Action Science

Action Science Concepts, Methods, Skillsand for Research and Intervention Chris Argyris Robert Putnam Diana McLain Smith Action Science Jossey-Bass Publishers San Francisco ACTION SCIENCE Concepts, Methods, Skills Researchand for Interventionand Chriy b s Argyris, Robert Putnam Diand an , a McLain Smith Copyrigh : 198Jossey-Bas© t by 5 s Inc., Publishers 350 Sansome Street San Francisco, California 94104 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording otherwiser o , , withou prioe th t r written permissio publishere th f no . Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Argyris, Chris (date) Action science. (The Jossey-Bass social and behavioral science series) (The Jossey-Bass management series) Bibliography; p. 451 Includes index. Socia1 l sciences—Research . Socia2 . l sciences—Methodology . Actio3 . n research. I. Putnam, Robert (date). II. Smith, Diana McLain (date). III. Title. SeriesIV . SeriesV . : Jossey-Bass management series. H62.A663 1985 300'.72 85-18054 ISBN 0-87589-665-0 Manufactured in the United States of America JACKET DESIG WILLY NB I BAUM FIRST EDITION HB Printing 1098765 Code 8528 A joint publication in The Jossey-Bass Socia Behaviorad an l l Science Series and The Jossey-Bass Management Series Consulting Editor Methodology of Social and Behavioral Research Donald W Fiske University of Chicago students,Toour from whom learnwe muchso Preface Creating usable knowledg s becomini e n increasinglga y important e sociatopith n ci l sciences. Lindbloo Cohed man n (1979), for example, have written about producing knowledge than ca t be used to formulate policies. Our focus is on knowledge that usee b produco dt n ca e action, same whilth t ee a tim e contrib- utina theor o t g f action o y e concepTh . f usablo t e knowledge has produce uneasn da y mixtur f enthusiaso e skepticismd man . It has generated enthusiasm because we need more usable knowledge to help manage interpersonal, community, and or- ganizational affairs. Moreover, technological spinoffs from the physical sciences suggest thae sociath t l sciences might generate similar benefit r sociafo s l practice t therBu .s widespreai e d skepticis s wellma . Policie r dealinfo s g with poverty, discrimina- tion, and unemployment bog down in the complexities of im- plementation retrospectn i d an , , some observers argue that these policies have made the problems worse. Programs for transform- ing organizations succeed each other with the seasons, leaving in their wake the weary wisdom that nothing really changes, Re- sponsible social scientist respony sma theso dt e disappointments IX x Preface by turning inward to research that seems increasingly esoteric to practitioners. In proposing an action science, we hope to articulate the feature a scienc f o s e than generatca t e knowledge tha s usei t - ful, valid, descriptiv e worldth d informativf e o ew an , w ho f o e might change it. This emphasis on advancing basic knowledge while also solving practical problems has had a long and distin- guished caree sciencen i re naturath n I . l science illustrates i t si d by the work of Louis Pasteur, who discovered much about the role of germs in illness while trying to solve problems of fer- mentatio r Frencfo n h vintners s alsi ot I . illustrate y earlb d y wor operationn ki s research: scholar t asidpu s e their interesn i t basic researc helo ht p England solve critical practical problems during World War II. In the course of this work, they discovered exciting intellectual problems whose solution contributed to basic knowledge. sociae th n lI sciences this emphasi combininn so g science d practican s usualli e y entitled action research woule W . e b d content to use the term action research if it were not for two factors. First, ovee yearth r s action researc s ofteha h n been separated from theory buildin d testinggan . Leading social scientists distinguish action research from basic research by assert- ing that the intention of action research is to solve an important problem for a client and not necessarily to test features of a theory (Coleman, 1972). We believe there is value in combining e studth f practicao y l problems with research that contributes theoro t y buildin testingd gan . Second, many action researchers understandably conduct their empirical work by following the current ideas about stan- dard scientific research. The dilemma is that some of the cur- rently accepted ideas of rigorous research may be self-limiting. o attaiT ncertaia n leve f rigoro l methodologe th , becomy yma e so disconnected from the reality it is designed to understand that it is no longer useful. For example, the research that fol- lowed and built on the early studies of Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939 n leadershio ) p style d grouan s p climate- in s wa s deed more rigorous, yet far less usable by human beings in real- life conditions (Argyris, 1980) tha originae nth l studies. i x Preface Two of the best known exemplars of action science researchers as we understand them were Kurt Lewin and John Dewey. Both designe d executean d d actio r demonstratioo n n experiments whose consequences they studied systematically. Both were intereste addinn di fundamentao gt l knowledge while solving practical problems such as educating youngsters, influ- encing eating habits during World War II, or reeducating individuals about their prejudices. Dewe d Lewian y n were committe o notiondt f betteo s r societies or to what has recently been described as liberating alternatives n theiI . r worlds, citizens woul e heldb d responsible for becoming inquiry oriented in order to produce a society that was learning oriented and experimentally minded. This f organidescriptivo x mi c d normativan e e interests also charac- terized the great early social scientists such as Weber (Asplund, 1972). r vie f Ou actiowo n science e ideabuildth f thes o sn o s e early practitioners. We maintain that social science should have an important role in generating liberating alternatives. This objective canno e accomplisheb t d without challengin e statugth s quo. socian I l lifestatue th existo , squ s becaus norme eth d san rules learned through socialization have been internalized dan are continually reinforced. Human beings learn which skills work within the status quo and which do not work. The more the skills work, the more they influence individuals' sense of competence. Individuals dra sucn wo h skill justifd san y theie us r y identifyinb e valueth g s embedde n the i dd adherin man o t g these values. The interdependence among norms, rules, skills, and values creates a pattern called the status quo that becomes so omnipresent as to be taken for granted and to go unchal- lenged. Precisely because these patterns are taken for granted, precisely because these skills are automatic, precisely because value internalizede ar s individualsd an e statu th o , qu s ' personal responsibility for maintaining it cannot be studied without con- fronting it. orden I conduco t r t research that include e optioth s f no changing the status quo, one must have models of the status xii Preface differena f o d an t universo qu usee eb thacreato dn t ca t diaea - lectic .e intereste Thusar e w , n researci d h that generated an s tests propositions concernin e variableth ) g(1 s embeddee th n di statu thao qu st statue keeth t p i variablese quoth ) (2 ; s involved in changing the status quo and moving toward liberating alternatives; (3) the variables in a science of intervention that will be require e previouth f di s proposition e tested b evee ar so d t r an ; finally (4) the research methodology that will make change possible and simultaneously produce knowledge that meets rigorous tests of disconfirmability. In our discussions with social science colleagues on how o product e valid usablan d e knowledge e encountew , r several objections to research that attempts to alter the status quo. These objections raise valid concerns t thesbu , e concerne ar s often dealt wit wayn hi s thae counterproductivar t scienco t e e an practiceo dt . The first objection begins with a premise of normal science: the primary objective of science is to describe reality as accurately as possible. Hence, mainstream scientists focus on describin n changino e t Th e worlt no existi . th g git d s a dan s paradox is that this approach cannot describe many important features of the world as it exists. Among these features are the defensive routines that protec e statu th o against qu s t change. We will probably never get a valid description of the resiliency of defensive routine jusy b s t watchin d waitinggan . Som- de e fenses do not even surface until the first layer of defenses has been engaged (Argyris, 1985). A corollar e premisth o yt e thae purposth t f scienceo s ei o describt e realit s thai y t generating knowledge about change is a second step, one that must wait until basic descriptive knowledg s beeha e n accumulated n actioI . n scienc e agrew e e importans thai t i t understano t t chango t e ar worle e dth w f di e alsw o t believeBu . it s Kura , t Lewin said, tha opposite th t s ei bese th tf wayo true e understano t son : o t y tr e worl dth o t s di chang choosinn I .

Load more