Construction Management and Economics (July 2009) 27, 683–694

The challenges of creating actionable knowledge: an action

research perspective
MARTIN SEXTON* and SHU-LING LU
School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, Reading, UK

Received 20 November 2008; accepted 12 May 2009

Taylor and Francis

10.1080/01446190903037702

Academia has a critical role in developing new knowledge which construction industry practitioners need to
envision, undertake and sustain successful innovation. The new knowledge produced by academia, however,
often does not satisfy the needs of practitioners. This unsatisfactory state of affairs is frequently taken to be the
consequence of the cultural, motivational and operational differences between the two communities.
Actionable knowledge is presented as a useful concept which can fuse the expectations, contributions and
outputs of academia and practitioners. Within this context, action research is argued to be an appropriate
methodology to develop successful actionable knowledge. Results from an action research project are given
which provide researchers and practitioners greater understanding of the key factors that shape the degree to
which action research produces actionable knowledge: change focus, collaboration capabilities and systematic
process. The criteria intrinsic to Mode 2 research (Gibbons et al., 1994) are demonstrated to have utility in
evidencing actionable knowledge. The implication for policy is that there is a need to develop and use
appropriate actionable knowledge frameworks and measures to design funding calls, and to evaluate research
proposals and outputs.

Keywords: Actionable knowledge, action research, Mode 2 knowledge production.

Introduction increase the sustainability of both the construction

The need for successful innovation in the private and
public sectors is an established priority for the United
Kingdom (UK) government. The Department for
Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS, 2008, p. 3)
states that
innovation is essential to the UK’s future economic
prosperity and quality of life. To raise productivity,
foster competitive businesses, meet the challenges of
globalization and to live within our environmental and
demographic limits, the UK must excel at all types of
innovation.
Innovation is understood by policy makers as a broad,
systemic concept which encompasses the ‘successful
introduction of new services, products, processes, busi-
ness models and ways of working’ (ESRC, 2008, p. 2).
The expansive view of innovation has also framed and
moulded the UK government’s target for construction
‘to enhance the industry’s capacity to innovate and
process and its resultant assets’ (BERR, 2008, p. 44).
The core role of universities in the UK in developing
the knowledge and skills base for enhanced and
sustained innovation and competitiveness performance
has become the focus of a number of high profile
government policies and reports (e.g. Lambert Report,
2003; Sainsbury Report, 2007; DIUS, 2008). This
priority is also evident within a construction context
(e.g. BERR, 2008). Fairclough (2002, p. 13), for
example, notes ‘… that much more collaboration
between industry and academia is required if the indus-
try is to properly benefit from university ideas and
expertise’. The generic message being conveyed by
such reports is the importance of investing in the higher
education institution (HEI) knowledge base, and to
design and implement more effective co-production
and knowledge sharing systems and processes within
and between HEIs, other public sector institutions and
organizations, and the private sector.

*Author for correspondence. E-mail: m.g.sexton@reading.ac.uk

Construction Management and Economics

ISSN 0144-6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online © 2009 Taylor & Francis
http://www.informaworld.com
DOI: 10.1080/01446190903037702
684
The effectiveness of the myriad systems and
processes which have been promoted and used to meet
these policy agendas have been the subject of long-
standing investigation (Agrawal, 2001; OECD, 2002;
McMillan and Hamilton, 2003). Empirical research
and anecdotal experience is consistently showing that
the impact of the knowledge delivered from such co-
production endeavours on innovation and competitive-
ness has been patchy and limited. These concerns are
far from new, with numerous commentators noting
that there is a ‘relevance gap’ between research-based
and industry-based knowledge and practice (Academy
of Management Journal, 2001; British Journal of
Management, 2001; Building Research & Information,
1997). This state of affairs is found within the
construction context, with Fairclough (2002, p. 13)
lamenting that the ‘university sector and the construc-
tion industry have traditionally been poorly coupled,
and that there is evidence that the industry at large is
still wary of academia’.
These shortcomings in extant research and practice
on academia–industry knowledge co-production and
sharing are problematic. Existing approaches are often
producing knowledge that is not accessible and/or rele-
vant for industry. There is an urgent need, therefore, for
research that develops improved knowledge co-produc-
tion designs and methods that result in effective stimu-
lation and support of innovation and competitiveness.
The starting proposition for this paper is that
successful knowledge co-production and sharing
between academia and industry requires collaborative
arrangements that are empathetic to each community’s
characteristics, and which produce high quality schol-
arship for the researcher and actionable knowledge for
the industry. We examine the utility and application of
action research as a methodology for the production of
actionable knowledge to explore this proposition. By
actionable knowledge, we refer to knowledge produc-
tion that meets the dual needs of both academia and
industry. To do so, we draw upon and synthesize
insights from prior studies on academia–industry
engagement and knowledge production. There is a
particular focus on the unique characteristics intrinsic
to small construction firms which present distinctive
challenges for effective academia–industry engagement.
The focus on small firms is justified as firms with fewer
than 50 staff make up 99.8% of UK construction firms
and deliver over 50% of the sector’s workload (BERR,
2007). Any credible effort to improve the sector’s inno-
vation performance and competitiveness, therefore,
must engage this part of the sector. This synthesis of
relevant research provides the theoretical prism
through which an action research project within a small
architectural practice is described and evaluated in
terms of its ability to produce actionable knowledge.
Sexton and Lu
The paper makes two important contributions. First,
the key design principles of change focus, collaboration
capabilities and systematic process which determine
the ability of action research to produce actionable
knowledge are identified and demonstrated. Second,
the utility and application of Mode 2 research criteria
(Gibbons et al., 1994) to calibrate the degree to which
co-produced knowledge is actionable is substantiated.
Together, these contributions will be of value to
funders, in designing funding calls and assessment
criteria for bids and subsequent outputs; and to
academics and industrialists in designing, monitoring
and evaluating the knowledge co-production process
and the resultant actionable knowledge flowing from
this interaction.
The discussion on government and research funding
policy given in this paper has a UK focus; however,
policy priorities and issues are similar in many coun-
tries (Box, 2009, p. 38). The paper is structured as
follows. First, key issues relating to knowledge creation
and sharing between academia and industry will be
presented. Second, the nature and process of action
research as a collaborative approach to knowledge
creation and enhanced practice will be set out. Third,
a 22-month action research intervention within a small
architectural practice and the resultant actionable
knowledge produced will be described. Finally, impli-
cations for policy makers, research funders, academics
and practitioners are proposed.
An academia–industry divide?
The potential contribution of HEIs in stimulating
industry innovation includes the production of new
knowledge, the production of skilled graduates, the
creation and support of new networks, the expansion of
the capacity for problem-solving, the production
of new methodologies and technologies, the creation of
new firms, and the provision of knowledge about the
social and regulatory pressures which will partly govern
whether innovations succeed or fail (Salter and Martin,
2001). The Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council (EPSRC) ‘Connecting with Busi-
ness’ strategy (2007), for example, envisions the poten-
tial of HEI research activity to ‘have economic and
social impact through improved profitability of busi-
ness and welfare of consumers, the creation of new
market and employment opportunities, and ultimately
an improved quality of life’ (p. 3). These espoused
benefits have been confirmed and interpreted for a
construction context (e.g. Gann, 2001). A substantial
body of evidence, however, suggests that practitioners
do not use academic research results in developing
strategies or carrying out actions (e.g. Porter and
Actionable knowledge
McKibbon, 1988; Abrahamson, 1996; Mowday,
1997).
The principal causes of this divide between policy
aspiration and practitioner reality can be found in two
interdependent and mutually reinforcing domains: the
philosophical foundations of ‘scientific’ knowledge and
the organizational context within which academic
research takes place. The salient philosophical fault line
here is the commonly made distinction between
conclusion-orientated or basic research and decision-
orientated or applied research (e.g. Cronbach and
Suppes, 1969). In broad terms, basic research is the
process of testing theories and producing generaliza-
tions that is open to the scrutiny of the academic
community and which does not begin with an intention
to be of help to practice or to produce implementable
knowledge. In contrast, applied research seeks to solve
real-world problems and to produce workable solutions
that are generally not abstract to ensure that solutions
are directly relevant to the concrete problems of prac-
tice. The outcomes of applied research are infrequently
subject to academic community scrutiny and are
intended for implementation. Pettigrew (2001) is
dwelling upon this fault line when he stresses that
research needs to overcome the ‘double hurdles’ of
simultaneously delivering practitioner relevance and
scholarly rigour.
There are, of course, constant calls for a pluralistic
blending of basic and applied research, but the stub-
born reality is that they have different philosophical
foundations and intents which are often manifest in
impermeable siloes in and amplified by the organiza-
tional context in which academic research is
conducted. Industry is often sceptical of academic
research and consistently places the problem with
researchers who, it argues, do not seek practitioner
input in the sensing and articulation of research ques-
tions and research agendas (Sackett and Larson, 1990)
or for insight in interpreting their results (Rynes et al.,
1999). The impact of this decoupling of researcher and
practitioner agendas, it is commonly mooted by indus-
try, has led to a corresponding decoupling between
basic research ‘rigour’ and applied research ‘relevance’.
The pervasiveness of this rigour–relevance gap has led
commentators to conclude that its origins are deeply
embedded in academics’ and practitioners’ fundamen-
tal assumptions, theories of action and criteria of
adequacy. It has been noted that academics and practi-
tioners have different frames of reference with respect
to the goals they seek to influence, the social systems in
which they are located, the variables they attempt to
manage, and acceptable timeframes for addressing
problems and exploiting opportunities (Thomas and
Tymon, 1982; Johns, 1993; Powell and Owen-Smith,
1998; Nutley and Davies, 2000; Weick, 2001). Barrett
685
and Barrett (2003) comment that, in a construction
context, the key difference between academics and
practitioners is
in the culture, funding and reward systems that lead to
a very strong desire among academics to create knowl-
edge underpinned by some kind of theory … [which is]
… not reliant on industry’s sanction or the immediately
successful implementation of new ideas (p. 757).
This divide is stressed by an international firm of
consulting engineers, for example, when commenting
on the barriers constraining industry demand for
universities’ research outputs, who observed that
‘knowledge and skills presented by universities were not
always in a form the business could identify with. The
language of common interest between academia and
industry requires improvement’ (ARUP, 2003, p. 6).
Interaction between academia and small
firms
Recent studies of innovation are revealing the growing
importance of external sources of innovation. Firms are
not relying solely on internally produced innovation,
but are increasingly engaging in ‘open innovation’
(Chesbrough, 2006). Innovation is thus the product of
interactions within inter-organizational networks,
rather than the activity of single firms (Coombs et al.,
2003). Academia is increasingly recognised as an
important actor within construction companies’ inno-
vation networks. The interaction, however, between
academia and small companies has been found to be
particularly sterile (Cohen et al., 2002; Arundel and
Geuna, 2004). This sterility is recognized at a policy
level and efforts to more adequately engage small firms
have become a priority (Sainsbury Report, 2007, p. 5).
The motivation and ability of small firms to engage
in collaborative activity with academia or use research
results is often adversely affected because of their unique
characteristics (compared to large firms). Rothwell and
Zegfeld (1982) identify, in their seminal work, four chal-
lenges unique to small manufacturing firms. First,
limited staff capacity and capability restrict their ability
to undertake appropriate research and development.
Second, small firms have scarce time and resources to
allocate to external interaction. This limits the flow and
amount of information on which to have discussions.
Third, small firms are often affected by the excessive
influence of senior management. Often small firms are
vulnerable to domination by a single owner or small
team who may use inappropriate strategies and skills.
Finally, small firms can have difficulty in raising finance
and maintaining adequate cash flow which can result in
limited scope for capital or ongoing investment in
686
innovation activity. Research has confirmed these chal-
lenges within a small construction firm context (Sexton
and Barrett, 2003; Lu and Sexton, 2009). These char-
acteristics unite to erode the motivation, capability and
capacity of small companies to engage successfully with
academia (Storey, 2000). Major and Cordey-Hayes
(2003), for example, stress that small firms often exhibit
a weak ability to create and maintain transfer mecha-
nisms with universities to absorb new knowledge. The
broad distinction between the ability and motivation of
large and small construction companies to engage in
academic research and use research results has been
confirmed within a construction context. Cushman et al.
(2002, p. 3), for example, have generalized that
large [construction] firms … have an explicit commit-
ment to research and development (R&D) and regularly
participate in academic research projects. They see
innovation as led by academia and see themselves as
acquiring knowledge for their own use and as contribut-
ing to industry ‘best practice’ programmes, both in
order to improve their reputation for innovation and to
build their market. The small firms, by contrast, see
themselves as knowledge consumers … [but] … feel
isolated from knowledge networks because of the scale
and the nature of their work usually with other [small
and medium-sized enterprises] and rarely with large
knowledge rich partners.
This tension has been articulated, in stereotype terms,
as the difficult relationship between ‘rigorous’ research
advocated by the academia community and ‘relevant’
research urged by industry. Susman and Evered (1978,
p. 582), for example, note ‘that as our research
methods and techniques have become increasingly
more sophisticated, they have also become increasingly
less useful for solving practical problems that members
of organizations face’. Similarly, Van de Ven (2000,
p. 396–7) describes the possible implication of adher-
ing to rigour as the ultimate criterion for research in the
following way: ‘if scientists cannot answer their initial
questions, they can modify or simplify them until they
show promise of being answerable. If this process
repeats itself, as is customary, the research questions
and answers become increasingly trivial contributions
to science, and even more irrelevant to practice’. Before
moving on to discuss action research as an appropriate
methodology to address this potential chasm between
researchers and practitioners, the characteristics of this
paper’s desired end goal for collaborative research—
‘actionable knowledge’—are described.
Actionable knowledge
Actionable knowledge is defined as knowledge that can
‘change professional practice or social institutions
Sexton and Lu
through the active and transformative participation of
those working within a particular setting’ (Crawford,
1995, p. 239), and that ‘… meets the criteria and needs
of both the scientific community and the organization’
(Alder et al., 2004, p. 84). (The knowledge generated,
therefore, progresses that part of the pluralism agenda
which advocates the alloying of basic and applied
research.) The knowledge produced is thus ‘process’ in
nature and is generated by, and for, a particular social
setting. This is in contrast to the traditional knowledge-
driven research utilization model that articulates that
the existence of new research-based knowledge will
automatically lead to new policies and practices (Weiss,
1979; Kline and Rosenberg, 1986). This perspective is
grounded in an ‘asset’ view of knowledge, where
research results can be ‘neutrally’ transferred, adopted
and replicated. Further, we extend the concept of
actionable knowledge as knowledge that brings about
change in practices and institutions in sustained and
reproducible fashion.
This perspective explicitly shifts the locus of under-
standing innovation as an interactionist phenomenon
(Weick, 1979, 1995) which emphasizes the role of day-
to-day social interactions and language (Von Krogh
et al., 1994). Within this context, actionable knowledge
has two principal components: know-how and know-
that (Ryle, 1949). Know-how is analogous to practical
experience while know-that to abstract information.
Ryle (1949) argues that the two aspects of knowing
are complementary, knowing how helping to making
knowing that actionable. They are not, however, substi-
tutable: accumulation of know-that does not lead to
knowing how. Know-that we acquire in the form of
explicit, codified information. By contrast, ‘we learn
how by practice’ (Ryle, 1949, p. 1; emphasis added).
This dynamic between ‘how’ and ‘that’ resonates with
subsequent distinctions between declarative and
procedural knowledge (Cook and Brown, 1999);
substantive and methodological management theories
(Sandelands, 1990); and, finally, in relation to Mode 2
knowledge production, Tranfield and Starkey’s (1998,
p. 346) assertion that research is not only about ‘know-
ing what’ but also about ‘knowing how’. Actionable
knowledge is thus shaped by, and shapes, the dynamics
of the systems through which knowing is accomplished,
since knowing is situated in and mediated through
activity systems (Blackler, 1995, pp. 1039–41), and
makes explicit the social construction of knowledge
which reveals the knowledge–power dynamic that
underpins practice (Giddens, 1987). Actionable
knowledge produced from research, therefore, has to
leverage and combine both research-based knowledge
and experience-based knowledge in parallel. Actionable
knowledge is thus, at the same time, the object of
knowledge and the object of action.
Actionable knowledge 687

Within this context there is a growing recognition that ● The research has diversity of quality controls that
there is a need to generate context-specific, actionable reflect the concerns of a broader community of
knowledge by deploying appropriate methodologies to interest internal and external to the social setting
support ‘… researchers working with industry directly within which the action research is taking place.
on problems defined by real-world, open systems, situ-
Mode 2 knowledge production is being increasingly
ations’ (Barrett and Barrett, 2003, p. 760), by studying
advocated as a powerful approach to closing the rigour–
‘“as-it-happens” so that processes … [can be viewed] …
relevance gap in management research (e.g. Tranfield
over time and in context’ (Dawson, 1994, p. 4).
and Starkey, 1998; Starkey and Madan, 2001;
The actionable knowledge and rigour–relevance
MacLean et al., 2002; Worrall, 2008). This goal of
debates have contributed to the renewed interest in the
Mode 2 or actionable knowledge production poses
role of university research in knowledge production in
significant challenges for both industry and academia
modern societies. The Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge
to overcome ‘… the basic structural, organizational and
production thesis put forward by Gibbons et al. (1994)
cultural blocks to greater transdisciplinary or Mode 2
has made a significant contribution to this discussion
collaboration’ (Smith and Katz, 2000, p. 88). For
(Godin and Gingras, 2000). Mode 1 knowledge
industry, it calls for collaborative approaches to knowl-
production is purely academic and mono-disciplinary,
edge creation and knowledge transfer between compa-
while Mode 2 is transdisciplinary and aims at solving
nies and academic institutions. On the side of
complex and relevant field problems. Gibbons et al.
academics, it calls for engaged scholarship aimed at
(1994, p. 3) contrast these two modes as follows:
knowledge transfer and knowledge contribution to the
Mode 1 problems are set and solved in a context practical know-why and know-how of managers. In
governed by the, largely academic, interests of a specific meeting these challenges, the formation of appropriate
community. By contrast Mode 2 is carried out in the knowledge collaborations between practitioners and
context of application. Mode 1 is disciplinary while researchers is essential. Policy makers and research
Mode 2 is transdisciplinary. Mode 1 is characterized by
funders are recognizing that devising better mecha-
homogeneity, Mode 2 by heterogeneity. Organization-
nisms for pushing research information out (dissemina-
ally, Mode 1 is hierarchical and tends to preserve its
form, while Mode 2 is more hetearchical and transient. tion) is having only limited success and are seeking
In comparison with Mode 1, Mode 2 is socially more effective ways of putting research results into
accountable and reflexive. practice. In addition, research funders are paying
increasing attention to the utilization of the work they
The five attributes of Mode 2 research, as presented by commission, and are insisting that researchers pay
Gibbons et al. (1994, pp. 3–8), are as follows: greater attention to their target user group. The Engi-
neering and Physical Sciences Research Council
● Knowledge is produced in the context of applica-
(EPSRC), a major research funder in the UK, for
tion. The context-specific attribute emphasizes
example has introduced a new requirement for propos-
the problem-solving nature of Mode 2 research in
als to include an ‘economic impact’ statement. This
that the knowledge produced is organized to meet
consists of an ‘impact summary—explaining who may
the needs of a particular social setting as opposed
benefit from the research, how they may benefit and
to the norms and rules of a particular discipline.
what will be done to make sure they have the opportu-
● The research is transdisciplinary. This demand
nity to benefit [and an] academic beneficiaries
recognizes that real-world problem-solving
[summary] explaining how the research will benefit
requires an integration of different discipline
other researchers in the field’ (EPSRC, 2009, p. 1).
knowledge and skills.
Action research has been suggested as one collabora-
● The research is heterogeneous and organization-
tive research method that can be used to bridge the gap
ally diverse. This dimension accommodates the
between researchers’ and practitioners’ interests (Argy-
reality that real-world problems require transient
ris et al., 1985; Babüroglo and Ravn, 1992; McNiff,
teams whose membership changes to respond
2000; Coghlan and Brannick, 2001; Reason and Brad-
appropriately to the emergent situation.
bury, 2008a) and has the potential to produce Mode 2
● The research is socially accountable and reflex-
knowledge (Argyris, 1993; Eden and Huxham, 1996).
ive. This attribute argues that participants in the
research process need to be sensitive to the actual
and perceived impacts of their activity by inter-
ests outside the action research group. The Action research
consequences of this accountability necessitate a
deeper appreciation of the research process itself Action research is described as a group of phenomeno-
on the part of the participants. logical methodologies concerned with introducing
688
change (or ‘action’), and critically understanding that
change to produce new knowledge (‘research’), within
a social setting, with the researcher and the indigenous
people of that social setting being active participants in
the change process under investigation. Action research
is thus geared towards the mutual development of
know-that and know-how. This duality eliminates the
rigour–relevance gap, as both are given equal priority
and have interwoven criteria for high quality research
(Eden and Huxham, 1996). Argyris et al. (1985) stress,
for example, that action research must contribute
simultaneously to basic knowledge in social science and
to social action in everyday life. Action research can be
characterized by the following key themes:
(1) Change orientated. The collaborative activity
(between the client system and the researcher)
focuses on a particular problem and seeks to
address that problem by appropriately chang-
ing the client system (Alvesson, 2003). Further,
the collaborative endeavour is committed to
developing self-sustaining capabilities within
the client system through the action research so
that it can bring about successful change and
innovation after the action researcher has left
(Gavin, 1985, p. 204).
(2) Collaboration orientated. The research activity
is deeply collaborative in focus and operation,
with the researcher bringing an intellectual
framework and knowledge of process to the
research context, and the practitioner bringing
knowledge of context (Hult and Lennung,
1980). The mutual dependence is such that ‘…
the encounter between participants and
researchers is the cornerstone of which mutual
learning is built’ (Greenwood and Levin, 1998,
p. 153). Shotter and Gustavsen (1999, p. 12;
emphasis added), for example, capture this
argument in the statement that action research
‘… rather than on and about people … [it] is
research together with the people’.
(3) Process orientated. Action research follows a
cyclical flow of phases for understanding and
engaging systematically in practical knowledge
construction through a ‘systemic inquiry that is
collective, collaborative, self-reflective, critical
and undertaken by participants in the inquiry’
(McCutcheon and Jurg, 1990, p. 148).
Kemmis and McTaggert (1990), for example,
portray the action research process as consist-
ing of planning, acting, observing and reflecting
cycles. It is these iterative cycles of action and
reflection which Reason and Bradbury (2008b,
p. 1) argue ‘integrate knowing and acting …
[and in so doing] … action research does not
Sexton and Lu
have to address the “gap” between knowing
and doing that befuddles so many change
efforts and “applied” research’.
There are a small, but growing, number of proponents
of action research who assert that it is an appropriate
methodology for construction research (Alexander
et al., 2003; Sexton and Barrett, 2003; Styhre et al.,
2004; Lu and Sexton, 2009). Zarli (2004, p. 71) argues
that
in terms of developing [construction] technologies with
real future potential for widespread impact and accep-
tance, a more purist action research, with far greater
practitioner involvement and evaluation should be
recommended as a potential methodology for future
research projects and should be at the heart of future
research and development in this field.
The discussion so far has set out the need for, and
characteristics of, actionable knowledge. Further, it has
presented action research as an appropriate methodol-
ogy to generate such actionable knowledge. Within this
context, action research which was undertaken in a
small architectural practice is described in the next
section. The description of the process and results of
this action research project reported here concentrates
on demonstrating its utility in producing actionable
knowledge using the Mode 2 research attributes
detailed above. A full description and discussion of the
action research project can be found in Lu and Sexton
(2009).
Action research within a small architectural
practice setting
Background of the case study company
The aim of the research was to investigate the focus and
process of innovation in small professional practices.
The action research methodology was employed within
a single case study setting, and was 22 months in dura-
tion. The case study company, labelled hereafter as
ArchSME for confidentiality reasons, is a small archi-
tectural practice of 40 staff located in Manchester in
the northwest region of England.
Action research intervention
The action research intervention was the development
and implementation of an interim project review
process (IPRP) innovation. An IPRP was seen as a
procedure for project teams within the company to
gather information on what worked well and what did
not, so that current and future projects can benefit from
the learning. Further this new process was considered as
Actionable knowledge
an integral part of the ongoing preparation by the case
study firm for ISO 9001 accreditation. The IPRP inter-
vention was jointly developed by the action researcher
and ArchSME, and was signed off by the company
senior management and integrated into the company’s
quality management systems. The research process will
be discussed using the three themes of change focus,
collaboration capabilities and systematic process
described in the ‘Action research’ section above.
Theme–change focus
The success of the change management process intrin-
sic to action research appeared to be dependent upon
three interactive considerations: explicit action research
intervention objectives; communication of those objec-
tives to organizational members; and appropriate
participation of practitioner staff in the action research
process. The benefits of the proposed IPRP innovation
were articulated by ArchSME senior management as a
mechanism to: identify areas for improvements; reduce
the incidence of employees’ ‘reinventing the wheel’ or
repeating mistakes in future projects; and help build a
strong sense of commitment and team spirit.
These benefits were interpreted and extended to a
jointly prepared project brief which was communicated
to ArchSME staff. The brief consisted of the following
sections: the objectives of the IPRP innovation activity;
the scope of the activity; the resource commitment
from the company; and a project schedule detailing
tasks, deliverables and deadlines. This brief was
constantly updated in progress meetings, and commu-
nicated to the wider organization.
As the action research intervention progressed, it was
evident that there was a need for an infrastructure to
allow an expanding ownership of the innovation, and to
garner and capture tacit knowledge throughout the firm
to strengthen the relevance and impact of the IPRP
innovation. A task group consisting of the five staff
involved in the diagnosis phase from ArchSME and
two university researchers was set up, and was led by
the ArchSME business manager. The role of the group
was to develop the IPRP, bringing in internal and
external people (for example, an external ISO quality
consultant) at appropriate stages when particular
expertise was required; and to provide a visible profile
to the innovation activity within the organization.
Theme–collaboration capabilities
The success of the collaboration appeared to hinge on
three interconnected considerations: innovation-
specific focus and capabilities; research collaboration
capabilities; and mutual trust. First, ‘innovation-
specific focus and capabilities’ were characterized by
the knowledge and skills of the individual researcher
689
and practitioner which could be applied to the IPRP
innovation, as well as a shared understanding of the
problem domain. ArchSME brought an in-depth
contextual understanding for the business need for the
IPRP innovation. Complementary, but distinctively
different, capabilities were seen to converge on the
development of the IPRP. It was quickly evident that
staff within ArchSME did not possess knowledge or
experience of quality management systems. The action
researcher provided the required expert capability in
the area. However, this specialist knowledge was
shaped by ArchSME’s tacit knowledge of their day-to-
day activity, to make the resultant IPRP relevant and
actionable within the specific context of the firm.
Second, ‘research collaboration capabilities’ centred
on the degree to which both parties understood each
other’s expectations of the process and outcomes of the
collaborative interaction and the degree of senior
management support to champion the endeavour from
the case study firm and the academic institution. The
initial contact point within ArchSME had recently
completed a Masters in business administration, the
dissertation element of which resulted in her undertak-
ing a case study of her firm focusing on the benefits of
Investors in People. This tacit knowledge of the
research process appeared to make the contact person
receptive to the benefits of the proposed research, and
was manifest in her gaining senior management
support for the action research initiative. The academic
partner had extensive previous collaborative research
experience. The development and momentum of a
positive collaborative relationship through the action
research process was achieved through senior manage-
ment support from both the architectural practice and
the action researcher’s institution at key decision
points.
Finally, ‘mutual trust’ was critical to effective collab-
oration. A transparent relationship was developed
through regular meetings where views and potential
concerns on both sides were encouraged, and where
individual and shared objectives were reviewed. This
process diminished the risk of ‘hidden’ agendas emerg-
ing, and enhanced the respect of the contribution being
made to the IPRP innovation by each party.
Theme–systematic process
The action research adopted the systematic five-step
process of diagnosis, action planning, action taking,
action evaluation and specifying learning (Susman,
1983). First, the diagnosis phase consisted of an
exploratory phase of interviews with five members of
ArchSME staff representing different levels of senior-
ity: two senior managers, two middle managers and one
junior architectural technician. Before starting the
interviews, a semi-structured interview protocol was
690
prepared and pre-tested. The focus and content of the
interview questions were co-developed with a senior
member of the firm to secure buy-in and shared
ownership of the interview process. The exploratory
phase culminated in a report of key issues which was
co-authored by the action research team and a senior
manager within ArchSME. This report fed into a
company workshop. The purpose of the workshop was
to discuss and evaluate the key findings from the
exploratory phase and, based on this, to identify an
action research intervention (or innovation) to be
developed and implemented. This led to the identifica-
tion of the IPRP as the action research intervention.
Second, in the ‘action planning’ phase, an IPRP action
plan was developed in collaboration with the case study
company’s senior management. The objectives of this
action research project was to collaboratively develop
and test the IPRP policy, guidelines and checklists and
to help the firm to integrate the IPRP activity into its
ISO 9001 quality management system. Third, the
intervention within the ‘action taking’ phase was
carried out in six main activities: the development of a
draft IPRP; meetings with the company’s quality
representative; a company management review;
meetings with the company’s senior management;
company’s ISO 9000 external consultant review; and
meetings with the company’s quality representative. An
IPRP handbook was the output of this phase. Fourth,
in the ‘action evaluation’ phase, the IPRP handbook
was assessed and signed off by the company senior
management. The IPRP was integrated into the
company’s quality management systems. Finally, the
specified learning phase confirmed that staff members
within the firm have learnt ‘technical’ lessons on how to
develop new processes in a formal fashion (rather than
the ad hoc evolution of fragmented processes).
However, staff members recognize that the deep learn-
ing will continue to take place through the organic
‘learning by doing’ interactions with the new IPRP.
Actionable knowledge outputs
The ArchSME action research project produced
actionable knowledge in terms of the five attributes of
Mode 2. This is summarized below:
● The knowledge was produced in the context of
application. The action research activity was
driven by ArchSME’s business need for an IPRP.
The intervention was prioritized by ArchSME
senior management at the company workshop
after the diagnostic phase. The subsequent
knowledge production process was organized to
meet the needs of the IPRP action research
intervention.
Sexton and Lu
● Transdisciplinarity. The ArchSME action
research drew upon a diverse, complementary
range of expertise within both ArchSME and the
collaborating university partner. The action
research engaged ArchSME staff and university
researchers as appropriate to develop and imple-
ment the IPRP. This diversity of staff and exper-
tise was transdisciplinary as it focused on the
IPRP innovation and developed organization of
work and action research methodology routines
to guide problem-solving efforts and engage in
dynamic processes of cycles of action and
reflection.
● Heterogeneity and organizational diversity. In
ArchSME, this was demonstrated by the fluid
nature of the team in that its composition was
temporary and changed as the IPRP innovation
progressed and required different knowledge
inputs. Further, the team utilized networks of
communication within and beyond ArchSME,
including key clients.
● Social accountability and reflexivity. In the
ArchSME setting, participants were sensitized to
the impact of the IPRP on work practices for
internal project teams and external clients from
the outset. Further, the ArchSME staff directly
involved in the action research became progres-
sively reflexive as they understood and critically
contributed to the research process.
● Diversity of quality controls. In the ArchSME
case, quality control was structured in the
context of application and established by a wide
set of criteria in that the IPRP had to satisfy real-
world project needs and had to be sufficiently
robust to be integrated into ArchSME’s ISO
9001 system. Further, the research results
produced have been deemed sufficiently rigorous
to be published in a peer reviewed journal (Lu
and Sexton, 2006).
The knowledge produced was thus actionable in that it
addressed Ryle’s (1949) requirements, know-how
(practical knowledge to design and implement the
IPRP in ArchSME) and know-that (the theoretical
knowledge of the innovation process in small profes-
sional practices which has the potential to be transfer-
able to other situations).
Conclusions
Key limitations and future research directions
Before discussing the theoretical and practical implica-
tions of generating actionable knowledge from action
research from the research findings, key limitations and
Actionable knowledge
associated future directions are identified. There are
four principal limitations: one of methodology, one of
knowledge production conceptual framework, one of
firm type and one of level of resolution. First, the focus
of the study was limited to the examination of the util-
ity of action research methodology in producing action-
able knowledge. There are a diverse range of other
methodologies and approaches with the potential to
develop actionable knowledge. At present, however,
methodology design and implementation is over-
whelming driven by concerns for the rigour of the
research. This emphasis needs to be balanced with the
consideration of the ability of particular methodologies
to produce rigorous and relevant research. Rynes et al.
(2001), for example, built upon the work of Nonaka
and Takeuchi (1995) to argue that all four types of
knowledge creation (that is, socialization, externaliza-
tion, combination and internationalization) should be
actively pursued to produce relevant research through
mechanisms such as joint symposia between academics
and practitioners, consulting relationships, sabbaticals
in industry, joint academia–practitioner research
themes and training with distributed practice. Further
research that investigated such approaches in generat-
ing actionable knowledge would yield insights into their
different characteristics and appropriate uses and, in so
doing, establish a portfolio of ‘actionable knowledge’
methodologies from which researchers and practitio-
ners can choose to meet the needs of any given
situation. This reorientation would assist in melding
‘rigour’ and ‘relevance’ considerations into one.
Second, the study has adopted the Mode 2 knowl-
edge production criteria as indicators of actionable
knowledge. Again, there are other conceptual frame-
works of the role of university research in knowledge
production that could be useful for evaluating action-
able knowledge. The ‘triple helix’ framework, for
example, has been offered, which locates universities
more visibly as institutional actors in the broader
national innovation system context (Etzkowitz and
Leytesdorff, 1997; Etzkowitz, 2008). Research that
produced empirical data to establish the efficacy of
these diverse frameworks within a construction indus-
try context would provide the necessary focused
evidence base to guide policy and action. This
proposed context-specific knowledge production and
innovation framework resonates with and complements
the recent NESTA (2007) work on ‘hidden innovation’
in ‘low innovation’ sectors (including construction)
which concluded that ‘innovation policy needs to be
sensitive to the sectoral systems of innovation already at
work’ (p. 5).
Third, the action research was conducted within a
small architectural practice. The unique characteristics
of small firms (compared to large firms) might produce
691
correspondingly distinctive conditions for actionable
knowledge to be developed. Future research into the
actionable knowledge outcomes of action research
within other firm types would be fruitful—particularly
large firms with their generally more complex coordi-
nating structures and systems. As the diversity of firm
types (and their moderating conditions on the produc-
tion of actionable knowledge) investigated increases, so
would the requisite variety of our understanding.
Finally, the focus of this paper has been actionable
knowledge at the company level. Companies do not
operation in a vacuum—they are located within an
interwoven web of economic and social activity. There
is a need for further work to broaden and deepen our
conceptualization to activate and integrate actionable
knowledge within and across system domains, in
particular, national innovation systems, regional inno-
vation platforms and clusters, and supply networks and
chains. This work would assist in creating and amplify-
ing environments and channels to optimize action
knowledge production and impact across economic
and social systems.
Theoretical and practical implications
The findings may have several interesting theoretical
and practical implications. First, the results have
contributed to our understanding of the key design
factors that shape the degree to which action research
produces actionable knowledge: change focus, collabo-
ration capabilities and a systematic process. Second,
the five attributes of Mode 2 research, as presented by
Gibbons et al. (1994) have been demonstrated to have
utility in calibrating the degree to which the collabora-
tion produced action knowledge. In combination, the
design principles for action research and evaluation
criteria for actionable knowledge give prescriptive guid-
ance to research funders, researchers and practitioners
in the design and management of action research
endeavours. Finally, the results confirm the urgent
need for policy makers and research funders to better
appreciate the significant limitations of a linear innova-
tion model which assumes that new research-based
knowledge generated in academia will automatically
lead to new policies and practices in industry. Research
knowledge codified and disseminated in the form of
reports and papers, and so forth, has varied—often
limited—industry impact. This is particularly the case
with small construction firms (Sexton et al., 2006).
Research-based knowledge, if it is to be seen as credible
and usable by construction companies, must be
‘actionable’, i.e. demonstrably compatible for blending
with company-specific belief structures and local
knowledge. Thus Mohrman et al. (2001, p. 360), for
example, have emphasized that research is more useful
692
if its process and outputs match ‘the organization’s
system of references and its context’. This understand-
ing is evident in Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
(http://www.ktponline.org.uk/), for example, with
researchers being embedded within the company to
solve real-world business problems. Within this
context, research funders need to continue to develop
and use appropriate actionable knowledge frameworks
and measures to design funding calls, and to evaluate
research project proposals and research project
outputs.
References
Abrahamson, E. (1996) Management fashion. Academy of
Management Review, 21(1), 254–85.
Academy of Management Journal (2001) Special research
forum: knowledge transfer between academics and practi-
tioners. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2).
Adler, N.B., Shani, A.B. and Styhre, A. (eds) (2004) Collab-
orative Research in Organizations: Foundations for Learning,
Change, and Theoretical development, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Agrawal, A.K. (2001) University-to-industry knowledge
transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. Inter-
national Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285–302.
Alexander, K., Kaya, S. and Nelson, M. (2003) Learning
partnerships in facilities management—a new action
research approach, in Proceedings of the CIB W89
Symposium: BEAR 2003, Salford, UK, 9–11 April,
pp. 467–81.
Alvesson, M. (2003) Methodology for close up studies—
struggling with closeness and closure. Higher Education,
46, 167–93.
Argyris, C. (1993) Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcom-
ing Barriers to Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and McLaine-Smith, D. (1985)
Action Science: Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and
Intervention, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Arundel, A. and Geuna, A. (2004) Proximity and the use of
public science by innovative European firms. Economics of
Innovation and New Technology, 13(6), 559–80.
ARUP (2003) Lambert Review: Business–University Collabora-
tion. Response from ARUP, ARUP, London.
Babüroglo, O.N. and Ravn, I. (1992) Normative action
research. Organization Studies, 13(1), 19–34.
Barrett, P.S. and Barrett, L.C. (2003) Research as a kaleido-
scope on practice. Construction Management and Economics,
21, 755–66.
BERR (Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform) (2007) SME statistics for the UK and regions
2007: Table 4 UK industry and Table 5: UK sections.
BERR, Enterprise Directorate Analytical Unit, available at
http://stats.berr.gov.uk/ed/sme/ (accessed 12 April 2009).
BERR (2008) Strategy for Sustainable Construction, HMSO,
London.
Blackler, F. (1995) Knowledge, knowledge work and
organizations. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021–46.
Sexton and Lu
Box, S. (2009) OECD work on innovation—a stocktaking of
existing work. STI Working Paper 2009/2, OECD, Paris.
British Journal of Management (2001) Special issue on the
relevance of management research. British Journal of
Management, 12(S1).
Building Research & Information (1997) Special issue on the
future of national building research organizations. Building
Research & Information, 25(5).
Chesbrough, H.W. (2006) Open innovation: a new
paradigm for understanding industrial innovation, in
Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (eds)
Open Innovation: Research a New Paradigm, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 1–12.
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2001) Doing Action Research
in Your Own Organization, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R. and Walsh, J.P. (2002) Links
and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial
R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.
Cook, S. and Brown, J.S. (1999) Bridging epistemologies:
the generative dance between organizational knowledge
and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10,
381–400.
Coombs, R., Harvey, M. and Tether, B.S. (2003) Analysing
distributed processes of provision and innovation.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(6), 1125–55.
Crawford, K. (1995) What do vygotskian approaches to
psychology have to offer action research? Educational
Action Research, 3, 239–47.
Cronbach, L.J. and Suppes, P. (1969) Research for
Tomorrow’s Schools, Macmillan, London.
Cushman, M., Venters, W., Cornford, T. and Mitev, N.
(2002) Understanding sustainability as knowledge prac-
tice, in Proceedings of the British Academy of Management
Conference: Fast-tracking Performance through Partnerships,
London, 9–11 September.
Dawson, P. (1994) Organizational Change: A Processual
Approach, Chapman, London.
DIUS (2008) Innovation Nation, HMSO, London.
Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (1996) Action research for the
study of organizations, in Clegg, S., Hardy, C. and Nord,
W. (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, Beverly
Hills, pp. 526–42.
EPSRC (2007) Connecting with Business: Knowledge Transfer
and Economic Impact Strategy, EPSRC, Swindon.
EPSRC (2009) Changes to Funding Applications to include
Economic Impact—Guidance for Applicants, EPSRC,
Swindon.
ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) (2008)
Innovation Research Centre—Call Specification, ESRC,
Swindon.
Etzkowitz, H. (2008) The Triple Helix: University–Industry–
Government Innovation in Action, Routledge, London.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leytesdorff, L. (1997) Universities in the
Global Economy: A Triple Helix of Academic–Industry–
Government Relation, Croom Helm, London.
Fairclough, J. (2002) Rethinking Construction Innovation and
Research: A Review of Government R&D Policies and
Practices, HMSO, London.
Actionable knowledge
Gann, D. (2001) Putting academic ideas into practice: tech-
nological progress and the absorptive capacity of
construction organizations. Construction Management and
Economics, 19(3), 321–30.
Gavin, J.F. (1985) Observations from a long-term, survey-
guided consultation with a mining company. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 12(2), 201–20.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartz, S.,
Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of
Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in
Contemporary Societies, Sage, London.
Giddens, A. (1987) Social Theory and Modern Sociology,
Polity Press, Cambridge.
Godin, B. and Gingras, Y. (2000) The place of universities
in the system of knowledge production. Research Policy,
29, 273–8.
Greenwood, D. and Levin, M. (1998) Introduction to Action
Research, Sage, London.
Hult, M. and Lennung, S. (1980) Towards a definition of
action research: a note and a bibliography. Journal of
Management Studies, 17, 241–50.
Johns, G. (1993) Constraints on the adoption of psychology-
based personnel practices: lessons from organizational
innovation. Personnel Psychology, 46, 569–92.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggert, R. (1990) The Action Research
Planner, Deakin University Press, Geelong.
Kline, S. and Rosenberg, N. (1986) An overview of innova-
tion, in Landau, R. and Rosenberg, N. (eds) The Positive
Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth,
National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 275–305.
Lambert Report (2003) Lambert Review of Business–
University Collaboration, HMSO, London.
Lu, S. and Sexton, M.G. (2006) Innovation in small
construction knowledge-intensive professional service
firms: a case study of an architectural practice. Construc-
tion Management and Economics, 24(12), 1269–82.
Lu, S. and Sexton, M.G. (2009) Innovation in Small Profes-
sional Practices in the Built Environment, Innovation in the
Built Environment (IBE) Book Series, Wiley-Blackwell
Publishing, Oxford.
MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R. and Grant, S. (2002) Model 2
management research. British Journal of Management,
13(2), 189–207.
Major, E. and Cordey-Hayes, M. (2003) Encouraging inno-
vation in small firms through externally generated knowl-
edge, in Shavinina, L.V. (ed.) The International Handbook
of Innovation, Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp. 667–79.
McCutcheon, G. and Jurg, B. (1990) Alternative
perspectives on action research. Theory into Practice, 24(3),
140–50.
McMillan, S. and Hamilton, R. (2003) The impact of
publicly funded basic research: an integrative extension of
Martin and Salter. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 50(2), 184–91.
McNiff, J. (2000) Action Research in Organizations, Rout-
ledge, London.
Mohrman, S.A., Gibson, C.B. and Mohrman, A.M. (2001)
Doing research that is useful to practice: a model and
empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal,
44(2), 357–75.
693
Mowday, R.T. (1997) Presidential address: reaffirming our
scholarly values. Academy of Management Review, 22(2),
335–45.
NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technology and
the Arts) (2007) Hidden Innovation: How Innovation
Happens in Six ‘Low Innovation’ Sectors, NESTA, London.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-creating
Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of
Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.
Nutley, S.M. and Davies, H. (2000) Making a reality of
evidence-based practice: some lessons from the diffusion of
innovations. Public Money and Management, 20(4), 35–42.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development) (2002) Benchmarking Industry–Science
Relationships, OECD, Paris.
Pettigrew, A. (2001) Management research after modern-
ism. British Journal of Management, 12(Special Issue),
S61–S70.
Porter, L.W. and McKibbon, L.E. (1988) Management
Education and Development: Drift or Thrust into the 21st
Century, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Powell, W.W. and Owen-Smith, J. (1998) Universities as
creators and retailers of intellectual property, in Weisbrod,
B. (ed.) To Profit or Not to Profit, Cambridge University
Press, New York, pp. 169–94.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2008a) The Sage Handbook of
Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage,
London.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2008b) Introduction, in
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds) The Sage Handbook of
Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage,
London, pp. 1–10.
Rothwell, R. and Zegfeld, W. (1982) Innovation and the
Small and Medium Sized Firm, Printer, London.
Ryle, G. (1949) The Concept of the Mind, Hutchinson, London.
Rynes, S.L., McNatt, D.B. and Bretz, R.D. (1999)
Academic research inside organizations: inputs, processes,
and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52, 869–98.
Rynes, S.L., Bartunek, J.M. and Daft, R.L. (2001) Across
the great divide: knowledge creation and transfer between
practitioners and academics. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 340–55.
Sackett, P.R. and Larson, J.R. (1990) Research strategies and
tactics in industrial and organizational psychology, in
Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (eds) Handbook of Indus-
trial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd edn, Vol. 1,
Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 419–89.
Sainsbury Report (2007) The Race to the Top: A Review of
Government’s Science and Innovation Policies, HMSO,
London.
Salter, A.J. and Martin, B.R. (2001) The economic benefits
of publicly funded basic research: a critical review.
Research Policy, 30(3), 509–32.
Sandelands, L. (1990) What is so practical about theory?
Lewin revisited. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior,
20, 235–62.
Sexton, M. and Barrett, P. (2003) Appropriate innovation in
small construction firms. Construction Management and
Economics: Special Issue on Innovation in Construction, 21,
623–33.
694
Sexton, M., Barrett, P. and Aouad, G. (2006) Motivating
small construction companies to adopt new technology.
Building Research & Information, 34(1), 11–22.
Shotter, J. and Gustavsen, B. (1999) The Role of Dialogue
Conferences in the Development of Learning Regions: Doing
from within Our Lives Together What We Cannot Do
Apart, Centre for Advanced Studies in Leadership,
Stockholm.
Smith, D. and Katz, S. (2000) HEFCE Fundamental Review
of Research Policy and Funding: Collaborative Approaches to
Research—Final Report, HEFCE, London.
Starkey, K. and Madan, P. (2001) Bridging the relevance
gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management
research. British Journal of Management, 12, S3–S26.
Storey, D.J. (2000) Six steps to heaven: evaluating the
impact of public policies to support small businesses in
developed economies, in Sexton, D. and Landstrom, H.
(eds) Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Blackwell, Oxford,
pp. 176–94.
Styhre, A., Josephson, P.-E. and Knauseder, I. (2004)
Learning capabilities in organizational networks: case
studies of six construction projects. Construction Manage-
ment and Economics, 22, 957–66.
Susman, G.I. (1983) Action research: a sociotechnical
systems perspective, in Morgan, G. (ed.) Beyond Method:
Strategies for Social Research, Sage, London, pp. 95–113.
Susman, G.I. and Evered, R.D. (1978) An assessment of the
scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 23, 582–603.
Sexton and Lu
Thomas, K.W. and Tymon, W.G. (1982) Necessary proper-
ties of relevant research: lessons from recent criticisms of
the organizational sciences. Academy of Management
Review, 7, 345–52.
Tranfield, D. and Starkey, K. (1998) The nature, social
organization and promotion of management research:
towards policy. British Journal of Management, 9, 341–53.
Van de Ven, A.H. (2000) Professional science for a profes-
sional school, in Nohria, N. (ed.) Breaking the Code of
Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
pp. 393–413.
Von Krogh, G., Roos, J. and Slocum, K. (1994) An essay on
corporate epistemology. Strategic Management Journal, 15,
53–71.
Weick, K.E. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd
edn, Random House, New York.
Weick, K.E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Weick, K.E. (2001) Gapping the relevance bridge: fashions
meet fundamentals in management research. British
Journal of Management, 12(Special issue), S71–S75.
Weiss, C.H. (1979) The many meanings of research utiliza-
tion. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–31.
Worrall, L. (2008) Management research and management
practice: is the relevance gap closing? International Journal
of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 3(1), 1–18.
Zarli, A. (ed.) (2004) ICCI Final Report: Innovation Co-
ordination, Transfer and Deployment through Networked
Co-operation in the Construction Industry, VTT, Finland.