Content uploaded by Ken Dovey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ken Dovey on Nov 08, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Discussion
Discussion Paper: Response to Social Productivity and Future Perspectives on
Action Research
KenDovey
This paperisaresponse to the paper entitled On the Social Productivity and FuturePer-
spectives on Action Research by Fricke, Greenwood, Larrea,and Streck, published in the
previous edition of the journal. Their paper raises several important and challenging issues
upon which Ioffer my perspective. Ihave focussed upon the phenomenon of power and
advocate adeeper understanding of theinsidious nature of abstract forms of power. Iargue
that this involves the creation of practices through which such forms of power can be de-
mystified in the interestsofthe development of contextual literacy,that is, the ability to “read”
the socio-political contexts accurately and, thereby, ensure relevant strategic action. Creating
this capability has implicationsfor the development of new Action Researcherswithin the
context of the Academy. Finally, Iexplore the challenges facing university-based Action
Researchers in their demystification of the institutional power/logic that pre-empts political
action through engagement with social movements committed to the protection of democratic
ideals and social justice.
Recognising the centrality of power to the social construction of political
realities
The ontological and epistemological assumptionsofAction Research, aresearch method-
ology embedded in the social constructionist paradigm, underpin the position that social
realities are politically constructed and reconstructed by those who wield the most effective
forms of power. More important than agentic power, which is easilyapprehended and thus
open to contestation, are abstract forms of power that operate surreptitiously and insidiously.
The demystification of abstract power, and its dynamics, is critical to the aspirational goal of
Action Research to contribute to the social construction of political realities in which dem-
ocratic ideals are realised. The complex task of accurately apprehending these forms of power
and their insidious influence, however, constitutes adaunting proposition for those working
towards this goal.
Power manifests in many complex forms and the invention of the sophisticated technical
apparatus and associated algorithmsthat underpin insidious forms of surveillance, has added
to the forms of abstract power that operate surreptitiously in the interests of power elites.
Through such power, these elites facilitate the general experience of asocially constructed
political reality as “taken-for-granted”;that is, of being a “natural”and “inevitable”phe-
nomenon of life. Unable to apprehend these forms of power, potential opposition to them is
International Journal of ActionResearch, Vol. 18, Issue 2/2022, 183–192 https://doi.org/10.3224/ijar.v18i2.07
pre-empted and disarmed. Williams (1977:110) refers to this form of hegemonic power as
manifesting in,
awhole body of practices and expectations, over the whole of living; our senses and assignmentsofenergy, our
shaping perceptionsofourselves and our world. It is alived system of meaningsand values: constitutive and
constituting, which as they are experienced as practices appear as reciprocally confirming.
In this way, the political interests that underpin any social reality becomeinvisible, and the
potential agentic power of those whose interests are subsumed and distorted by that reality is
neutralised (Gramsci, 1971; Berger and Pullberg,1965). Embedded in everyday practices and
vested in dominant discourses (ideological, institutional, cultural, organisational), this form of
power shapes the experience of the status quo as an objective feature of life, and mystifiesthe
political and financial interests served by the prevailing social order.
Almost forty years ago, Jameson (1984: 87) recognizedneoliberal capitalism’sinvest-
ment in new technology platforms as leading to asystem in which,
…not only punctual and local countercultural forms of cultural resistance and guerrilla warfare, but also even overtly
political interventions …are all somehow secretly disarmed and reabsorbed by asystem of which they themselves
may well be consideredapart, since they can achieve no distance from it.
The rise of neo-liberalism globally over the past five decades, has led to an “ideological turn”
that has centralised the power of global elites in mystified systemic forms that increasingly
incorporate institutions and organisations (Hanlon et al., 2017; Monbiot, 2016; Whitehead
and Crawshaw, 2014; Peck and Tickell,2002). In this respect, Handy (1997) points to the
contradictions that prevail in this political reality, where national democracies have become
subservienttocorporate capitalist organisations that are governed along totalitarian lines.
Facilitating contextual literacy.
As Fricke et al. point out, to address these challenges, Action Researchers need to situate their
practices clearly in the global neoliberalcapitalist context. This means incorporating practices
which are focused upon thedemystification of the abstract forms of power that maintain this
context and finding ways to counter their influence. Given the challengeofaddressing what
one fails to apprehend, the complexity of this task necessitates the creation of critical reflexive
forums where collaborators are drawn from abroad range of social endeavour (Mastio and
Dovey, 2021). Without the probing reflexive engagement of participants, the requisite con-
textual insight is unlikely to be gained. For such engagement to be productive, though, social
capabilities need to underpin the confronting-but-never-combative collective endeavour
through which relevant, though controversial, issues are scrutinised courageously (Dovey,
Burdon, &Simpson, 2017; Burt, Mackay, van der Heijden, &Verheijdt, 2017). These
complex relational/communicational capabilities through which contestation of perspectives
and interpretations can be addressed, need to be exercised as “aform of caring”(Spicer,
Alvesson, &Karreman, 2009: 548). Such caring acknowledges that the contestation is ori-
ented to achieving the most insightful outcomes for the collective. As such, it is framed
specifically by the meaningfulness of the collective purpose and their commitment to the
realisation of that purpose.
International Journal of Action Research, Vol. 18, Issue 2/2022, 183–1921 84
The introduction of an “external critic”to an Action Research community could be useful
for the development of contextual literacy (see Sarason, 1972: 250). This person (or group)
accepts the invitation to hold the participants accountable to the vision and values of the
Action Research; and to ensure their engagement in collaborative reflexive action. The ex-
ternal critic’sobligation to the group is to contrast apprehensions of the political reality as
these manifest within the group.The external critic is not there to be liked, and has no
obligation to any individual but, rather, to the vision and values of the action research (see
Dovey and White, 2005). However, in practice, the inclusion of critical reflexive practices,
such as those espoused by Cunliffe (2009), is likely to be resisted by those with formal power
in the community/organisation, who often view such open and critical relational/communi-
cative practices as “subversive”(Hanlon et al., 2017; Kezar, 2011; Pitelis &Wagner, 2019).
The notion of contextual literacy includes the reading of “self as context”.Action Re-
searchers located in universities are especially at risk of allowing values-in-action to con-
tradict espoused values. Personal interests (academic advancement, publication record, etc.)
can diminish commitment to the principles of Action Research, resulting in politically
compliant behaviour within, and beyond, the Academy.Inthis respect, continuous clar-
ification of one’svalues-in-action is important to an authentic commitment to the values that
underpin emancipatory action research. Thus, given the insidious influence of hegemonic
power, Freire’s(1972)concept of conscientisation and its enactment within Action Research
groups is highly relevant. As Fricke et al. point out, Freire’snotion of “speaking one’struth”
always entailsword-in-action and an awareness of “features of the oppressor”within oneself
that must be addressed through critical collectively reflexive practices as part of the “eman-
cipatory, critical, and solidary praxis”.
The Academyasthe font of Action Researchers.
As Fricke et al. comment, the “Academy”has afraught relationship with Action Research.
Historically rejecting it as “subjective”and its resultsas“ungeneralisable”,ithas adopted a
tactic that Marcuse(1964) referred to as repressive desublimation. This refers to aprocess
whereby Action Research is incorporated into the Academy’sbody of recognised research
methodologies, but in aform in which its philosophical assumptions are undermined, and its
political intent is surreptitiously neutralised. Furthermore, collaboration with social move-
ments is frowned upon within the Academy, and by editors and reviewers of many academic
journals. This has important implications for the nature of the development of aspirant Action
Researchers.
What do Action Researchers need to do to improvetheir recordin
addressing surreptitious and manipulativeforms of oppressivepower?
As Fricke et al. state, the entire Action Research community must take on these challenges if it
is to survive and contribute meaningfully to the creation of amore equitable and humane
185K. Dovey:Discussion Paper
society. Key to such action is the formation of alliances with democratic social movements
critical of the neo-liberal status quo. University-based Action Researchers can play avital role
in introducing and facilitating the critical reflexive forums that are required to demystify
abstract power; enable contextual insight; and monitor the honouring of the “reflection-
action”dialectic of the movement’spraxis. Through roles such as that of an external critic
(Sarason, 1972), university-based Action Researchers can introduce and/or strengthen Action
Research practices within social movements; ensure the continuous critical scrutiny of the
movement’sespoused interests versus its enacted interests; and mobilise networks of sym-
pathetic power to enhance the capabilityofsocial movements to contest the political status
quo.
Within the Academy, university-based Action Researchers need to engage in the de-
mystification of the institutionallogic which operates surreptitiously in universities. Institu-
tional logic refers to theassumptions and systems of meaning that frame everyday work
practices, and through which sense is made of personal and collective experience (Thornton et
al.: 2012). As Jepperson(1991:149) points out, institutions are “sociallyconstructed, routine-
reproduced programmes or rule systems,”with the taken-for-granted status of these rule
systems being afundamental attribute of institutionalisation. Power and interests underpin the
creation and re-creation of institutions where “rationalised myths”help to obfuscate the
political interests supported by them. As university practices are embedded in an institutional
field,over time they constitute asense of experienced reality beyondwhichitisvery difficult
for participants in those practices, to think critically. Manifesting in a “routine and seemingly
disinterested way”,institutional logic, serves “to construct, justifyand stabilise the obedience
of people”without their ownawareness thereof (Lawrence et al., 2001:630; Courpasson,
2000: 143). The demystification of institutional logic is, thus, anecessary precursortothe
authentic operation of Action Research within theAcademy’sarmoury of research method-
ologies.
In addition to action within the universities in which Action Researchers are located,
collectiveaction is required on theconventions of academic journals and the peer review
process. Traditional assumptions about what constitutes valid research can be challenged by
encouraging respected Action Researchers to take on editorial roles in mainstream journals.
Similarly, greater commitment from Action Researchers to reviewing papers in these journals,
is required as acontribution to the contestation of the traditional(positivist) assumptions that
often inappropriately frame the review of papers utilising an action research methodology.
As Fricke et al. point out, pro-social movements generally are not recognised or supported
by academic institutions. Furthermore, contesting the power of elites and engaging in proc-
esses of demystification of their sources of power is dangerous. Paulo Freire experienced
threats to his life and years of exile, and many social leaders are systematically murdered or
imprisoned by political regimes across the world. Martin Luther King proclaimed that he only
became areal leader once he had overcome his fear of death. His comment points to having
clear sources of courage as an important prerequisite for the commitment of Action Re-
searchers to taking on the challenges of demystifying, and mobilising opposition to, the
hegemony of ruthless politicaland financial elites.
International Journal of Action Research, Vol. 18, Issue 2/2022, 183–1921 86
References
Berger, P. and Pullberg, S. (1965) ‘Reification and the sociological critique of consciousness’,History
and Theory,4(2): 196–211.
Burt, G., Mackay, D., van der Heijden, K. and Verheijdt, C. (2017) ‘Openness disposition: Readiness
characteristics that influence participant benefits from scenario planning as strategic conversation’,
Te chnological Forecasting &Social Change,124: 16–25.
Courpasson, D. (2000) ‘Managerial strategies of domination. Power in softbureaucracies’,Organization
Studies,21(1): 141–161.
Cunliffe, A. (2009) ‘Reflexivity, learning and reflective practice’,inArmstrong, S. and Fukami, C.
(Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Management Learning Education and Development,Sage, London
(UK), pp. 405–418.
Dovey, K., Burdon, S. and Simpson, R. (2017) ‘Creative leadership as acollective achievement: An
Australian case’,Management Learning,48(1): 23–38.
Dovey, K. and White, R. (2005) ’Learning about learning in knowledge-intense organizations’,The
Learning Organization,12(3): 246–260.
Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York (NY), Herder and Herder.
Gramsci, A. (1971) in Hoare, Q. and Nowell-Smith, G. (Eds), Selections from the Prison Notebooks of
Antonio Gramsci,London (UK), Lawrence &Wishart, pp. 312–819.
Hanlon, G., Dunne, S., Johnsen, C., Shukaitis, S., Spoelstra, S., Stoborod, K. and Weir, K. (2017) ‘The
dark side of management: Gerard Hanlon in dialogue with Ephemera’,Ephemera: Theory &
Politics in Organization,17(1): 175–188.
Handy, C. (1997) ‘The citizen corporation’,HarvardBusiness Review,75(5): 26.
Jameson, F. (1984) ‘Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism’,New LeftReview,147(4):
53–92.
Jepperson, R. (1991) ‘Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism’,inPowell, W. and Di-
Maggio, P. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis,Chicago (IL), University of
Chicago Press, pp. 143–163.
Kezar, A. (2011) ‘Grassroots leadership: Encounters with power dynamics and oppression’,Interna-
tional Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,24: 471–500.
Lawrence, T., Winn, M. and Jennings, P. (2001) ‘The temporal dynamics of institutionalization’,
Academy of Management Review,26(4): 624–644.
Marcuse, H. (1964) One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society,
Boston (MA), Beacon Press.
Mastio, E. and Dovey, K. (2021) ‘Contextual insight as an antecedent to strategic foresight’,Futures,
128, 102715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102715.
Monbiot, G. (2016) ‘How did we get into this mess?’Ve rso,London (UK).
Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) ‘Neoliberalizing space’,Antipode,34(5): 380–403.
Pitelis, C. and Wagner, J. (2019) ‘Strategic shared leadership and organizational dynamic capabilities’,
The Leadership Quarterly,30(2): 233–242.
Sarason, S. (1972) The Creation of Settings and the FutureSocieties,San Francisco (CA), Jossey-Bass.
Spicer, A., Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2009) ‘Critical performativity: The unfinished business of
critical management studies’,Human Relations,62(4): 537–560.
Thornton, P., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012) The Institutional Logics Perspective: ANew
Approach to Culture, Structureand Process,Oxford (UK), Oxford University Press.
Whitehead, P. and Crawshaw, P. (2014) ‘Atale of two economies: the political and the moral in
neoliberalism’,The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,34(1/2): 19–34.
Williams, R. (1977) Marxism and Literature,Oxford (UK), Oxford University Press.
187K .Dovey:Discussion Paper
Discussion
To enrich the discussion initiated by Ken Dovey in the previous paragraphs, Davydd
Greenwood and Werner Fricke,two of the authors of On the Social Productivity and Future
Perspectives on Action Research have shared their comments.
Comments by Davydd Greenwood:
General comment on thepaper:
‒Ifind this thoughtfuland appropriately challenging. Iwill make some marginal comments
on points that deserve further consideration.
With reference to the use of the term “Action Research methodology”:
‒Ipersonally do not acceptreducing AR to amethodology. It is apolitics, ethics, and a
process for orchestrating awide variety of methods in service of more just and sustainable
social arrangements.
With reference to the importance of accurately apprehending insidious forms of power:
‒While Dovey is aware of economics,his heavy reliance on the concept of power overlooks
the role of sheer economic exploitation in framing our current problems. …both political
and economic interests underpin this exploitation.
With reference to Dovey’sreference to the point made by Handy (1997):
‒Ok but this argument goes back at least to I. Wallerstein.
With reference to theconcept of an “external critic”being invitedtoparticipate within an
Action Research community:
‒This is an interesting concept but eventually seems to be limited to academics who fill the
role when it is possible for municipal actors, union leaders, NGOs and others to also fulfill
this role.
With reference to theadoption of critically reflexive practices by Action Research commun-
ities:
‒This is, of course, true but needs more development.There are options for “shuttle di-
plomacy”and even what Ann Martin called “guerrillaconsulting”where the external critic
knows it will affect some power holders negatively and simply does not tell them. The
shuttle diplomacy option means consolidating various groups of stakeholders until they
are strong enough to confront other power holders.
With reference to Dovey’spoint that theAcademy has afraught relationship with Action
Research:
‒In my opinion, it is not afraught relationship but one of suppression of all prosocial and
democratically-inspired social and humanistic research and protection of the statusquo.
Saying academics should behave otherwise in Neo-Taylorist universitiesregulated by
International Journal of Action Research, Vol. 18, Issue 2/2022, 183–1921 88
neoliberal audit culture ministries is to underestimate the need for AR to reform uni-
versities or found their own.
With reference to university-based Action Researchers playing the role of an “externalcritic”
(Sarason,1972) in social movements:
‒While Idonot reject this role, Idonot see it as exclusive to university-based Action
Researchers, AR is also practiced in NGOs, some municipal governments, some unions
(LO in Norway, for example) and can sit on abroaderbase than just the academy which
itself is under siege.
With reference to the need to demystifyinstitutionallogic as anecessary precursor to the
authentic operation of Action Research within the Academy:
‒There have been 20 years of this “demystification”accompanied by an increasing he-
gemony of neoliberal management of universities. Demystification without “teeth”has not
worked.
Comments by Werner Fricke:
Iagree with Davydd’scomments on Ken Dovey’sdiscussion piece, especially with his first
and second comments: According to our research experience, Action Research cannot be
reduced to amethodology. AR is arich social process, openly based on democratic values
such as democratic participation and dialogue. It is, as Davydd points out, “aprocess for
orchestrating awide variety of methods in service of more just and sustainable social ar-
rangements”.
My second point is about capitalist economy as asource of power. At the beginning of his
paper, Ken states that “power manifestsinmany complex forms”;this general statement is
certainly correct, but Kendistinguishes only two forms, namely “agentic power”and “abstract
forms of power”.The latter form, in hisview, operates surreptitiously and insidiously.
“Demystifying”it by accurately comprehending the abstract forms of power and “theirin-
sidious influence however constitutes adaunting proposition”for Action Researchers, Ken
argues. Ifear that this wording (insidious influence, demystification) promotes akind of
mystification of power particularlywhen there are more appropriate categories available for
understanding the phenomenon of power. Examples are:
‒structural power or violence (Galtung, 1996)
‒power as an aspect of allsocial relations (Foucault, 1982)
‒capital as aform of power enforced on employees to make them hand over their products
and the surplus of their work to capital owners withouthaving asay how to use or
distribute those products and surpluses
‒dialogue as an enactment of power (Kristiansen &Bloch-Poulsen, 2021)
Conceptualised this way it is indeed difficult to understandthe many different forms of power
and how they are executed. It is challenging and sometimes dangerous [see e. g. the High-
lander Centreʹsexperiences (Horton et al. 1990)] to be confronted with power in Action
Research practice and trying to democratise its use. But it need not be adaunting proposition
for Action Researchers’work to favour and strengthen social democracy. Courage is needed
189K. Dovey:Discussion Paper
to face power in Action Research, but in many situationsitisatest of patience, skill, and
commitment our discussion paper on future perspectives for AR argues.
Finally, Iwant to say that Iagree with KenDovey, when he mentions mutual advantages
for both Action Researchers and social movementactors that wouldarise from their coop-
eration. As Ken points out, especially important to both groupsofcollaborators is the
“continuous critical scrutiny of the various movement’sespousedinterests versus their
enacted interests”,even as their cooperation may mobilise “networks of sympathetic power to
enhance the capability of social movements”(and of Action Research, Imight add) to contest
the social status quo. Of equal importance is Ken’sidea to encourage respectedAction
Researchers to take on editorial roles in mainstream journals and/or in peer review processes.
All the co-authors have experience in this area, sometimessuccessful and sometimes diff icult.
Clearly academia, in its present form, is one of the strongholds supporting neoliberal, con-
servative forces in our societies and is indeed another arena needing democratisation.
Last but not least, the existence of agap between espoused and enhanced values does
sometimesoccur in Action Research practice too. The above-mentioned book by Kristiansen
&Bloch-Poulsen is an impressiveexample of Action Researchers’self-reflexivity and self-
criticism. The authors analyse several Action Research processes which were not able to avoid
this espoused/enhanced-values-gap. So to be fair, social movements are not the only actors
who have this problem, but Action Researchers also do encounter difficulties in acting ac-
cording to their values, especially within oftenhostile social environments. In other words:
Action Research and social movements fighting for social democracy often face the same
ethical problems. To become successful allies, they must cooperate on equal footing and
understand each otherʹsstrengths and weaknesses in acollaborative way.
References
Foucault, Michel
1982 The Archaeology of Knowledge, New York: Vintage.
Galtung, Johan
1996 Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. Oslo and London:
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Horton, Myles, Herbert Kohl, and Judith Kohl
1990 The Long Haul. New York: Teacher’sCollege Press.
Kristiansen, Marianne, and Jørgen Bloch-Poulsen
2021 “Action Research Is Not Only aMethod.”:5Questions Answered by Marianne Kristiansen and
Jørgen Bloch-Poulsen, Authors of Action Research in Organizations. Participation in Change
Processes. International Journal of Action Research 17(2): 189–193.
KenDovey’sResponse
Iwill first respondtoDavydd and Werner’sshared rejection of the notion of Action Research
as a “research methodology”.Ithink that we need to distinguish between praxis as a “a
process for orchestrating awide variety of methods in service of more just and sustainable
social arrangements”(Davydd’spoint) and action research as incorporating the practice of
publicly sharing the knowledgegained from the honouring of the dialectical relationship
International Journal of Action Research, Vol. 18, Issue 2/2022, 183–1921 90
between “theoretically-informed-action”and “action-informed-theory”.Asmuch of the
sharing of the knowledge gained from Action Research generally occurs through academic
journals and conferences, conformingtothe conventions of academically-endorsed meth-
odologies embedded in the publication process, is mandatory within the Academy (this is less
the case with books). As research publicationsare an expected dimension of the work of
academics, theAcademy as the font of Action Researchers incorporates the notion of a
research methodology being applicable to all research activity. Ihave no problem with this if
the philosophical(ontological and epistemological) assumptions that underpin the practices of
Action Researchers are honoured. In my experience, though,these assumptions, which are
crucial to the framing of thereflexive action of action researchers, are perverted and “dis-
armed”surreptitiously through the wayaction research is addressed in mandatory “research
methodology”classes.
Both Davydd and Werner agree that greater collaboration between Academy-based Ac-
tion Researchers and those located within social movements is needed. Such collaboration
would enrich theprocessesthrough which the tacit learning gained from social action can be
transformed into explicit forms of knowledge that strategically inform subsequent spirals of
action, and that can be shared publicly more easily
On the issue of power, Iagree with both authors on “the role of sheer economic ex-
ploitation in framing our current problems”(Davydd’scomment). However, in addition to the
visibility of the privileges and abuses that economic power underpins, many important aspects
of it are mystified. As my quote from Williams states, such power infiltrates “awhole body of
practices and expectations,over the whole of living; …It is alivedsystem of meanings and
values –constitutive and constituting –which as they are experienced as practices appear as
reciprocally confirming”.Inthis way, the hegemony of global elites manifests in the unwitting
acceptance by the oppressed of the politico-economic status quo as “natural”and “inevitable”.
In this respect, as Freire pointed out, features of the oppressor are internalised as the oppressed
unwittingly consent to their ownoppression.
Werner feels that Iamignoring certain forms of power in my focus upon abstract forms of
power. With respect to his examples, Iagree that all relationships have apower dimension,
and that power is aresource through which humans make things happen: good and bad. My
concern is that abstract forms of power manifest in many social contexts without their in-
fluence being apprehended by participants in those contexts. As Ipointed out in the paper,
they manifest through ideology, institutional logic, enterprise logic, culture, etc., etc. The
word limit of the paper restricted my coverage of all these forms of mystifiedpower. Cer-
tainly, as Werner points out, structural power is another important form of abstract power (one
that manifestsinsocial movements too) that refers to organisational arrangements that over
time constitute asense of experienced reality beyond which it is very difficult for embedded
participants to think. As the structure and associated practices are reified, alternative forms of
everyday arrangements and of problem solving are rendered unimaginable (Seo and Creed,
2002: 235). They influence practices in aroutine way and predetermine the nature of the rules
of the politico-economic game, inherently mobilising its self-sustaining bias (Soulsby and
Clark, 2013). Hardy and Clegg (1999: 377) view structural power as permeating “the fibre and
fabric of everyday life,”reflecting and reproducing the organising principles that underpin the
accepted nature of social and economic behaviour. My point in listing these references to
structural power is that they reflect the view of it being another form of abstract power that
manifestssurreptitiously and, usually, insidiously. UnlessAction Researchers, whether col-
191K .Dovey:Discussion Paper
laborating with social movements or not, become aware of “the oppressor within”,their
agency is likely to be compromised and disarmed.
Regarding Davydd’spoint on “the need for AR to reform universities or found theirown”,
my perspective is that, as has been thecase with historical forms of praxis aimed at achieving
and sustaining democratic ideals and social justice, Action Researchers should operate within
the “belly of the monster”.Asagreed by both authors, such action will require courageand
strategic sophistication, but it will also enrich the learning that can be gained from such
appropriately situated action. It is unlikely that the “monster”will be slayed by hiding from it!
Acts intending to demystifyits power bases can only “gain teeth”if Action Researchers learn
to apprehend how abstract forms of power manifest in the contexts in which their social action
is executed.
References
Hardy, C. and Clegg, S. (1999) ‘Some dare call it power’,inClegg, S. and Hardy, C. (Eds), Studying
Organization: Theory and Method,Sage, London: 368–387.
Seo, M. and Creed, W. (2002) ‘Institutional contradictions, Praxis and institutional change: adialectical
perspective’,Academy of Management Review,27(2): 222–247.
Soulsby, A. and Clark, E. (2013) ‘Organizational restructuring and change in transition societies:
Dominant coalitions and the dynamics of managerial power and politics’,Competition and Change,
17(2): 176–196.
The Author
Ken Dovey held professorial positions in several South Africanand Australian universities
over a40-yearacademic career. Now retired, he continues to teach on university executive
education programs and to consult to avariety of organizationsonthe issue of leadership. He
is an active researcher, involved primarily in action research projects that focus upon the
conceptualisation of leadership as acollective achievement.
International Journal of Action Research, Vol. 18, Issue 2/2022, 183–1921 92
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
