and testing
Experimental designs (can also involve
interventions, or interviews, or surveys …
the difference is that it is often not ‘shared’)
Logic, measurement and control
Data collection, analysis and interpretation by
researcher
Quality control through controlled study
design and statistical tests for causal
inference
Research on a living system
Mode 2
Based on range of philosophies that engage
with knowledge-in-action, knowledge
produced in the context of application
Contextually & situationally embedded
knowledge creation
Inter- or trans- disciplinary based
Characterized by heterogeneity of who needs
to be involved
Theory building-in-action
Collaborative researcher/practitioner designs
and interventions
Experience of design, actions & outcomes with
shared reflection
Co-design of data generation, collaborative
research/practitioner analysis and
interpretation
Diverse range of quality controls
Research with a living system

as what is considered to be traditional science, a Newtonian model of science where dis-

crete variables interact in terms of cause and effect. Accordingly, traditional Mode 1
research includes experimental or survey-based field studies involving quantitative analy-
sis and statistical evaluation of hypotheses.
There has been a great deal of reflection on the application of the Mode 1 and Mode 2
construct to management and organizational research (e.g. Bresnen & Burrell, 2012;
Gibbons, Limoges, & Scott, 2011; Guerci, Radaelli, & Shani, 2019; Hodgkinson & Rousseau,
2009; Hodgkinson & Starkey, 2011; Swan, Bresnen, Robertson, Newell, & Dopson, 2010).
Several writers have discussed Mode 2 in terms of design science (Burgoyne & James,
2006; Romme, 2003; van Aken, 2005). The broader discussions that have taken place
have done so in the context of the ongoing debates about the nature of management
research and the relations between theory and practice and rigour and relevance.
MacLean et al. (2002) in their broad review of Mode 2 argue that the social sciences
have an established tradition of Mode 2 research, particularly in research conducted
through action research, clinical inquiry, and other participatory inquiry approaches.
Reflection on the application and contributions of Mode1 and Mode 2 management
and organizational research is somewhat sparse. Bartunek (2011) comments that she
found more discussions of Mode 2 than demonstrations of it in practice in academic jour-
nals. Holland (2009) provides a rare account of Mode 2 in her study of researchers in
Malawi. In summary, though researchers seem to be engaging in Mode 2 research, we
still do not have a clear understanding of what it means and how it contributes to the
body of OD research vis a vis Mode 1.
Huff (2000) and Huff and Huff (2001) float the notion of a Mode 1.5 or Mode 3, not as a
midway between Modes 1 and 2 but as a separate position ‘above’ them. They character-
ize Mode 3 as an alternative based on three assumptions: (i) disciplinary knowledge and
theoretical models can be useful in novel situations where Mode 2 is not possible or desir-
able; (ii) research institutions, if financially secure, can focus on research that consultants or
8 D. COGHLAN ET AL.

companies cannot produce, for example, on public issues; (iii) business schools offer ‘a
desirable neutral ground on which new more synthetic knowledge can be generated
from the interaction of individuals with diverse businesses, consulting, public and univer-
sity experience’(p. 292). However, despite the introduction of Mode 3, Mode 1 and Mode 2
persist as the dominant approaches.

Mode 1 and Mode 2 OD Research

Given the dual identity of OD as a science and a practice, both Mode 1 and Mode 2 are
relevant to the nature of OD. Mode 1 is grounded in and works through a propositional
form of knowing. Propositional knowing is that realm of knowing that is verified
through hypothesis testing and verification whereby knowing is conceptual and theoreti-
cal. There is a strong strain of knowledge production within OD that draws on a statistical
mode of inquiry to achieve explanation (e.g. Church et al., 2012; Szabla, Dardick, & Devlin,
2016). A parallel strain of Mode 1 OD knowledge production is through an interpretist
paradigm whereby understanding, rather than explanation is sought to establish historical
and cultural understanding of specific settings (i.e. Church, Dawson, Barden, Rotolo, &
Tuller, 2018; Tenkasi & Kamel, 2016).

Mode 1 OD Knowledge Production

Mode 1 may be found in OD research that works from a traditional scientific paradigm. For
example, Helpap (2016) scientifically approached the research question of how participa-
tory change communication strategies affected change commitment and resistance. The
author further examined how the individual difference of power distance orientation
affects the effectiveness of participatory versus programmatic communication strategies,
and finds that it does. The research study is Mode 1 for two main reasons: (1) the research
questions are grounded in theory and emanate from a lack of empirical evidence for how
participatory communication around organizational change affects employee attitudes
towards change, and (2) the answers to the research questions are sought through a con-
trolled experimental design. The study proffers three hypotheses which culminate in a
moderated mediation model hypothesizing that participatory communication strategy
indirectly affects resistance intentions through change commitment, and this effect is
greater when power-distance orientation is low.
The research method was a scenario based experimental design with two conditions
(participatory communication, programmatic communication) describing a fictional
organizational restructuring to which participants were randomly assigned. Scenarios
were designed based on real case studies of organizational restructuring and were
refined for authenticity through pre-tests, manipulation checks, and follow-up interviews
prior to conducting the study. Participants with at least three years of work experience
were selected from multiple organizations in Germany. Participants completed an
online survey after reading the scenarios. Change communication strategy, change com-
mitment, power distance orientation, and resistance intention were assessed with Likert
scales. With the exception of one, which was created from theory, measures were selected
from established statistically validated constructs, and coefficient alpha values for internal
consistency were reported. Surveys were designed to minimize common method variance
 JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT 9

and improve internal validity (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Hypotheses
were tested using ordinary least squares regression, moderation was tested by estimating
interactions and calculating simple slopes; moderated mediation was tested using by
constructing bias corrected 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals. All three hypotheses
were supported.
The author comments that ‘the experimental approach to test the effects of change
communication strategies contributes to new methodological approaches in the field of
change communication, which is dominated by case studies (Coombs & Holladay,
2009),’ echoing our thoughts relative to the value of classic Mode 1 studies as they comp-
lement other methodologies. In addition to contributing to method, as well as theory on
change communication commensurate with the primary aim of Mode 1 research, the
author argues that there are practical implications for managers. Understanding individual
differences in power distance orientation will help managers craft messages around
change that maximize employee commitment to the change and minimize resistance.
From an interiority perspective, we can appreciate that this article uses a propositional
way of knowing to attend to the data of sense. By knowing how we know in this context,
data of consciousness suggest that the authors have been attentive, intelligent, reason-
able and responsible. Specifically, they relied on theory at the intellectual level to exercise
understanding of the results and relied on statistical analysis at the rational level to exer-
cise judgement as to whether or not their hypotheses were correct. As is in common in the
propositional way of knowing, responsible action was suggested in the discussion.
Though not its intention, this study provides theory and methods that could be useful
for future Mode 2 research. Once a need for change management has emerged in an
organization, Mode 2 researchers could suggest communication strategies uncovered
in Mode 1 research, and report on the more nuanced and contextually situated
effects. Through discussions with practitioners, collaborative Mode 2 research may
reveal further testable propositions as to when and why different communication
strategies work.

Mode 2 OD Knowledge Production

In contrast, Mode 2 is more pluralist as it engages in practical knowing (producing knowl-
edge in the context of application), which fulfils the other three forms of knowing (see
Table 3 for description of Mode 2). It works from a constructivist foundation in that it
works with meanings that are embedded in the minds and actions of organizational
actors. OD researchers work through collaboratively interpreting events and intentional
acts that envisage ends and select means and works collaboratively to achieve those
ends. They work by understanding how these ends are achieved, by critiquing these
ends and means and by facilitating organizational members to decide whether they
want to achieve these ends or something different.
OD researchers have engaged in OD research through action research and collaborative
management research (Coghlan & Coughlan, 2015; Pasmore & Friedlander, 1982). In the
context of a particular application, OD practitioners are invited into an organization to
provide help with change in strategic, operational or organizational issues and OD
researchers working in the mode of action research/collaborative management research
(Mode 2 strains) are employed to address a particular organizational challenge and to
10 D. COGHLAN ET AL.

Table 3. Mode 2 and the practice of OD.

Mode 2 OD as practice OD as science
Context of a particular OD practitioner invited into an organization to Action research/collaborative management
application provide help on change in strategic, research employed to address & generate
operational or organizational challenges knowledge within a particular
organizational challenge and context.
Transdisciplinarity OD practitioner works across the whole A research team is created from relevant
system functional areas across the organization
Heterogeneity and Who gets involved, how and to what extent Interventions and inquiry cross functional
organizational shifts as the project proceeds boundaries.
diversity
Social accountability & OD practitioner is accountable to senior Researchers are accountable to senior
reflexivity management management and to the academic
community for generation of actionable
knowledge
Range of quality controls Demonstrating that learning mechanisms have Demonstrating being rigorous, reflexive and
been established to sustain the change. relevant

generate actionable knowledge through the experience (Schein, 2008). Mode 2 OD work is
transdisciplinarity as OD practitioners work across the whole system with the managers of
multiple functions and the OD research team is created from relevant functional areas
across the organization. The research team usually co-designs and carries out the
project through intense collaborative effort. OD Mode 2 work is heterogeneous and
works with organizational diversity. Both OD practitioners and an OD research team ques-
tion who gets involved, how and to what extent as interventions and inquiry are con-
structed across functional boundaries and who needs involved shifts as the project
proceeds. With respect to social accountability and reflexivity OD practitioners are accoun-
table to senior management and the OD researchers are accountable to senior manage-
ment and to the academic community for generation of actionable knowledge. Finally,
a diverse range of quality controls are exercised as the OD practitioner works with senior
management to establish learning mechanisms to sustain the change.
While Mode 1 and Mode 2 are grounded in distinct and often opposing philosophical
principles, methods from Mode 1 may be used in Mode 2 in OD research. For example, a
survey that centres on a research question of mutual interest may be useful in an OD inter-
vention to elicit employee views on some aspects of their work or the organization. What is
important in using such a method is that the role of the survey be carefully explored in
advance and fed back subsequently so that it fits the aims of the OD project (Nadler,
1977). A survey is not merely a method for collecting information; it is also an intervention.
Attending to how the survey is received and answered may provide rich data.
An example of such a study, (Cantarino, Shani, Coghlan, & Brunelli, 2016) reports on the
nature and outcome of a collaborative management research effort that centred on a
complex organizational change – the merger process of two real estate investment com-
panies. The study was done in a specific context, that of enabling the integration of two
companies into one and aimed at generating actionable knowledge about mergers and
arose from the CEO’s request for help in managing the merger. A research team was
formed comprising external researchers and organizational members from across func-
tional areas. The research team created a conceptual mapping of the key issues that
were associated with the merger and organizational performance. Following the explora-
tion of alternative research designs and research methods, the research team made the
 JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT 11

decision to conduct semi-structured interviews with a sample of organizational members.

The research team developed an interview protocol, and two individuals (one external
researcher and one organizational member) conducted each interview. The research
team analysed the data and worked through a collective sense making process. The analy-
sis led to the identification of the critical role that culture and subcultures played for both
the perceived success of the merger and overall organizational performance. The next
phase of the study was framed around the research question that focused on the role
and the impact of the emerging culture (and subcultures) on the merger and organiz-
ational performance. The research team refined the research question, and then created
the conceptual mapping, research design and methods. Two web-based surveys were
created, modified, and pre-tested. Following the data collection, top management was
engaged in an interactive sensemaking exercise to process the data. The process resulted
in the identification of specific actions to be taken in order to close the gap between the
‘actual’ and ‘ideal’ state. Four projects were framed, project champions were identified,
and a timeline for project implementation was established. The discussion of the results
identifies and explores some of the characteristics of collaborative management research
that could enable M&As. Furthermore, specific contribution to theory, method and prac-
tice were presented, proposing collaborative management research as a managerial
tool for framing and leading M&As.
This case illustrates how the OD research was grounded in the Mode 2 paradigm as it
was created out of the request for help by the CEO and had the twin aims of helping the
two companies to integrate into one and to cogenerate actionable knowledge from and
through the experience of the merging actions. The twin aims directed the interventions
of cogenerating and making sense of useful information as the project progressed.
From an interiority perspective, we can appreciate that this study uses a practical way of
knowing to attend to the data of sense. By knowing how we know in this context, data of
consciousness suggest that the authors have been attentive, intelligent, reasonable and
responsible. Specifically, they relied on collaborative engagement with practitioners to
be intelligent, exercise understanding, and make judgements about the results. In the
practical way of knowing, responsible action is embedded in the research process.
Though not its intention, this study also provides a springboard for Mode 1 research.
This Mode 2 research generated several research questions and propositions relative to
cultural identity, learning mechanisms, and employee performance and attitudes as well
as the facilitative role of collaborative management research in mergers. The study con-
cludes with contributions to theory extracted through practical ways of knowing but
acknowledges that because the case study extracts its knowledge in the specific
context of an Italian real estate merger propositional ways of knowing may empirically
validate these findings. Mode 1 researchers may capitalize on these study insights to
further validate findings in a propositional way of knowing, complementing Mode 2’s prac-
tical way of knowing.

Discussion
Both Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge production are evident in OD research. To illustrate
this we have briefly examined and discussed two published research projects. The two
studies provide insights into the different knowledge production processes. A deeper
12 D. COGHLAN ET AL.

level dive suggests that the two studies used scientific rigour differently, addressed issues
of relevance and are loaded with reflective practice. Holding OD as a science and a prac-
tice, we believe that while Mode 2 often aligns with the practitioner experience of OD
more closely, OD research as a field contains both paradigms and is richer because of it
(see Table 4). The focus of this article is to explore the notion of Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowl-
edge production in the OD field, the potential cause and effect relationship between Mode
1 and Mode 2 and the impact that they have had in the evolution of research and practice
in the field. In this section of the article we apply the notion of interiority as a higher view-
point that enabled us to understand Mode 1 and Mode 2 from the perspective of under-
standing the process of knowledge production and its implications for the theory and
practice of OD research.
Gibbons et al. (1994) do not discuss the notion of science that is found in the social
sciences, such as in history, anthropology, sociology, theology and archaeology. In these
disciplines ‘scientific’ does not equate with what is universally true. In the management
and organizational sciences, case research, participant observation and ethnographic
studies are considered to be ‘scientific’ but not in the way that is posited by positivist
science. In these forms of studies transferability rather than generalizability is the scientific
outcome. At the same time the agenda for these so called ‘qualitative’ methods meet the
criteria for Mode 1 in being driven by the academic agenda and occurring within a singular
discipline and in being accountable to that discipline. In contrast, the interventionist tra-
dition of social science, such as action research and collaborative management research, is
understood as being a ‘science of practice’ (Argyris, Putman, & Smith, 1985; Coghlan, 2011;
Sherman & Torbert, 2000) and in that manner accord with Mode 2 assumptions.

The Merits of an Interiority-based Conceptual Framework

How might we hold the values and approaches of Mode 1 and Mode 2 OD without polar-
izing them or without creating a new approach to knowledge production process. To
answer this question we return to the notion of interiority introduced earlier. We described
interiority as a philosophical theory and method that enables us to take a higher viewpoint
enabling us to relate the different forms of knowing to one another by focusing on the
operations of human knowing (Cronin, 2017). The notion of an extended epistemology

Table 4. Organization development and Modes 1 and 2.

Mode 1 Mode 2
Aim of OD research Universal knowledge in quantitative Cogenerated actionable knowledge produced in
studies the context of the application
Theory building and testing within a
discipline for qualitative studies
Type of knowledge Universal knowledge in quantitative Particular, situational
acquired studies Actionable knowledge
Nature of data Context free Contextually embedded in the situation
Context located
Validation Logic, measurement, consistency of Experiential
prediction and control Collaborative transdisciplinary through the OD
External & internal validity intervention process
OD researcher’s role Observer/data analyst Actor, OD practitioner, Socially accountable
OD Researcher’s Detached neutral Immersed
relationship to setting Reflexive
Ways of Knowing Propositional Practical
 JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT 13

provides a useful conceptual and practical lens for exploring the philosophical underpin-
nings of Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge production within organization development.
Organization development as science in form of Mode 1 produces propositional knowl-
edge and theory building and testing within its organizational disciplines, that is, concep-
tual knowledge that is verifiable through scientific method, validating knowledge on the
basis of logic, measurement and the consistency of prediction and control. In the form of
Mode 2, OD produces practical knowledge, that is, knowledge that enables skilful action.
Mode 2 OD works with what is experiential, that is what takes place in the collaborative OD
intervention process.
We suggest that interiority enables us to know how Modes 1 and 2 can co-exist and can
continue to hold the tensions within OD between the ‘science’ in its traditional meaning
(as Mode 1 defines it) and the scientific notion of ‘practice’ (Mode 2). The philosophy of
interiority helps us appreciate the value of different methods. Classical method enables
us to understand when the abstract converges on the concrete, statistical method on
when data diverge from the norm. Genetic method enables us to grasp the development
of living beings. Practical method enables things to work. Each of these methods is intel-
ligent, reasonable and responsible in their respective specific sphere. Common across all
these methods is the inquiring subject (the researcher) who is engaging in intelligent,
reasonable and responsible inquiry and knowledge production. Interiority enables us to
question and to come to understanding what methods are appropriate to a task at
hand and to critique how we are attentive to the data, intelligent in understanding,
reasonable in judging and responsible in taking action.
Figure 1 expresses how interiority as an activity within human consciousness enables
OD scholars and researchers, first to differentiate the different realms of knowing and
what modes of knowledge production are appropriate in what settings and for what pur-
poses, and secondly to appreciate the different realms and to mediate between them in
those settings and for those purposes.
An interiority-based paradigm for OD research will recognize the value and importance
of both Mode 1 and mode 2 as ways of producing knowledge. Mode 1 and Mode 2 are not
an either or alternative. Each in its own way emphasizes different forms of knowing for
different purposes and in different settings. By focusing on how we know, rather than

Figure 1. Interiority and Mode 1 and Mode 2 OD.

14 D. COGHLAN ET AL.

what we know, interiority enables OD researchers to avoid the traps of polarized theories
of knowledge. As such, an interiority perspective suggests an opportunity to explore a
more comprehensive OD research framework. Our proposed framework describes six
macrophases in the implementation of OD interiority-based knowledge production that
‘rises above’ Modes 1 and 2. These phases have been derived inductively from the
review of research practices in the field and builds on the discussion thus far in this article.
Table 5 summarizes the phases of such a framework. In the first phase the foundations
of the research are explored collaboratively in terms of questions about past and current
experiences, what questions are arising that need to be addressed. A second phase follows
on in asking what kind of knowledge is needed and how it can be produced (e.g. a survey
to provide statistical-based information or interviews to understand people’s experiences).
The third phase involves designing and developing collaborative spaces and collaborative
research mechanisms to address the emerging areas of interest as to what the desired out-
comes of the research are. The fourth phase engages the researchers in designing and
facilitating the iterative research and sense making processes that set how attentiveness
to the data of consciousness are afforded equal value to data of sense. This is followed by
the fifth phase in which ‘responsible action’ based on the newly generated insights and
the measurement of the impacts of the developed solution is designed and developed.
A final phase involves the dissemination of the newly gained understanding in academic
and practical outlets.

Implications for OD Research Theory

There are significant implications for the future of OD research. The field of OD as science
and as practice has been polarized, as has the split between theory and practice, and
between Mode 1 and Mode 2. The ability to hold both, Mode 1 and Mode 2 as critical para-
digms in the field seems to go counter to current practice and scholarship. The notion that
one not only needs to value both but also needs to continue the exploration of how, what
and when techniques that are used in Mode 1 could be used in Mode 2 research and what
outcomes in Mode 2 research can be used to further trigger Mode 1 research is found
rarely in the OD literature. Interiority acts as the bridge between theory and practice,
between theoretical modes of knowing and practical modes of knowing as differentiated
consciousness. Our proposal of interiority as a higher viewpoint to counter this trend is

Table 5. Towards an interiority-based OD framework of knowledge production.

Phase 1: In collaboration with members of the system, explore the essence of ‘how do we come to know what we know’
in this system: what experiences we have had, what questions have arisen, how we have answered them,
tested them and come to judgement.
Phase 2: Explore and identify possible ‘human knowing processes’ that are of relevance to the members of the system.
What kind of knowledge do we need and how do we get it (e.g. a survey to provide statistical-based
information or interviews to understand people’s experiences)?
Phase 3: Design and develop collaborative spaces and collaborative research mechanisms to address the emerging areas
of interest as to what the desired outcomes of the research are.
Phase 4: Design and facilitate the iterative research process and sense making process that sets how our attentiveness to
the data of consciousness (our interior processes of coming to know) will be afforded equal value to our
attentiveness to the data of sense (external data).
Phase 5: Design and develop ‘responsible action’ based on the newly generated insights and the measurement of the
impacts of the developed solution.
Phase 6: Facilitate dissemination of the newly gained understanding in academic and practical outlets.
 JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT 15

significant. Interiority is not some vague philosophical notion. It is, as Cronin (2017) puts it,
a philosophical position that is based on understanding the process of understanding.
Reaching a philosophy of interiority involves grasping how we come to know (or how
we produce knowledge) through acts of questioning, receiving insights, verifying them
and forming judgements. By focusing on the operations of the mind as data of conscious-
ness OD researchers challenge the polarizations that beset the field and provide a learning
mechanism for doctoral students and future OD researchers to draw on both data of con-
sciousness and data of sense. Interiority is important for doctoral students as it enables
them to adopt self-reflective skills, not only to distinguish and work with different philos-
ophies of science and methodologies and the world of OD practice but to learn how their
minds work in judging between them. It is through interiority that both paradigms of
Mode 1 and Mode 2 can coexist and be exploited.

Implications for OD Researcher Education and Practice

There are significant implications for the practice of OD research and for the education and
training of OD researchers. Research training in the field of OD seems to either focus on
Mode 1 or Mode 2 knowledge production and skill set. In Mode 1 OD researchers are
trained in rigours of the scientific method in being skilled at hypothesis formulation,
data gathering and analysis and explanation or understanding. In Mode 2 researchers
are trained to attend to engage collaboratively with others as co-researchers and to
attend to the dynamics of intervention in cogenerating actionable knowledge. The edu-
cational challenge for OD researchers is to understand both paradigms and to position
themselves with respect to both. To this end we propose that OD researchers, such as
OD doctoral students, be introduced to the theory and practice of interiority – to the
process of attending to their cognitive operations (experience, understanding and judge-
ment) as data of consciousness as they engage across the extended epistemology of
different realms of knowing, distinguish between them and recognize the relationship
between them. This would involve OD researchers learning to appropriate how they
know and grounding their philosophy of social science in the operations of human
knowing, from which they can then engage with different questions requiring appropriate
inquiry methods, such as presented in Mode 1 and Mode 2 approaches.

Conclusion
This article presents the notion of interiority as the outcome of differentiated conscious-
ness, enabling OD scholars and researchers to adopt a higher viewpoint from any particu-
lar realm of knowing by being grounded in the invariant and verifiable operations of how
they produce knowledge.
Since its origins in the late 1950s, organization development has been driven by its
commitment to scholarly rigour and practical relevance. The tension between these
twin forces can be attributed to the inability of scholars and practitioners to hold simul-
taneously two opposing research paradigms, lately labelled as Mode 1 and Mode 2
research. This article presents the notion of interiority as an exercise in differentiated con-
sciousness. Interiority involves moving from the theoretical/scientific modes of knowledge
production, exemplified by Mode 1, and the transdisciplinary modes of knowing in the
16 D. COGHLAN ET AL.

context of application of Mode 2 to enabling OD researchers to adopt a higher viewpoint

from any one particular realm of knowing by being grounded in the invariant and verifi-
able operations of how they produce knowledge. By emphasizing the cognitive operations
of OD scholars and researchers – grasping how they come to know (how they produce
knowledge) through acts of questioning, receiving insights, verifying them and forming
judgements – rather than a focus on the externalized paradigms presented by the two
approaches the field of organization development may exploit a richer understanding
of the processes of knowledge production.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
David Coghlan is a Professor Emeritus and Fellow Emeritus at the Trinity Business School, Trinity
College Dublin, Ireland. He specializes in organization development and action research and is
active in both communities internationally. He has published over 14 books and 150 articles and
book chapters. His most recent books] is Inside Organizations (Sage, 2016), He is co-editor of the
The Sage Encyclopedia of Action Research (2014) and of the 4 volume sets Fundamentals of Organiz-
ation Development (Sage, 2010) and Action Research in Business & Management (Sage, 2016). He is on
the editorial board of several journals.
Abraham B. (Rami) Shani is Professor at Orfalea College of Business California Polytechnic State Univer-
sity. He is author, co-author and co-editor of over 20 books and 80 articles. He is co-editor of the annual
Research in Organizational Change and Development series (Emerald). Other notable works include: The
Handbook of Collaborative Management Research (Sage, 2008), Organizing for Sustainable Effectiveness
series (Emerald), the 4 volume sets, Fundamentals of Organization Development (Sage, 2010), and
Action Research in Business & Management (Sage, 2015). He is on the editorial board of five journals.
Patricia C. Dahm is an assistant professor of management at the Orfalea College of Business. Her
research interests revolve around work-life integration, social roles, and self-regulation of workplace
behaviour. Her research has been published in the Journal of Applied Psychology and the Academy of
Management Proceedings, and her work is supported by grants from the Society for Human Resource
Management and the University of Minnesota, Carlson School of Management.

References
Argyris, C., Putman, R., & Smith, D. (1985). Action science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bartunek, J. M. (2011). What has happened to Mode 2? British Journal of Management, 22, 555–558.
Bresnen, M., & Burrell, G. (2012). Journals a la mode? Twenty years of living alongside mode 2 and the
new production of knowledge. Organization, 20(1), 25–37.
Burgoyne, J., & James, K. (2006). Towards best or better practice in corporate leadership develop-
ment: Operational issues in Mode 2 and design science research. British Journal of
Management, 17, 303–316.
Burnes, B., & Cooke, B. (2012). Review article: The past, present and future of organization develop-
ment: Taking the long view. Human Relations, 65, 1395–1429.
Cantarino, F., Shani, A. B. (Rami), Coghlan, D., & Brunelli, M. (2016). Collaborative management
research as a modality of OD action research: Learning from a merger-based study. The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(2), 157–186.
Church, A. H., Dawson, L. M., Barden, K. L., Rotolo, C. T., & Tuller, M. D. (2018). Enhancing 360 feedback
for individual assessment and organization development: Methods and lessons from the field. In
 JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT 17

D. Noumair & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1,
pp. 47–98). Bingley: Emerald.
Church, A. H., Golay, L. M., Rotolo, C. T., Tuller, M. D., Shull, A. C., & Desrosiers, E. I. (2012). Without effort
there can be no change: Reexamining the impact of survey feedback and action planning on
employee attitudes. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, W. A. Pasmore, & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in
organizational change and development (Vol. 20, pp. 223–264). Bingley: Emerald.
Coghlan, D. (2008). Authenticity as first person practice: An exploration based on Bernard Lonergan.
Action Research, 6, 351–366.
Coghlan, D. (2010). Seeking common ground in the diversity and diffusion of action research and
collaborative management research action modalities: Toward a general empirical method. In
W. A. Pasmore, A. B. (Rami) Shani & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change
and development (Vol. 18, pp. 149–181). Bingley: Emerald.
Coghlan, D. (2011). Action research: Exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing.
Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 53–87.
Coghlan, D. (2016). Retrieving the philosophy of practical knowing for action research. International
Journal of Action Research, 12(1), 84–107.
Coghlan, D. (2017). How might we learn about the philosophy of ODC research from 24 volumes of
ROCD? An invitation to interiority. In A. B. (Rami) Shani & D. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organiz-
ational change and development (Vol. 25, pp. 335–361). Bingley: Emerald.
Coghlan, D. (2018). Edgar Schein at 90: A celebratory and exploratory metalogue. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 54(4), 385–398.
Coghlan, D., & Coughlan, P. (2015). Effecting change and learning in networks through network
action learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(3), 375–400.
Coghlan, D., Shani, A. B. (Rami), & Hay, G. W. (2019). Toward a social science philosophy of organiz-
ation development and change. In D. A. Noumair & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Research in organiz-
ational change and development (Vol. 27, pp. 1–29). Bingley: Emerald.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2009). Further explorations of post-crisis communication: Effects of
media and response strategies on perceptions and intentions. Public Relations Review, 35, 1–6.
Cronin, B. (2017). Phenomenology of human understanding. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.
Delanty, G., & Strydom, P. (2003). Philosophies of social science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production
of knowledge. London: Sage.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., & Scott, P. (2011). Revisiting mode 2 at Noors Slott. Prometheus, 29(4),
361–372.
Guerci, M., Radaelli, G., & Shani, A. B. (Rami). (2019). Conducting mode 2 research in HRM: A phase-
based framework. Human Resource Management, 58, 5–20.
Helpap, S. (2016). The impact of power distance orientation on recipients’ reactions to participatory
versus programmatic change communication. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(1),
5–34.
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 274–294.
Hessels, L., & Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research
agenda. Madison: Robert F. & Jean E. University of Wisconsin-Madison: Holtz Center for Science &
Technology Studies.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Bridging the rigour-relevance Gap in management
research: It’s already happening!. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 534–546.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Starkey, K. (2011). Not simply returning to the same answer over and over again:
Reframing relevance. British Journal of Management, 22, 355–369.
Holland, D. G. (2009). Between the practical and the academic: The relation of mode 1 and mode 2
knowledge production in a developing country. Science, Technology & Human Values, 34, 551–572.
Hollis, M. (2002). The philosophy of social science (Revised ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Huff, A. S. (2000). Changes in organizational knowledge production. Academy of Management Review,
25(2), 288–293.
18 D. COGHLAN ET AL.

Huff, A. S., & Huff, J. O. (2001). Re-focusing the business school agenda. British Journal of Management,
12, S49–S54.
Lonergan, B. J. (1957/1992). The collected works of Bernard Lonergan: Vol. 3. Insight: An essay in human
understanding (F. Crowe & R. Doran, Eds.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
MacLean, D., McIntosh, R., & Grant, S. (2002). Mode 2 management research. British Journal of
Management, 13(2), 189–207.
Meynell, H. (1998). Redirecting philosophy: Reflection on the nature of knowledge from Plato to
Lonergan. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E.E. & Associates (2011). Useful research: Advancing theory and practice.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Nadler, D. A. (1977). Feedback and organization development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of
uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge.
Minerva, 41, 179–194.
Pasmore, W. A., & Friedlander, F. (1982). An action research program for increasing employee invol-
vement in problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 343–362.
Pasmore, W. A., & Woodman, R. W. (2017). The future of research and practice in organizational
change and development. In A. B. (Rami) Shani & D. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational
change and development (Vol. 25, pp. 1–32). Bingley: Emerald.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Romme, A. (2003). Making a difference: Organization as design. Organization Science, 14, 558–573.
Schein, E. H. (2008). Clinical inquiry/research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
action research (2nd ed., pp. 266–279). London: Sage.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organization development: Science, technology or philosophy? In D. Coghlan &
A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Fundamentals of organization development (Vol. 1, pp. 91–100). London:
Sage.
Shani, A. B. (Rami), Mohrman, S. A., Pasmore, W. A., Stymne, B., & Adler, N. (2008). Handbook of col-
laborative management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sherman, F., & Torbert, W. R. (2000). Transforming social inquiry: Transforming social practice. Boston,
MA: Kluwer.
Swan, J., Bresnen, M., Robertson, M., Newell, S., & Dopson, S. (2010). When policy meets practice:
Colliding logics and the challenges of ‘mode 2’ initiatives in the translation of academic knowl-
edge. Organization Studies, 31, 1311–1340.
Szabla, D. B., Dardick, W., & Devlin, M., (2016). The perception of change strategy scale: Validating the
measure. In D. Noumair & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Research in organizational change and develop-
ment (Vol. 24, pp. 83–112). Bingley: Emerald.
Tekippe, T. (1996). Scientific and primordial knowing. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Tenkasi, R. V. (Ram), & Kamel, Y. (2016). To bankruptcy and back: Turnaround strategies for firm emer-
gence, long term survival and speed. In D. Noumair & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Research in organ-
izational change and development (Vol. 26, pp. 221–260). Bingley: Emerald.
van Aken, J. (2005). Management research as a design science: Articulating the research products of
Mode 2 knowledge production in management. British Journal of Management, 16, 19–36.
Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Woodman, R. W. (2014). The science of organizational change and the art of changing organizations.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(4), 463–477.