Engaged Participant Observation

Engaged Management ReView Volume 2 Issue 1 Charting a New Territory: Practitioner- Article 1 Scholarship in Action

2018 Engaged Participant Observation: An Integrative Approach to Qualitative Field Research for Practitioner-Scholars Daniel Robey Georgia State University, [email protected]

Wallace T.F Taylor Georgia State Universtity, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.case.edu/emr Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, and the Entrepreneurial and Small Business Operations Commons

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License

Recommended Citation Robey, Daniel and Taylor, Wallace T.F (2018) "Engaged Participant Observation: An Integrative Approach to Qualitative Field Research for Practitioner-Scholars," Engaged Management ReView: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://doi.org/10.28953/2375-8643.1028 https://commons.case.edu/emr/vol2/iss1/1

This Essay Papers is brought to you for free and open access by CWRU Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Engaged Management ReView by an authorized editor of CWRU Commons. EDITORIAL NOTE Engaged Participant Observation: In their article “Engaged Participant Observation: An Integrative Approach to Qualitative Field Research for Practitioner-Scholars,” Dan Robey and Wallace Taylor An Integrative Approach to address an important epistemological and practice question of research inquiry carried out by a practicing Qualitative Field Research for management scholar. The key challenge they discuss is that nearly all practice-oriented qualitative and inti- Practitioner–Scholars mate ‘practice close’ inquiries assume a separate and distinct role for the researcher and the manager being studied. There are separate minds and bodies origi- Daniel Robey Wallace Taylor nating from different social worlds where the scholar Georgia State University Georgia State University seeks to understand and account for the behaviors of the practitioner while the practitioner is the recipient of the knowledge. They are bound together with a shared goal of improving the situation and knowledge that ABSTRACT underlies action. As the authors note, this separation of roles and concerns cuts across all dominating forms Participant observation is an appropriate research method for engaged of qualitative inquiry starting from ethnographies practitioner–scholars seeking in-depth insights available from qualitative and ending in recent forms of engaged management scholarship or action research. But what if the roles are field research. Conventional approaches to participant observation include contextual and fluid and the hat of the scholar and the ethnography and action research. However, conventional approaches hat of the practitioner are changed from one context to as they originally were developed assumed that the roles of practitioner another? How should we think of validity and objectiv- and scholar are separate. We propose a new approach, engaged partici- ity; how should we handle ethical issues of collecting pant observation, that recognizes the integration of research and practice and analyzing data; and how can we keep these roles roles and strives for both scientific and pragmatic rigor. We illustrate the in tension in a productive dialectic? The article does application of engaged participant observation, and its particular tensions, not fully address all the concerns related to this topic. based on the completed executive doctoral dissertation conducted by the We are left with a host of lingering issues. The authors second author and supervised by the first author. We address the ten- pose boldly and clearly the challenges of practitioner sions associated with engaged participant observation, including issues of scholar inquiry and engage the reader with a thoughtful identity, potentially biased interpretation, ethical conduct, and publication. argument around what the key tensions are and how to become aware of them and handle them productively Our analysis compares these issues across three participant observation in the heat of inquiry. The result is an intriguing opening methods and provides pragmatic guidance for qualitative field research in into the alternative practice oriented epistemologies organizations in which the researcher is an engaged participant. that characterize practitioner scholarship. The article is a must read to all students and faculty engaged in mentoring and guiding students participating in practitioner oriented doctoral programs as it clearly poses the issues we are all dealing with daily. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did it while working with the authors to bring the article into the daylight.

1 Engaged Management ReView JULY 2018, VOL. 2, NO. 1 Special Issue on Charting a New Territory INTRODUCTION

Practitioner scholarship promises to ac- although useful to researchers who are tion), including the need to address both celerate the practical application of re- not practitioners, are not appropriate for scientific and pragmatic rigor in publica- search findings by combining the separate the emerging model of practitioner schol- tions. We conclude with recommendations roles of practitioner and scholar, thus pro- arship. We therefore offer a modified ap- for the training of practitioner–scholars ducing “practitioner–scholars.” With their proach, engaged participant observation, needing to acquire skills to navigate the proximity to real-world problems and their which is more suitable to the needs of the new territory of practitioner scholarship research skills, practitioner–scholars can practitioner–scholar. in action. bridge the divide between academic research and the problems situated in prac- Our approach calls on practitioner–schol- tice settings. Ideally, practitioner–scholars ars to exercise two kinds of rigor in their would generate research findings that work. Scientific rigor is well established in meet the rigorous scientific standards for the many research methodologies that theory and methodology while simultane- might be applied systematically to gen- ously generating problem solutions that erate valid knowledge. Although this type can be implemented. The metaphors of of rigor is often pitted against relevance pipelines, bridges, and partnerships that to practice, we argue that pragmatic rigor commonly are used to convey closure of should also be applied as a complement the gap between research and practice to scientific rigor. Pragmatic rigor refers to can therefore be set aside as scholarship the criteria used in judging the relevance and practice become integrated. of research to practical problems. The tensions between scientific and pragmat- Among the challenges of a more integrat- ic rigor are most often experienced when ed approach to management scholarship practitioner–scholars seek to publish their is the need to adapt traditional research work. We recommend closer attention to methods to the special requirements of criteria for evaluating the pragmatic rigor the practitioner–scholar. We focus in this of studies so that publication decisions essay on the methodology of participant can be based on the achievement of both observation (Jorgensen, 1989), which is scientific and pragmatic criteria (Robey & highly valued as an approach to gener- Markus, 1998). ating qualitative field research data. Par- ticipant observation involves the use of We organize our arguments as follows. direct observations by researchers who First, we assess the applicability of two participate in various ways in the activi- established methods used in qualitative ties they are studying. Although many re- field research: ethnography and action research methods might be imported intact search. Neither of these is deemed appro- from traditional academic practice (e.g., priate for the practitioner–scholar, leaving surveys, experiments, simulations, data a void in the methodological toolkit of mining), traditional participant observa- practitioner–scholars seeking to conduct tion might not be directly appropriable. participant observation studies in their Standard approaches involving participant own work settings. Second, we describe observation include ethnography and ac- engaged participant observation and dis- tion research, each of which immerses cuss four of its challenges: identity and researchers deeply into problem contexts. relationship work, potentially biased inter- Deep immersion, in turn, generates po- pretation, ethical conduct, and dissemina- tential role conflicts and tensions that tion through publication. These challenges can compromise the scientific validity of a produced tensions in our personal experi- field study. Both ethnography and action ence with engaged participant observation research offer guidance for resolving the (Taylor, 2015), which prompted efforts to tensions between research and practice, resolve them. Third, we discuss the ways allowing participant observers to miti- that tensions are managed across all three gate the problems posed by conflicting approaches (i.e., ethnography, action re- roles. These methodological guidelines, search, and engaged participant observa-

2 Engaged Management ReView JULY 2018, VOL. 2, NO. 1 Special Issue on Charting a New Territory TRADITIONAL PARTICIPANT ROLES Classic ethnographies focused on indig- Ethnographers often gain access as vol- IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: enous non-Western cultures and were unteers, students, interns, or some other ETHNOGRAPHY AND ACTION published in book form (e.g., Mead, 1954); quasi-official capacity. They normally (and RESEARCH some modern ethnographies conducted ethically) disclose their dual roles as par- in work places follow this classic model ticipant and researcher to gain access. For Qualitative research methods are well with minor variations (e.g., Zuboff, 1988; example, Jin worked as a paid intern in a suited to the needs of practitioner–schol- Kunda, 2009; Leonardi, 2012). Workplace Silicon Valley startup company (Jin and ars because they promote explanations ethnographers also adapt their study re- Robey, 2008), and Roy (1959) worked in of complex phenomena that are detailed, ports to fit the format of refereed journal a factory prior to his studies in sociology. nuanced, and grounded in natural set- articles (e.g., Barley, 1986; Jin and Robey, After they are given access, ethnogra- tings (Mason, 1996). Typical data sources 2008; Schultze and Orlikowski, 2004). Re- phers need to conduct identity work so include semi-structured interviews with gardless of the format their written work that they gain acceptance and trust from participants, photographs of artifacts and takes, classic and modern ethnographers members of the culture they study. For ex- work settings, video recordings of presen- face similar issues in approaching their ample, Barley donned a lab coat as a way tations, drawings generated by partici- field research. As participant observers, of blending into the culture of radiology pants upon request from the researcher, they need to gain access, establish a role in the two hospitals he studied (Barley, archival documents and files, online sourc- through identity work, and manage rela- 1990). This “costume” comfortably posi- es, and the researcher’s own impressions tionships with those already in the cultural tioned him as a student who was studying as a participant–observer (Mason, 1996). setting. the computerized axial tomography (CAT Qualitative research seems especially ap- or CT) scanners introduced at that time.1 propriate for the types of situations with Classic ethnography positions the re- Over time, ethnographers become familiar which practitioner–scholars are most fa- searcher as an outsider—an alien to the and welcome participants whose main risk miliar: work settings where the aim is to culture being studied. As a “fish out of wa- is “going native” and compromising their conduct research to produce a workable ter,” the ethnographer has the advantage other role of observer. solution to real problems. In such settings, of observing signs and symbols for the the practitioner–scholar is positioned to first time and refining his or her under- Ethnography has the advantage produc- rely extensively on observations and per- standing of their meanings. Meanwhile, ing deep insights into concepts that oth- sonal experiences gained as a participant. the native “fish in the water” might be erwise might be oversimplified or taken For this reason, participant observation unable to see normative behaviors in the for granted.2 Ethnography also gener- can be a valuable means of complement- same light as the ethnographer because ates awareness of the dynamics of social ing other sources of data. We next describe he or she is too familiar with them. The change, which is relevant to practice. De- two traditional approaches to participant ethnographer’s journey begins at the point spite the advantages, classic ethnography observation–ethnography and action re- of entry as observer, progresses through is not straightforwardly compatible with search—and explain why they might not a process of becoming a participant, and the situations of practitioner–scholars. be suitable for practitioner scholarship. ends with an exit back to the role of ob- Practitioners are already engaged with server and writer of the experience. This the culture and therefore do not enjoy the Ethnography progression is illustrated in Figure 1. advantage of being alien observers. They Ethnography (literally, the writing of culture) originated in anthropology as an approach to studying cultures. Ethnography Figure 1: Continuum of Engagement over Time in Ethnographic Studies is a research method that relies on first- hand observations made by a researcher immersed over an extended period of time, typically in a culture with which he or she is unfamiliar (Agar, 1986). The ethnographer’s goals are to understand the cultural context from the “native” point Entry as Adoption of Exit as of view and to compose a “thick descrip- Observer Participant Role Observer tion” that reveals insights into the culture.

1 Although Barley assumed the guise of a medical student, his studies were in the management of technology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

2 For example, Prasad and Prasad (2000) studied employee resistance to changes in technology, unpacking the concept of resistance to reveal multiple layers of tactics used by employees in their routine work performance.

3 Engaged Management ReView JULY 2018, VOL. 2, NO. 1 Special Issue on Charting a New Territory The action research process normally fol- Figure 2: Observation in Engaged Participant Research lows an iterative progression of cycles, as illustrated in Figure 4. Research results are used as the basis of planned interventions, and the effects of those interventions are then studied. Each problem-solving cycle leverages the results of prior interventions to refine later interventions (Susman and Entry as Adoption of Remain as Evered, 1978). Throughout, the client and Participant Observer Role Participant the researcher confer on the goals of the research, interpretation of the research results, and the planning of subsequent have little room to establish an identity feel pressure to compromise data collec- interventions. Practitioners thus gain the that is different from the one they current- tion and analysis to produce actionable benefit of researchers’ expertise in scien- ly have, and they have no exit plan. Their results sooner. Figure 3 illustrates the re- tific methods, while researchers gain ac- progression is illustrated in Figure 2. lationship between the dual imperatives cess to real problems worth studying and of action research. to data for publication. Action Research Action research aims to contribute both In action research, the roles of practitioner The advantages of action research include to the practical concerns of people in a and researcher are usually considered to greater relevance of research to practice, problematic situation and to the goals of be separate. The goals of engaged schol- and opportunities for academic–industry social science through joint collaborations arship (Van de Ven, 2007) are achieved sponsorship of research. Despite these between researchers and practitioners through a partnership between practi- advantages, action research in its most (Rapoport 1970). These dual imperatives tioners and researchers. The partnership common forms is not a feasible model for generate the fundamental tensions that normally requires a formal contract to engaged participant observation studies distinguish action research from tradi- engage in joint problem-solving between conducted by practitioner–scholars. The tional academic research (McKay and a researcher and a client, and issues of basic arrangement between client and Marshall, 2001; Chiasson et al., 2009). By sponsorship, ownership, and length of en- researcher perpetuates the dual-role as- insisting that both researcher interests gagement are agreed on in advance. This sumption characteristic of earlier efforts and practitioner interests are accommo- arrangement allows practitioner clients to bring researchers and practitioners dated, an action research project extends to have the problem addressed, while re- together (e.g., Van de Ven, 2007). This the customary limits of both research searchers receive assurance that they can duality precludes the integration of the and practice. Practitioners who engage in publish the results. The underlying as- practitioner and researcher roles. action research might therefore become sumption is that the client and researcher impatient for results before all data are have different skills and incentives to ex- Given a desire to collect data using partic- analyzed; conversely, researchers might ecute the research, and the contract pro- ipant observation, practitioner–scholars tects both sets of interests.

Figure 3: Action Research Cycles Figure 4: Action Research Cycles Based on Susman and Evered (1978) Action Outcome Diagnosing Knowledge Transfer

Research Problem-Solving Cycle Cycle Specifying Action Knowledge Knowledge Creation & Use Creation & Use Learning Planning Knowledge Transfer Resear ch Outc ome Evaluating Action Taking

Source: Chaisson et al., 2009, p. 35.

4 Engaged Management ReView JULY 2018, VOL. 2, NO. 1 Special Issue on Charting a New Territory are not likely to find either ethnography TABLE 1: Comparisons Among Approaches to Participation Observation or action research satisfactory. In the next section, we describe a promising alterna- Participant Research Capitalizes on Value Assumptions about Subject to Tensions tive in which the roles of scholar and prac- Approach of Observational Researcher and Related to Practice titioner are integrated. Data Practitioner Roles and Scholarship

Ethnography Yes Separate Yes ENGAGED PARTICIPANT Action research Yes Separate Yes OBSERVATION Engaged participant Yes Integrated Yes We propose engaged participant obser- observation vation as a relevant, yet underexplored, research approach that overcomes the publishable manuscripts meeting scien- goes beyond solving a practical problem. limitations of ethnography and action tific standards for theory and method. He Insider action research engenders ten- research but that capitalizes on the states: “The participative case study report sions similar to those of traditional action strengths of participant observation attempts to capture and communicate the research (Rapoport, 1970), such as the methods. Engaged participant observa- biased interpretation by a stakeholder or political pressures that impinge on the tion seeks to generate practical knowl- stakeholders of their particular environ- researcher. These tensions are not unique edge that also is scholarly. It might be ment during a particular period in time” (p. to any particular kind of research, but they conducted by researchers who are both 6, emphasis added). Such a biased report are especially symptomatic of research practitioners and scholars, or by a team typically would not meet standards for that tries to address practical problems. In of scholars and practitioners. Indeed, the scientific rigor or be seen as a contribution practice, participants might hold different vast majority of research is co-authored, generalizable beyond the particular con- stakes in the outcome of research and the suggesting that author teams comprise text of the research. application of findings. people making different contributions. We therefore do not suggest that practi- However, with only slight modification, Table 1 summarizes the distinctions tioner–scholars should work alone unless Baskerville’s definition of the participative among ethnography, action research, and doing so offers clear advantages. Howev- case study could become the basis for a engaged participant observation. The key er, engaged participant observation does more positive view of engaged partici- difference between the two traditional ap- not adhere to the separation of roles that pant observation research. We therefore proaches and our proposed new approach characterizes both ethnography and ac- suggest the substitution of the follow- is the underlying assumption about the tion research. ing description: “The engaged participant roles of practitioner and researcher. The observation report tries to capture and similarities suggest that all three ap- Although engaged participant observation communicate the engaged yet balanced in- proaches capitalize on the value of direct is underexplored, its origins can be traced terpretation by multiple stakeholders of their observation, and tensions are present in to at least two earlier essays in the ac- particular environment during a particular all three. In the following section, we ex- tion research literature. First, Baskerville period in time.” This approach is intended plore ways of resolving the tensions ex- (1997) describes what he calls the “partic- to meet the standards for both scientific perienced in our own engaged participant ipative case study” as follows: rigor, which is tied to research methods, observation study. and pragmatic rigor, which is tied to the Using this methodology, a particular sub- feasibility of implementing problem solu- ject, group of subjects, or organization is tions. TENSIONS IN ENGAGED PARTICIPANT observed by the researcher, who is one OBSERVATION: RECOGNITION AND participant in the process being observed. The second related approach found in RESOLUTION The researcher is to some degree exer- the literature is Coghlan’s (2001) “insider cising control over some intervening vari- action research.” Coghlan uses this term In this section, we focus on four issues ables and is a stakeholder in the outcome to refer to action research projects con- that practitioner–scholars face in con- of the process (p. 6). ducted by permanent participants who ducting engaged participant observation: are aware of the requirements for rigor (1) identity and relationship work, (2) po- Practitioner–scholars can easily under- associated with scientific research. Insid- tentially biased interpretation, (3) ethical stand this situation. However, Basker- ers might collaborate with outside experts conduct, and (4) publication. Each of these ville’s conception of the participative case (e.g., university faculty), but they also un- issues contains tensions for practitioner– study report differs from our expectation derstand and can articulate the theoretical scholars — tensions that can be resolved that practitioner–scholars would generate issues being addressed and the value that if they recognize and address them in a

5 Engaged Management ReView JULY 2018, VOL. 2, NO. 1 Special Issue on Charting a New Territory timely fashion. To enhance the account of accepted as my dominant identity. As a re- evant to the research process, my notes these issues and how they might be ad- sult, my expanded and multiple identities reminded me to move on and not to probe dressed, we express them using the words were accepted. deeply into areas not pertinent to the re- of the second author, who experienced all search question. Although the distracting of these issues in the qualitative field work In addition to having to clarify these roles information at some point might inform for his dissertation (Taylor, 2015).3 to others, I found that playing the roles of my practice role, the notes served as a both researcher and practitioner created self-check and a reminder to remain fo- Identity and Relationship Work personal tensions that were difficult to cused on the research. The opportunity to be an engaged par- resolve completely. Especially taxing was ticipant observer came while doing my giving equal attention to my researcher Managing the politics involved presented dissertation, which focused on the rela- role because the practitioner role was nat- another challenge. In some cases I knew tionship between my companies and our urally more familiar and dominant. I initial- that certain topics were misrepresented principal community partner. My compa- ly had a sense of artificiality in performing in the interview process to gain political nies are the largest (in revenue production the research role, as though I simply was leverage. Some interviewees over-praised and customer base) service contractors masquerading as a researcher. The rela- my company because they thought that for participatory art forms (Noice, Noice tionships I had with some of the people ingratiating themselves to me would pro- and Kramer, 2014) for DeValle County I interviewed in the partner organization vide an opportunity for them to advance Recreation Department.4 My businesses spanned almost ten years. Approaching politically. In the interview, they spoke are privately owned, and the partner is a these same people with a different pur- highly of people whom they otherwise government entity. This collaboration be- pose and an interview consent form to disrespected. Other interviewees took the gan in 2011 and continues to date. This sign initially seemed quite awkward. opportunity to say what they really felt in relationship involves the collaboration and the harshest possible way because they alignment of daily operational, market- In time, I became more comfortable when knew they were leaving their position being, and business strategies between the explaining the reason for what initially fore the information went public. These company employees and the county em- seemed to me to be contrived encounters. people tended to be very critical of policies ployees. New relationships were created I discovered that the tacit understanding and of the people both above and below and habits of interaction were formed. of trustworthiness that existed prior to them in the organization hierarchy. my becoming a researcher aided my abil- Although the partner’s employees iden- ity to function in the research role. I felt In our work relationships, some inter- tified me and my staff as competent trusted, which was important in both the viewees had been negligent in providing business professionals, my new role as a practitioner and researcher roles, and the the equipment, space, and personnel on researcher was met initially with curiosi- people I interviewed recognized that the which I depended to deliver my company’s ty, then with speculation, and finally with knowledge I gained would not be used services. However, these interviewees acceptance. County employees hesitated against them because I was also still one misrepresented themselves in the inter- during interviews before sharing detailed of them. Although I was initially self-con- view as being fully compliant in their rela- stories with me because they were sus- scious about separating the two roles of tionship with contractors. Faced with this picious about my motivation for taking researcher and practitioner, I soon realized contradiction, at times I wanted to probe on this new role. Was I really interested that they could be more closely interwo- in the interview to collect what seemed strictly in research, or would I use the in- ven. Understanding the practical issues to be more truthful detail. I hesitated to formation to further my own interests? we spoke about in the interviews was easy disregard what seemed to be insincere Would I reveal what seemed to them to be for me, and I could see how the research remarks because I needed to maintain corrupt or unethical practices? Although I findings would be useful in practice. the integrity of the research process and, knew about some possible unethical ac- to do so, needed to report more truthful tivities, I assured my respondents, “Don’t To support my researcher role, I kept and accurate responses. I later realized worry; I’m not going there.” This reassur- notes on a small paper notepad and in that maintaining the integrity of the re- ance allowed me to retain the trust I had the note-taking section of the analysis search process meant that my practitioner already established as a contractor. How- software as I read through the interview identity should not distort what was be- ever, research was not seen as my prima- transcripts. For example, if the interview ing conveyed in the interviews because ry role, and manager and associate were included information that seemed irrel- respondents were reporting their own

3 The first-person pronouns in this section (e.g., I, me, my) signify the second author’s first-hand account.

4 Pseudonym. The county includes approximately 700,000 residents and is demographically diverse. It has a median household annual income of approximately $50,000 and an 18% poverty rate.

6 Engaged Management ReView JULY 2018, VOL. 2, NO. 1 Special Issue on Charting a New Territory subjective experiences. As a researcher, I Answering this question forced me to re- to avoid possible coercion of employees had to privilege their versions rather than flect on what I and my companies learned who would otherwise be free to opt out of my own. Thus, I resolved the tension by about doing contract work and led to im- a study. My interviews thus were restrict- forcing my researcher identity to overrule portant insights about the role of conflict ed to people in the partner’s organization, temptations of my practitioner identity to in interorganizational learning. For ex- and I secured the services of another in- pursue more “accurate” reports. ample, much of the interorganizational terviewer to conduct the interviews with learning that occurred came through the my companies’ employees. My ensuing Potentially Biased Interpretation resolution of conflict. Intuitively, I consid- tension resulted from questions about Potential bias was another difficult obsta- ered conflict to be evidence of a maladap- whether the interviewer, who had no in- cle to overcome. As a manager, writing in a tive partnership, but each time a conflict sider knowledge, would be able to probe way that favored what I felt to be “correct” was resolved, learning happened and trust the employees to obtain authentic re- felt very natural. From my perspective, my was built. Learning from each other and sponses. Transcript evaluations revealed companies consistently outperformed our overcoming obstacles to the collaborative several responses from interviewees that partner in numerous areas, offering supe- effort made active engagement and im- might have been more deeply probed if I, rior services and output that contrasted provement in marketing and operations as a trained a practitioner–scholar with with the inferior service and output of our possible and provided higher quality ser- a relational history, had conducted the partner. Our services seemed superior in vice to our customers. interview. I was concerned that the in- the areas of customer service, responsiv- terviews with my companies’ employees ity, and general adaptability to changing I also learned to appreciate the unique would be less revealing and relevant than circumstance. This impression also re- characteristics of government agencies the interviews I conducted myself with the sulted from positive customer feedback, as clients and their motivations for hiring partner employees. which reinforced the perceptions of being contractors like me. I learned more about more customer-centered, responsive, and the value delivered to their client base Reading all of the transcripts generated adaptable. My pride in accomplishment and became more aware of my values by the third-party interviewer provided was brought to my attention during my and their relation to the needs of DeValle some resolution of this tension. In some first formal presentation of the disserta- County’s population. Looking beyond po- cases, the responses did not reveal spe- tion proposal: I had loaded the slide deck tential biases taught me to see what the cific issues that I would have wanted to with photos of the awards that I and my people I served felt was valuable. uncover, but in others, they revealed is- arts students had achieved, and my com- sues that I would have missed entirely. mittee members noted how proud I ob- Ethical Conduct For example, people across the organiza- viously was of my companies’ successes, Qualitative research should be conducted tions had formed relationships of which but that I might have a hard time overcom- as a moral practice (Mason, 1996), requir- I had not been aware. In one instance, a ing my positive bias in my research. ing researchers to ensure ethical conduct. manager in my company had developed Doctoral training includes ample coverage a friendship with the secretary of one of To control for my potential bias, I used a of research ethics; in U.S. universities, in- our partner’s directors. This relationship “disinterested” colleague to challenge my ternal review boards (IRBs) also review all was instrumental in the dissemination interpretations of the data. My research proposals involving human subjects to en- of marketing materials to the customers, chair (the first author) probed my research sure that research conforms to the ethical which affected revenue and participation. and found that some of the information treatment of research subjects. In devel- This relationality became a relevant theme I had included, while personally import- oping my dissertation proposal, I adhered in my research findings related to interor- ant, had no relevance to the research to the scientific standards for qualitative ganizational cooperation. The benefits of question. Staying on task as a research- research and responded to the requests using an outside interviewer thus included er helped me to avoid self-aggrandizing for clarification from the IRB. Thus, my not only avoiding perceived coercion but asides that would only distract the reader. work was officially approved by a faculty also gaining valuable insights into rela- More importantly, the first author directly oversight committee charged with enforc- tionships. challenged me to explain why my analysis ing federal regulations. showed organizational learning only by Although in this case the IRB’s guidance the client’s employees, while the research Such approval does not guarantee safe on coercion pertained only to the employ- was to be focused on interorganizational passage through all of the tensions relat- ees of my companies, the issue of coercion learning. “What did you learn from them?” ed to ethical conduct. IRB would not allow also might be considered from the per- he asked. me to interview my own employees be- spective of scholar–practitioners on other cause of the possibility of perceived coer- interviewees. To illustrate, my companies cion. In simple terms, the IRB wanted me provide important services to DeValle County’s recreation centers; the centers’

7 Engaged Management ReView JULY 2018, VOL. 2, NO. 1 Special Issue on Charting a New Territory directors are evaluated by their admin- new tensions related to motivation and scripts for publication can consume many istration on community involvement and the allocation of time between practice hours and requires advanced skills in writ- revenue. My work affects performance in and research writing. ing, crafting arguments, and reading relat- both areas. At times the willingness of the ed works. In this context, one hopes that center directors to participate in my stud- My motivation to produce high-quality the rewards from publishing are worth ies seemed to be influenced by my abili- research was twofold. First, I wanted to the effort. For practitioner–scholars, the ty to affect the measures by which they establish myself as a professional in en- incentives are different from the “pub- were evaluated. Although this influence trepreneurship, with a reputation that lish-or-perish” incentives faced by career did not seem to me to represent a breach would bring public awareness to my com- academicians. My attempts to resolve the of ethics, I realized that the interview data panies and to me as a reliable and effec- effort–reward tensions are in process as I represented subjective and biased per- tive consultant. Publishing in a respected focus efforts on publishing my research. spectives, which potentially influenced journal could help others to see me as Thus far, my commitment to both scien- both the content of the interviews and the an expert on a particular topic. I also was tific and pragmatic rigor and my internal interpretation, as discussed earlier. excited about providing transferable guid- motivation remain strong. The develop- ance to entrepreneurs who wanted to un- ment of journals for engaged scholarship, Conflicts of interest also are a major con- derstand private–public collaborations. As written by practitioner–scholars, can help cern of IRB committees. The committee a published practitioner–scholar, I might to resolve some of the remaining tensions had no concerns in my case, but on further be given opportunities to lecture to stu- in the dissemination of research. reflection, I wondered whether my inter- dents or professional groups, or to teach viewing directors who also contracted classes in entrepreneurship. with my competitors might reveal infor- DISCUSSION mation that could provide me with a com- My second reason for the research was petitive advantage. A conflict of interest to improve my companies by learning All types of participant observation in- could arise if I used the research results to from my own research. Publishing articles volve tensions, as noted in Table 1. Table 2 gain advantages in the competitive mar- supports learning because feedback from summarizes the tensions inherent in the ketplace. I addressed this potential con- reviewers and the ongoing engagement three approaches to participant observa- flict of interest by ensuring that research with the research help to sharpen argu- tion considered in this article. We argue questions and data analysis addressed ments and focus contributions. The more that dealing with the tensions in engaged only the relationships pertinent to my I could learn from writing about my com- participant observation requires different companies’ interactions with our corpo- panies and their relationships with clients, guidance than what typically is provided rate collaborators. the better I could apply what works and for ethnography and action research. avoid what doesn’t. Scholarship is satisfy- Publication ing because it provides a means to deliver The most obvious difference across meth- One of the main purposes of adhering higher quality services to the communities ods is the tension related to relationship to scientific research methodologies is I serve. and identity work. While ethnographers to enhance the prospects for subse- must gain entry and establish a legiti- quent publication of research findings in My motivations clearly reflect the im- mate role, engaged participants are inside a peer-reviewed outlet. Although a com- portance of both scientific and pragmatic already and have a predefined role. They pleted dissertation is considered to be rigor. Without scientific rigor, I have little already have “gone native,” which is not “published” and is made available publicly, chance of publishing in respected jour- viewed as a problem because, unlike eth- it is supervised and reviewed by a relative- nals; without pragmatic rigor, I have little nographers, they need no exit strategy. In ly small group of people with ties to the chance of influencing practice effectively. comparison to action research, engaged practitioner–scholar’s university. Peer-re- Both types of rigor impose demands on participant observation does not rely on a viewed journals normally expand the re- my practitioner scholarship, and these de- contract between researchers and clients view process by drawing from anonymous mands surfaced as tensions as I sought to because the researcher is the client. In our experts not affiliated with the same uni- publish my research projects. experience, practitioner–scholars should versity as the author.5 Journals also expect disclose their dual role to the members of dissertations to be converted into digest- All writing for publication generates ten- their organizations and try to integrate the ible-length, shorter articles. This addi- sions and frustrations when manuscripts roles of researcher and practitioner. This tional work occurs after completion of the are rejected or when revision requests integration ensures a balanced focus on doctorate degree and therefore involves seem overwhelming. Preparing manu- both scientific and pragmatic rigor. In ad-

5 Journal reviewers are discouraged from reviewing a paper written by an author from the same university because of the perceived conflict of interest.

8 Engaged Management ReView JULY 2018, VOL. 2, NO. 1 Special Issue on Charting a New Territory Table 2. Managing Tensions in Three Methodological Approaches to Participant Observation

Ethnography Action Research Engaged Participant Observation

Relationship and identity work • Gain access and acceptance as • Establish split roles • Assume and disclose dual roles. outsider. representing different interests. • Integrate practitioner and • Establish role. • Abide by contractual scholar roles. agreement. • Manage relationship. Exit.

Potentially biased interpretation • Control bias related to academic • Define both researcher’s and • Check biases with a identity and values. sponsor’s interests and limits in disinterested party. the contract. • Acknowledge elitism and • Expand insight by extending interest in theory. beyond preconceptions. • Obtain outside reviews.

Ethical conduct • Obtain institutional review. • Obtain institutional review. • Obtain institutional review. • Disclose researcher role. • Formally limit researcher’s • Balance interests of multiple ethical exposure. stakeholders. • Avoid action consequences of research. • Use research findings to understand stakeholder positions.

Publication • Author scholarly books and • Publish research that protects • Strengthen research articles. sponsor’s proprietary contribution through knowledge while contributing to publication. theory and practice. • Contribute to theory and practice.

dition, people who are used to seeing the participant observation invites biases be- might be cautiously strategic in giving practitioner–scholar in the practitioner cause observational data in each case are responses because of their ongoing prac- role adjusted rather easily to an alternate filtered through the preconceptions and tice relationships with the researcher. As dual persona. The trust and closeness of selective attention of the researcher. In a result, practitioner–scholars must find relationships established as a practitioner ethnography, researchers are influenced ways to gather data that are not distort- can extend into the dual practitioner– by their academic values and theory. They ed to please the researcher. Using an in- scholar role, making it easier to establish are subject to elitism and apt to construct dependent, third-party interviewer is one rapport and obtain useful data. Integration observations that align with their pre- technique that has merit. Potential bias of research and practice does not remove ferred theories. In action research, the bi- also can be managed, in part, by adhering the tensions inherent in engaged partici- ases are aligned according to the different to a disciplined process of data analysis. pant observation, but it avoids the some- interests of the researcher and the client. Guidance on qualitative research provides what artificial separation of the activities To the extent that such biases are known detailed suggestions on how to code inter- into separate roles. Although practitioner– in advance, they can be better managed by view data and field notes, how to collapse scholars might not learn the same things including terms in the contract. For exam- and combine initial coding categories into as classic ethnographers, they can per- ple, researchers might wish to see written interpretive themes and constructs, and form the dual roles of researcher and guarantees of their right to use data in how to write up convincing accounts. practitioner. We found that taking notes publications, while clients might wish to In addition to this traditional advice, we about the research process led to better receive oral presentations and summaries advocate the use of dialogue between reflection—the capacity to step back from to guide action. The engaged participant practitioner–scholars and a disinterested practice to attain the vantage point of the observer’s primary bias is to favor his or third party. In our case, the pairing of an researcher. her stake in the organization and the or- executive doctoral student with a faculty ganization’s stake in outside business re- supervisor generated a dialogue in which With respect to potential biases, the lationships. Our experience in managing the supervisor challenged and helped to second column in Table 2, each form of these tensions revealed that respondents

9 Engaged Management ReView JULY 2018, VOL. 2, NO. 1 Special Issue on Charting a New Territory resolve interpretations as part of the data The final area of tensions is related to publish, they might become more con- analysis. publication of research summarized in the cerned with the pragmatic rigor associ- fourth column of Table 2. Both ethnogra- ated with practice than with the scientific Each of the three approaches to par- phers and action researchers are scholars rigor needed for publication. ticipant observation introduces ethical with strong incentives to publish their considerations, given that research has work in peer-refereed academic journals. Although some scholar–practitioners possible (and sometimes intended) conse- Because ethnographers generally do not might view publication without strong quences for the lives of people being stud- intervene in the settings they study, they incentives as a waste of time, our belief ied. Most institutionally based research is are relatively free to write research re- is that publication has at least two com- reviewed by an IRB, which focuses mainly ports that speak mainly to other academ- pelling benefits. First, research is made on protections for human subjects and re- ics.6 Their work might adhere to standards better by the peer review process that searchers’ conflicts of interest. However, of scientific rigor, but it often is devoid of occurs after a paper is submitted to a jour- an institutional review does not automat- pragmatic rigor. The action researcher also nal. The findings might shift in valuable ically resolve all of the potential ethical must publish academic articles, in which ways, and the validity of the study might issues involved with participant obser- the sponsor might have no interest as be enhanced. This process results not only vation. Ethnographers typically avoid in- long as the problem is solved. A dual fo- in a more valuable publication, but also in tervention in the settings they study and cus on both scientific and pragmatic rigor a stronger foundation for practical inter- remain content with a rich interpreta- is explicit in the action research contract ventions based on the research. Second, tion of their findings (e.g., Barley, 1990; but typically is distributed across the two scholarly work is distinguished from other Zuboff, 1988). Although they avoid the specialized roles. Action researchers can kinds of evidence-based management by ethical implications of their own actions, manage tensions associated with publica- its commitment to public dissemination.7 this approach might raise other ethical tion by protecting the client’s proprietary The practitioner–scholar’s work must issues if researchers fail to act to allevi- knowledge. Practitioner–scholars need to be open to inspection by peer reviewers. ate problems they observe. By remaining reconcile their position on publication as Scholarship persuades when it is rigorous, neutral, ethnographers might perpetuate an exercise requiring both scientific and transparent, relevant, and publicly acces- social harm through inaction. Action re- pragmatic rigor. In some cases, practi- sible. As practitioner–scholars generate searchers generally negotiate the terms tioner–scholars might grow weary of writ- findings from engaged observation stud- of engagement and the limits of ethical ing, rewriting, and responding to reviewers ies, they should strive to share their find- commitments, but these contracts might and editors. Without strong incentives to ings in published form. not cover every expected situation. By rel- egating responsibility for implementation issues to the client or sponsor, the action Figure 5: Scientific and Pragmatic Rigor researcher might avoid direct involvement with many ethical issues. Our experience High with engaged participant observation in- dicates that institutional review is not sufficient to resolve all ethical issues that Academic Practitioner might arise. Our best advice for managing Scholarship Scholarship ethical issues as an engaged participant is to be sensitive to the interests of multiple stakeholders and to weigh the consequences of any action’s effect on them. Because the research process uncovers Evidence-Based SCIENTIFIC RIGOR ample evidence about stakeholders, data Management analysis gives researchers a more sol- id basis for making ethical judgments in practice. Low

Low PRAGMATIC RIGOR High

6 In fairness, such reports are often highly engaging because of the richness of their accounts of situated action, but they are also lengthy and laced with theoretical interpretation.

7 As one colleague recently declared when asked about the desirability of publishing, “research without publication is just a lifestyle.”

10 Engaged Management ReView JULY 2018, VOL. 2, NO. 1 Special Issue on Charting a New Territory These points are presented in Figure 5, of this article, but future essays could tional improvement, and to understand which suggests a relationship between formally elaborate on the specific criteria why and how these interventions influ- scientific and pragmatic rigor. Figure 5 underlying terms such as feasibility, rel- ence performance, practitioner–scholars shows four quadrants based on combina- evance, and practicality, so that both re- need to apply research methods that are tions of high and low rigor. We ignore the searchers and reviewers would have more both scientifically and pragmatically rigor- situation in which both scientific and prag- consistent guidance for evaluating practi- ous. Such methods should be codified as matic rigor remain low. If scientific rigor is tioner scholarship. part of an ongoing canon of practitioner low but pragmatic rigor is high, we might scholarship. still derive strong recommendations for evidence-based management. Effective CONCLUSION managers have always grounded their decisions in evidence, although usually not We conclude with recommendations for evidence that meets scientific criteria for the training of practitioner–scholars. Our reliability, validity, transparency, gener- analysis suggests that such training re- alizability, and other requirements. Prag- quires carefully prescribed departures matic rigor might be achieved through from traditional approaches to partici- careful evaluation of available evidence, pant observation in qualitative field stud- logical conclusions based on intimate ies. Practitioner scholarship in action knowledge of the context, and operating cannot be accomplished simply by using theories derived from past experience. traditional research methods developed originally for disengaged scholars who Meanwhile, much academic scholarship have weak connections to research set- lacks pragmatic rigor and ultimately is tings. Although engaged scholarship (Van suitable only for academic journals that de Ven, 2007), participant observation practitioners rarely read. Although high (Jorgensen, 1989), and action research scientific rigor might eventually produce (Susman and Evered, 1978) all offer pre- practical applications, it typically lacks im- scriptions for academic scholars who en- mediate relevance for practice. Only when gage with practice, they do not address research authors combine high scientific the specific needs of practitioner–schol- rigor with high pragmatic rigor, as shown ars. Our aim in this essay is to suggest a in Figure 5, can we claim to be producing new approach—engaged participant ob- practitioner scholarship. As our essay has servation—that draws from traditions in argued, practitioner scholarship introduc- qualitative research methodology but that es tensions between the efforts to attain also modifies the traditional guidance. Our each type of rigor simultaneously, but suggestions could be easily incorporated it also bears fruit by strengthening the into the educational experience provided foundation for management action and by by executive doctoral programs, allowing sharing results in publications that can be practitioner–scholars to approach field consumed by others. research in their own organizations more confidently. The development of and participation in journals that publish engaged scholarship Our recommendations on qualitative re- is a sign that practitioner–scholarship is search methods can serve as a starting valued. Some academic journals also look point for similar adaptations of research for ways to promote research that has methods for practitioner–scholars. We practical implications without sacrificing hope that our initial step in charting more scientific rigor (Ghobadi & Robey, in press; appropriate research methods for this Rai, 2017). To advance these initiatives new territory can be extended to include further, some formalization of standards methods such as field experiments (Franz, and criteria for evaluating pragmatic rigor Robey & Koeblitz, 1986), field stimula- would be worthwhile so that judgments tions (Salancik, 1979), and other methods about publication do not consider sci- involving interventions into natural work entific rigor exclusively. Developing such settings. Where the aim is to introduce standards and criteria is beyond the scope policy interventions aimed at organiza-

11 Engaged Management ReView JULY 2018, VOL. 2, NO. 1 Special Issue on Charting a New Territory REFERENCES

Agar, M. 1986. Speaking of ethnography. Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Car crashes without Schultze, U., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2004). A Beverly Hills, CA(AU: Location): Sage cars: Lessons about simulation technology and practice perspective on technology-mediated Publications. organizational change from automotive design. network relations: The use of Internet-based Mass./London: MIT Press. self-serve technologies. Information Systems Barley, S. R. 1986. Technology as an occasion Research, 15(1), 87-106. for structuring: Evidence from observations of Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative Researching. CT scanners and the social order of radiology London, England: Sage. Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An departments. Administrative Science Quarterly assessment of the scientific merits of action 31(1): 78-108. McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual research. Administrative Science Quarterly, imperatives of action research. Information 582-603. Barley, S. R. 1990. Images of imaging: Notes Technology & People, 14(1), 46-59. on doing longitudinal field work. Organization Taylor, W.T.F. (2015). Interorganizational Science, 1(3): 220-247. Mead, M. (1954). Coming of age in Samoa: Learning through Exploration and Exploitation A study of adolescence and sex in primitive under Conditions of Goal Divergence in Private- Baskerville, R. L. (1997). Distinguishing action societies. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Public Partnerships: A Case Study, Doctoral research from participative case studies. books. dissertation, Georgia State University, Georgia. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 1(1), 24-43. Noice, T., Noice, H. and Kramer A.F. (2014). Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: Participatory Arts for Older Adults: A Review A guide for organizational and social research. Chiasson, M., Germonprez, M., & Mathiassen, of Benefits and Challenges. The Gerontologist New York, NY: Oxford University Press. L. (2009). Pluralist action research: a review of 54(5), 741–753. the information systems literature. Information Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart Systems Journal, 19(1), 31-54. Prasad, P., & Prasad, A. (2000). Stretching the machine: The future of work and power. New iron cage: The constitution and implications York, NY: Basic Books. Coghlan, D. (2001). Insider Action Research of routine workplace resistance. Organization Projects: Implications for Practicing Managers. Science, 11(4), 387-403. Management Learning, 32(1), 49-60. Rai, A. (2017). Editor’s Comments: Avoiding Franz, C. R., Robey, D., & Koeblitz, R. R. (1986). Type III errors: Formulating IS research User response to an online information system: problems that matter. Management Information A field experiment. MIS Quarterly, 10(1), 29-42. Systems Quarterly, 41(2), iii-vii.

Ghobadi, S., & Robey, D. (in press). Strategic Rapoport, R. N. (1970). Three dilemmas in signalling and awards: Investigation into the action research with special reference to the first decade of AIS best publications awards. Tavistock experience. Human Relations, 23(6), The Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 499-513.

Jin, L., & Robey, D. (2008). Bridging social Robey, D., & Markus, M. L. (1998). Beyond rigor and technical interfaces in organizations: and relevance: producing consumable research An interpretive analysis of time-space about information systems. Information distanciation. Information and Organization, Resources Management Journal, 11(1), 7-15. 18(3), 177-204. Roy, D. (1959). “Banana Time”: Job Satisfaction Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). Participant observation. and Informal Interaction. Human Organization, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 18(4), 158-168.

Kunda, G. (2009). Engineering culture: Control Salancik, G. R. (1979). Field stimulations for and commitment in a high-tech corporation. organizational behavior research. Administrative Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Science Quarterly, 24(4), 638-649.

12 Engaged Management ReView JULY 2018, VOL. 2, NO. 1 Special Issue on Charting a New Territory ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Daniel Robey is Emeritus Professor of Information Systems and Associate in the Center for Engaged Business Research at Georgia State University. He received his Doctorate in Business from Kent State University, Kent, OH. He was Editor in Chief of Information and Organization from 2000 to 2014 and remains a Senior Editor for the journal. He received the 2009 LEO award, bestowed by the Association for Information Systems and the International Conference on Information Systems, for a lifetime of distinguished contribution. He also received the Lifetime Service Award from the Organizational Communication and Information Systems Division of the Academy of Management in 2010.

Wallace Taylor is an entrepreneur and business person. He is currently the owner of Taylor Holdings International, Inc., and is also the Founder/CEO of The Taylor Foundation for the Arts. He received his Doctorate in Business from Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. His entrepreneurial experience spans more than 10 years of successful initiation and implementation of private and non-profit organizations. He has worked in executive capacities in the fields of finance, technology, and real estate. His current work with participatory art in the field of public health serves a community of 2,000 students and involves contracts and collaboration between private, non-profit, and government entities. Through The Taylor Foundation for the Arts, his charitable outreach includes providing for the medical, educational, and financial needs of the children of the Moken tribe.in Ban Kho Nok, Thailand (Phang Nga Province), and creating collaborative partnerships with The City of Clarkston (Clarkston, GA), which is home to one of the largest concentrations of refugees in the United States.

13 Engaged Management ReView JULY 2018, VOL. 2, NO. 1 Special Issue on Charting a New Territory