Article

Action Research
0(0) 1–17
Changing universities ! The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
through action research: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1476750318757851
The dilemma of scope in journals.sagepub.com/home/arj

pluralistic environments

Miren Larrea
Orkestra-Basque Institute of Competitiveness,
University of Deusto, Spain

Abstract
The paper departs from the work of Davydd Greenwood and Morten Levin on the
transformation of universities through action research to raise the question of how
action research can be the engine of change in an organisational setting where conditions
are inimical to its practice. It shares some theoretical contributions that frame this chal-
lenge and proposes insider action research as a potential method to face it. The paper
then presents the case of Orkestra-Basque Institute of Competitiveness and its impact in
changing the University of Deusto. The case focuses mainly on how this institute has
developed insider action research. The case, connected to the previously presented the-
oretical framework, is used for discussion purposes and to pose what the author terms
the dilemma of scope of action research in pluralistic university environments.

Keywords
Insider action research, university, role duality

Introduction
Action research (AR) has been considered a promising approach to address soci-
etal challenges such as unstable economic systems, climate change and lasting

Corresponding author:
Miren Larrea, Orkestra-Basque Institute of Competitiveness, University of Deusto, Mundaiz 50, 20012
Donostia-San Sebastián, Gipuzkoa, Spain.
Email: miren.larrea@orkestra.deusto.es
2 Action Research 0(0)

poverty (Wittmayer and Sch€apke, 2014). Many of the action researchers who want
to contribute to solving these challenges work within a university, and its organisa-
tional setting either supports or hinders their endeavours.
The relationship between universities and AR was described by Levin and
Greenwood (1998, p. 103) as follows: ‘universities, as institutions charged with
the generation and transmission of knowledge, have created a variety of conditions
inimical to the practice of action research’. Almost two decades later, the same
authors proposed a way to overcome this situation when they argued that ‘action
research applied across the range of university organizational structures and
dynamics can produce radical and beneficial change for most of the stakeholders’
(Greenwood & Levin, 2016, p. 194). In a nutshell, AR can be used to change
universities. But a question emerges when we take both arguments together:
How can AR be the engine of change in an organisational setting where conditions
are inimical to its practice?
This paper focuses on one specific type of transformation in universities: the
development of AR as a pattern of relationship with the territory that democratises
knowledge production and fosters development. We approach AR as both the aim
and the means of change in a university. Consequently, the problem statement that
guides this paper is: In order to effectively do AR with territorial actors (AR as the
aim of transformation in a university), action researchers also need to engage in
change processes of their own university environments (AR as the means of change
in a university); however, the mechanisms involved in these change processes are
understudied. The research question that rises from this statement is: How do
individual action researchers connect to change in their university’s environment?
In answering this question, the paper contributes to a better understanding of the
relationship between organisational and individual dimensions in the endeavour to
develop favourable conditions for AR in universities. This understanding can be
useful for action researchers working in universities who feel that their environ-
ments are not always supportive of AR and who are ready to work to improve
such conditions.
The discussion in the paper is based on a ten-year process of developing AR at
Orkestra-Basque Institute of Competitiveness, a research institute within the
University of Deusto (a private university in the Basque Country, Spain). In
order to combine the organisational and individual perspectives and see their
interactions, part of the case focuses on how the institute and the university
have changed, and another part of the case is based on a personal inquiry process
of the author that focuses on her individual change process and its interactions
with change in the organisation.
The Orkestra case describes how AR has developed from 2008, when only two
people (one administrator and one researcher) openly proposed AR in the insti-
tute, to gain a relevant position in the institute, with 28% of the institute’s per-
sonnel involved in AR processes and 30% of the institute’s 2017 budget coming
from projects using AR. These projects are mainly connected to long-term AR
processes with two provincial governments, the regional government and the city
Larrea 3

council of the biggest city in the Basque Country. The stable continuity of all these
projects can be considered as an indicator of the quality and outcomes of the AR
being developed. Based on the learnings of these previous experiences, today the
institute is actively working to generate the conditions for this approach to grow in
other spaces of its university. Although goals are being achieved, the paper avoids
presenting the transformation process as straightforward or painless and instead
focuses on the dilemmas faced within it.
The writing style aims at balancing normative discourses and praxis. Normative
discourses can be expressed using sharp arguments and clear political agendas.
Praxis, by taking theory to ‘the mud of practice’ (Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003, p. 19),
usually looks more contradictory and requires more nuanced arguments.
All persons quoted have given their consent to the use of these specific fragments
and have received the paper so that they are aware of how their words are being used.

Theoretical framework
There are various concepts in the AR literature, such as community–campus partner-
ships or community–university research partnerships (Jackson, 2016; Seifer, 2016), that
address how action researchers engage with communities outside the university. But
less has been published about how action researchers work within the university in
interaction with other academic communities. The way in which AR generates change
at the university in order to construct a space for itself and how, simultaneously, AR
adapts to the university in order to survive remains, to a great extent, a black box.
Action researchers have published different interpretations of the university as a
context for AR. Some report unproblematic contexts that seem to contradict
expectations. Klocker (2012), for instance, reports that after worrying because
the literature on AR PhDs argued that the knowledge produced in this way was
not valued in academic settings, her experience was that supervisors, examiners
and departments accepted the legitimacy of her work without any problem. Huges,
Denley, and Whitehead (1998) and Maguire (2005) give a very different perspective
by reporting difficult situations encountered during their AR PhDs.
Dilemma is the term that Adler (2003) and Stevenson (1991) share when refer-
ring to university-based AR courses. Specifically, Stevenson (1991) refers to ped-
agogical, epistemological and political dilemmas.
For the purpose of the discussion section, this paper summarises the different
positions following Bradbury (2010, p. 95):

action research [. . .] lives more or less happily on the margins of conventional social
science departments and does this despite its critique of the very values, assumptions
and approaches that have grounded university research to date. It is tolerated more
and less depending on the context.

Another relevant contribution for the discussion comes from Greenwood

and Levin (2016, p. 84), who argue that ‘the lack of organizational
4 Action Research 0(0)

self-understanding [. . .] has become a central part of the problem to address’. They

analyse the university as comprising various subsystems (teaching, research, stu-
dent and administrative). Although they recognise that faculty can be part of these
various subsystems, they build their discourse on the different logics guiding the
different subsystems. One specific dimension that is central to the discussion in this
paper is the difference between the research and administrative subsystems.
A useful concept in order to develop the organisational self-understanding of
action researchers in university settings is insider AR. When members of an orga-
nisation inquire into their own organisation in order to change something within it,
they are undertaking insider AR (Coghlan, 2014; Coghlan & Shani, 2015).
The concept that helps explain the type of insider AR discussed in this paper is
parallel learning structures, which cover interventions

where (a) a “structure’ (that is, a specific division and coordination of labor) is created
that (b) operates ‘parallel’ (that is, in tandem or side-by-side) with the formal hierar-
chy and structure and (c) has the purpose of increasing an organization’s ‘learning’
(that is, the creation and/or implementation of new thoughts and behaviours by
employees). (Bushe & Shani, 1991, p. 9)

Freire (2008a) argues that there is no neutral position of educators (researchers),

as they either actively seek change or passively reinforce the existing status quo.
If we connect this argument with the role of action researchers in their university
organisations, we could infer that all action researchers in university environments
are insider action researchers on the margins of conventional social science where
AR lives (Bradbury, 2010), either actively seeking change in those margins or
passively reinforcing the existing status quo.
One of the challenges of insider AR that will be discussed in the paper is role duality,
which is synthesised in the following question posed by Coghlan and Brannick (2010,
p. 114): ‘How do you balance the potential dilemmas and tugs between your estab-
lished organizational roles and your researcher role?’ These authors propose the quest
for authenticity as the way to cope with duality. This requires attention to the inner
(how you think and feel) and outer (expectations from others) dynamics.
The previous contributions frame the case and its discussion by interpreting AR
living at the margins of conventional social sciences, where organisational self-
understanding is required. Insider AR can potentially serve this purpose.

Presentation of the case: What does changing the university

mean at Orkestra?
The normative approach to AR in the case
The case and its discussion are based on a series of events that began in 2008. It
would be difficult to understand what such events mean to me and how I construct
Larrea 5

the discussion in this paper without considering some normative assumptions that
influenced me. Thus, this section presents some of these assumptions.
The first normative assumption in the case, which justifies the desirability of
AR, is the consideration that a university environment that sustains AR as one
strong approach is a university environment that democratises knowledge produc-
tion in the territory where it operates, enhancing at the same time the efficiency of
such knowledge in terms of development (transformation) of the territory.
In order to have AR as a strong approach, most universities need to change.
This is where the second normative assumption, expressed in the introductory
section comes into play: ‘action research applied across the range of university
organizational structures and dynamics can produce radical and beneficial change
for most of the stakeholders’ (Greenwood & Levin, 2016, p. 194).
Positioning this second assumption not as the centre of the argument but as a
follow-up to the first assumption is a substantial difference from Greenwood and
Levin (2016), who focus directly on the transformation of university. In the case
presented in this paper, the transformation of university is instrumental to the
process to democratise knowledge production in a territory.
What remains a black box in most normative discourses is how what
Greenwood and Levin (2016, p. 194) describe as ‘beneficial change’ is going to
be achieved. Greenwood demonstrates this uncertainty when he states, ‘We think
there is reason to believe that lots of trapped energy for democratic change exists in
these organisations [universities]. The issue is how to mobilise it’ (Greenwood,
2017, p. 187) or asks, ‘Can action researchers do this?’ and immediately answers,
‘It remains to be seen’ (Greenwood, 2017, p. 188).
However, the next normative assumption, inspired by Paulo Freire, helps open
the black box in the Orkestra case. If AR is to change the university, it needs more
power. Still, turning power structures upside down and thus transforming AR
from a minority to the new mainstream approach is not necessarily desirable.
Making an analogy with what Freire said about revolution, position gained by
AR ‘can be lost because of an arrogant excess of certainty on its certainties,
because of the consequent lack of humbleness, for the authoritarian use of its
power’ (Freire, 2008b, p. 234). Having a democratising normative approach
does not prevent AR from potential authoritarianism. If AR is to overcome its
actual situation of lack of power, which following Freire we could name as oppres-
sion, it cannot opt for a process where it becomes the new oppressor. It needs to
generate a process to liberate AR and ideologically opposed research approaches
together (Freire, 1996). This implies a dialogical relationship between different
research approaches.
Considering these three assumptions, I argue that the case presents a process in
which AR is used to transform universities. The aim of this transformation is to
gain more space, power and legitimacy for AR in one university as a means for
more democratic territorial development. But the goal is not to turn AR into the
new mainstream. The goal is to create a constructive tension between different
6 Action Research 0(0)

research approaches where their conflicts of interest are made explicit and none of
them can be imposed in authoritarian ways.
From this point of view, I consider the results obtained in the case as satisfac-
tory, but I am aware that readers with a different normative framework on how the
transformation of universities through AR should happen can interpret the fol-
lowing case in a different light.

AR as an aim and means for change

The University of Deusto is a private university founded in 1886 by the Jesuits,
which now has two campuses (Bilbao and San Sebastian) with a total student
population of approximately 12,000. Part of the university’s mission statement
says that it wants to educate free persons, who will be responsible citizens and
competent professionals, having values and abilities that will help them engage in
promoting knowledge and transforming society. This mission statement also says
that research should be of excellence and related to the interests of society. The
university has six faculties (Business, Social Sciences and Humanities, Law,
Engineering, Psychology and Education, and Theology). Regarding research, eval-
uation follows the criteria established by Spanish regulation and emphasises pub-
lications in high-impact journals.
Orkestra is a research institute within the University of Deusto focused on
researching competitiveness. Today, the institute has 32 professionals in total
(15 PhDs, 3 PhD students, 6 research assistants and 8 professionals in administra-
tion and support services). The main research field is regional competitiveness,
encompassing issues related to welfare, energy, territorial development, innova-
tion, clusters, policy and evaluation. Together with the previously mentioned cri-
teria related to high-impact journals, cogeneration with territorial actors by
individual researchers is considered in the evaluation process by the general
management.
The institute was created in 2006 as a result of the shared effort of local stake-
holders, including the university, public administration (Basque Government,
Provincial Council of Gipuzkoa) and private firms. It was created as a university
development unit. This means that its status is different from traditional depart-
ments and it has more autonomy to define its own strategies and approaches to
research.
In the beginning, although the institute’s management claimed that the insti-
tute’s mission was to transform the region where the university was located,
they hired researchers educated in traditional approaches, which consequently
led to a traditional research program. The management team then canvased
researchers for proposals on how this traditional approach could be overcome,
and an area coordinator and a researcher (the author) proposed AR. AR would
change the way the university community related to territorial actors in order to
generate democratic knowledge-production processes and effective development
Larrea 7

(see the first normative assumption). This new approach required two main
changes within the institute:

1. Building capabilities by researchers and managers to interact with territorial

actors in nonlinear and cogenerative ways.
2. Incentivising AR and cogenerative approaches by improving their reputation in
the university environment.

In order to achieve these two goals, it has not been sufficient to change the
approach exclusively within the institute; thus, institute members are working in
three other spaces within the university:

1. Doctoral courses, in which the generation of AR capabilities has been occurring

for two years at the time of writing.
2. Internal training for researchers/faculty at the university, where a module on
how to work with territorial actors is scheduled.
3. Continuous dialogue of the institute management with the team of the Rector in
order to gain visibility for AR (mainly in publications) and improve its
reputation.

These changes and the ones taking place inside the institute should be consid-
ered as different dimensions of the same process.

The development of AR at Orkestra

In order to share how AR has evolved at the institute, I have delimited five stages.
The first four are developed in this section from the perspective of organisational
change, and the last one (2016–) is presented later in the paper in the form of my
personal inquiry (Figure 1).
The process directly involved approximately 10 researchers or research assis-
tants, but the case focuses on the role of the two individuals who initiated the
process. One of them is a researcher who entered the institute in 2006 as the
coordinator of one of the departments. She became general manager of Orkestra
in 2012 and has supported AR throughout the process from the perspective of
management. She characterises the role of administration as presented by

Figure 1. Timeline of the development of AR at Orkestra.

8 Action Research 0(0)

Greenwood and Levin (2016), but due to her research background and her efforts
to maintain her research activity, she experienced role duality.
She always presented the transformative mission of the institute as something
everyone should respond to. Although there were stages when she proposed AR as
the most effective approach to transformation, her discourse evolved toward the
consideration of AR as one solid way, among others, to be coherent with such a
mission. In the first stages of the institute’s development, she incentivised the
transfer of researchers focused on traditional approaches back to the university
and hired academics with practical experience in development processes that could
generate AR approaches. She integrated AR in the institute’s strategy as one more
option and supported internal training processes on AR.
The other individual is the author. I entered the institute in 2007 and have been
focused on developing AR since 2008. I characterise the role of researchers in
developing AR, but my commitment to organisational change (informally up to
2014 and with a formal designation as staff to the institute’s director since then)
has led me to also experience role duality. My role combines the coordination of
AR processes with stakeholders with the facilitation of insider AR processes to
develop AR.
AR with stakeholders (policy makers at local and regional governments) has
been ongoing since 2008. In addition, there are two stages (2008–2010 and 2015–
2016) during which parallel learning structures were created to develop insider AR
processes. The paper mainly focuses on insider AR processes.

2006–2008: Antecedents to the decision to develop AR at Orkestra

I joined the institute in 2007. In 2008, following a proposal that the coordinator of
our department and I elaborated, the formal decision was made to use some of the
resources of the institute to explore the potential of AR. One of the first steps was
to initiate collaboration with a research environment in Agder (Norway).

2008–2010: First organisational attempt to develop AR at Orkestra

As the first step in the collaboration with the Agder environment, I wrote a report
on what changes would be necessary in our institute in order to create an AR
environment:

We would like to consolidate an action research team at the Institute. Up to now the
approach to action research has been proposed by a team of researchers. In the future
we would like this to be something assumed by the Institute as part of its unique value
proposition.

Extract from the document ‘How we work together and how we want to work togeth-
er in the future,’ presented in Kristiansand, 4–5 February 2009.
Larrea 9

The document shows our desire to transform AR from being the initiative of some
researchers into part of the strategy supported by the organisation.
After the visit to Agder, we set a parallel learning structure with, on average, six
participants who showed interest in learning more about AR. It was the first
insider AR process in the institute. I facilitated this process, and the area coordi-
nator (later the general manager) participated in it. We had almost no experience
in AR, and the discussion focused on normative approaches in which the area
coordinator and I shared our assumption that AR was a better approach for the
transformative mission of the institute than the traditional research in the research
program. Even participants in the insider AR group rejected this assumption,
arguing AR was neither better nor worse than the other approaches for the insti-
tute. I assumed the normative discourse on AR worried them because it might
push them into changes they did not feel comfortable with.
The group operated through 2009 but stopped in 2010, when there were differ-
ing visions among the participants. Some researchers outside the group expressed
their worries about AR being considered a better path to transformation too.
The coordinator of the department recommended me not to continue with the
parallel learning structure. She suggested that the researchers who had openly
declared that they wanted to do AR should just develop it in specific projects,
without making it visible in the organisation. This move reduced normative dis-
cussions and strengthened praxis.

2010–2014: The development of AR in specific projects

During this period, AR took a very relevant step in its development with territorial
actors (county development agencies and different provincial and regional govern-
ments) and was systematised in academic publications (Estensoro, 2012, 2015;
Karlsen and Larrea, 2014a, 2014b, 2016, 2017). During this time, two local
researchers worked full-time to develop AR in their projects, together with one
research assistant.
Because of the collaboration with the Agder environment, at this stage, AR at
Orkestra was mostly influenced by pragmatic AR through the work–life research
tradition (Emery & Thorsrud, 1969, 1976; Greenwood & Levin, 2007; Gustavsen,
1992; Johnsen, 2001; Pålshaugen, 2004; Toulmin & Gustavsen, 1996). The second
main influence in this stage was the work of Paulo Freire (1996, 2008a, 2008b). The
group’s approach can be best labelled as ‘action research for territorial develop-
ment’ (Karlsen & Larrea, 2014b), which combines the previous theoretical influ-
ences with ongoing, long-term AR processes involving local and regional
governments in the Basque Country since 2008.
AR for territorial development was defined as a pluralistic approach to AR,
integrating ‘not a team of action researchers, but rather heterogeneous teams of
researchers and practitioners’ (Karlsen & Larrea, 2014b, p. 121). This definition
would later be used to make loose interpretations of AR where almost everybody
could be included.
10 Action Research 0(0)

2014–2016: Organisational change and the reappearance of AR onstage

At the end of 2012, the coordinator of our department was designated as general
manager of the institute. In order to define the unique value proposition of
Orkestra, she prepared a document to share with the administration board, in
which she wrote:

One of the innovations of Orkestra has been the construction of a new approach to
research (Action Research) [. . .] researchers develop a process with the actors that
own the competitiveness challenge and combining capabilities of actors and research-
ers, seek for innovative solutions for problems[. . .] this singular capability is named a
pluralistic approach to action research. (Extract from the document ‘Unique value
proposition of Orkestra’, 20 October 2014)

This document gave centrality to AR as the institute’s approach to transformation

of the territory, but by arguing its pluralistic interpretation I felt it softened AR.
During this period, I started to serve as staff for the general manager by facil-
itating a new parallel learning structure that helped insider AR. In this context,
I contended to the general manager that emphasis on pluralism – as had been
interpreted in the institute – might help expand AR but at the same time lead to
a very soft version of it.
She then decided to adopt the term ‘transformative research’ as the core of the
shared vision of all members of the institute. AR was presented as one type of
transformative research. The use of the term AR and its interpretation in the
organisation were thus negotiated and agreed upon.
The second insider AR process took place from 2015 to 2016, and 10 researchers
and research assistants participated in this parallel learning structure through a
process of monthly workshops. Some of the participants’ aims in the process that
serve as examples were: to define a transformative communication approach for
the institute through AR; to develop a guide for training processes at Orkestra
inspired in educational AR. The framework for the process was inspired by Freire
(1996) and his pedagogical approach based on problem posing.
When the process was halfway finished, I delegated its facilitation. It ended in
December 2016 as planned, and the evaluation by participants was positive.

An inquiry process on the evolution of AR at Orkestra

This section shares an inquiry that I developed at the end of the second insider AR
process, which led to the decision to once more discontinue the open debate on AR
in the organisation by closing the parallel learning structure.
By October 2016, after more than a year of having monthly workshops for
insider AR, I had contradictory feelings regarding the process and my future
efforts to continue developing AR at Orkestra. In order to try to clarify my
Larrea 11

thoughts and decide on a strategy forward, I decided to have some co-counselling

sessions (Marshall, 2016).

First phase of the inquiry: Rethinking legitimisation and radicalness

I chose as my first co-counsellor a colleague whom I felt had influenced my deci-
sion to stop facilitating the insider AR process.
In the co-counselling session, I listened to myself express that although we had a
very good atmosphere in the meetings, when the process was halfway finished I had
not felt legitimised as a facilitator to take the next step. That was the reason I had
delegated the facilitation of the process. My argument about lack of legitimacy
came as a surprise to her. Several times she asked why, helping me to realise that I
had not a coherent answer to that question.
The second colleague to whom I proposed co-counselling was also surprised
about my uneasiness when facilitating the group.
I realised that when addressing my co-counsellors’ surprise, I continuously
referred to things that had happened in the first insider AR process, which none
of the co-counsellors had experienced.
I had my third co-counselling session with a colleague who had been in the
process of developing AR in the institute since 2008. He shared his interpretation:

There is a small group of persons [in the institute] which is very committed to the
development of the Basque Country. You have a very strong sense of identity and the
will to preserve and transform this territory. You see AR as a path, as an instrument
for that purpose. Not everybody had this perspective in the group and consequently,
only a few could share your perspective to AR.

Second phase of the inquiry: Interpreting the feeling of lack of legitimisation

One of the main difficulties for me was to have a coherent narrative of how, in a
friendly and positive environment of emotional support where we had very inter-
esting and challenging discussions, I came up with the feeling that I was not
legitimised to further facilitate the parallel learning structure. In order to under-
stand this, I went back to my diaries, as well as the transcripts and minutes from
meetings in the second insider AR process.
The following are quotes extracted from the transcript of the meeting on
28 May 2015, the second workshop in the process. One participant noted:

about choosing a position, [. . .] the discourse doesn’t fit for me, I don’t see myself as
someone promoting change and democracy, and though in practice I want to change
things, this discourse is too big for me, I don’t think I do things to promote social
change
12 Action Research 0(0)

Discussing the legitimacy of researchers to enter change processes, this same par-
ticipant argued:

When you ask yourself about the legitimacy of each participant, in my case I give
much more weight to what the politician thinks, [. . .] because they are elected, then,
my question is: which is the legitimacy [of the researcher]?

Another participant said:

I don’t want to force AR in Orkestra, I am not drastic [. . .]. I think it should be open.

I think each person should be able to work with their own approach [. . .], respect
everybody’s place, for instance, if someone wants to do traditional teaching, that
person should be given the space to do it.

I could agree with many of the ideas in the quotes. What shocked me when I read
the transcriptions was my difficulty to understand why they were saying it as a
reaction to my proposal to discuss different approaches to AR. Even now reading
the words pushed, forced, legitimacy and respect makes me ask myself whether they
felt I was trying to impose AR on them or on others in the organisation. Another
thing that I realised was that this language was already there in the second work-
shop of the second insider AR process, which meant that it had its origin previous
to this process, probably in the first parallel learning structure, as AR had not been
part of the debate during the intervening period.

Changes after the inquiry process

The inquiry process helped me to interpret that the pluralistic approach discourse
had been, both for me and for the general manager, our way to heal the wounds
created in the organisation by the introduction of AR through the first insider AR
process. It had probably helped to avoid a break inside the organisation.
But I also concluded that my discomfort with the process came from the per-
ception that, by softening the critical dimension of AR to make it acceptable, we
risked reducing the capacity of AR to transform Orkestra. I did not want to work
toward a softened version of AR, and I did not feel legitimised by the group to help
them develop a more critical perspective. The decision again was to stop facilitat-
ing insider AR at Orkestra. As there were no other volunteers to facilitate it, this
decision in the intersection of organisational and individual dimensions took AR
out of the organisational debate again.

Discussion
In this discussion, I consider two main dimensions of the case in order to reflect on
the development of insider AR in university environments. One is the support for
Larrea 13

AR from hierarchical positions within the management or administration of the

university; the other is the level of radicalness in the approach to AR being devel-
oped, which influences the capability to be critical to other approaches. I pose the
relationship between them as a dilemma, the dilemma of scope of AR in university
environments.
AR in university environments develops in a dichotomy with traditional
research (Greenwood & Levin, 2007), academic research (Marshall, 2008) or
normal science (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010). These are varied names given to
‘the others’, whom we need to understand in order to learn about the space of
AR in universities. Following Bradbury (2010), the critique of the very values,
assumptions and approaches of the ‘the others’ is intrinsic to AR. Thus, AR
coexists in a problematising relationship, and it is precisely this feature of AR
that makes it useful in the transformation of universities into more democratic
organisations connected to society and its challenges.
This discussion focuses on problematising one specific relationship in the system
that was proposed by Greenwood and Levin (2016), namely, the relationship
between research and administration in the higher hierarchical positions. What I
argue in the following paragraphs based on the case is that there is a kind of self-
regulating mechanism in this relationship that prevents its linear development,
transforming it into cyclical processes in which role duality and power play deter-
mine the path of transformation.
Managers who have responsibilities in university environments usually have
responsibilities over a variety of research approaches and communities.
Considering that AR is not mainstream, it seems reasonable to think that most
managers positively considering AR are probably not action researchers but man-
agers with a pluralistic perspective on research. Pålshaugen (2013, p. 289) defines
pluralism as ‘a kind of humility, admitting that deferring one’s own judgement for
the benefit of further information and deliberation is preferable when dealing with
theoretical issues’. He continues, ‘A bit more sophisticated version of pluralism
implies that one is aware that any particular theory, perspective or approach may
be understood differently from how one understands it oneself’.
This means that management’s support of AR is usually support that aims at
the coexistence of different approaches. This coexistence takes place in a context of
implicit or explicit critique by AR of the other perspectives. In a nutshell, this
coexistence takes place in a context of conflict.
What the case shows is the readiness of management to apply a softened AR
approach in order to reduce conflict in the organisation. This happened even when
it was management that had supported AR from the very beginning, possibly
influenced by the dual role of the general manager as researcher. In addition,
the closeness of action researchers to management, formalised in the dual role
of one action researcher as a management staff member, reinforced the softening
trend. But this was not the only trend at play. The self-regulating mechanism
operated also through the inner conflict that led the action researcher as facilitator
14 Action Research 0(0)

of the change process to experience role detachment, that is, feeling like an outsider
in both roles (Adler & Adler, 1987; Coghlan & Brannick, 2010).
These mechanisms reinforce the reflection of Greenwood and Levin (2016) on
the relevance of roles played by the administrative profiles in hierarchical positions
and on their relationship with researchers. But they also problematise this rela-
tionship, presenting role duality as a feasible situation and, consequently, arguing
that the two communities are not as neatly delimited as the reflection in terms of
subsystems might suggest.
Based on the previous discussion, I pose the dilemma of scope of AR in
pluralistic university environments: making AR acceptable for a critical mass of
university actors in order to use it as a path to transformation of the university can
require giving up some of the radicalness and critique implicit in AR. But when
doing so, we give up the very feature of AR that generates the capacity to trans-
form. The alternative is to give up scope in the organisation. But could we think
that AR can transform a university if it is confined into well-delimited micro
environments?
This takes us to the question posed in the introductory section: How can AR be
the engine of change in an organisational setting where conditions are inimical to
its practice?

Final reflection
It is reasonable to think that at some very important level – unless the academic
ecosystem values, supports, incentivises, and rewards AR – the social impact of the
AR approach is necessarily dampened.
Should we assume that AR should be the new mainstream in universities we
might interpret the dilemma in terms of the unavoidability of the dampening of
AR. But following the normative assumptions in the case, AR should be one more
approach in universities: strong enough to avoid the authoritarian imposition of
other approaches, but not strong enough to be itself imposed in such a way. From
this perspective, not full but relative valuation, supports, incentives and rewards of
AR by the academic ecosystem could be sufficient. This way, the dilemma might be
interpreted not as dampening AR, but as a mechanism to reach a constructive
balance between different approaches.
The case showed that insider AR processes can help AR gain support from the
academic ecosystem, but it was precisely in those processes when it ran the risk of
being domesticated (as in a dialogue process, AR influences other perspectives, but
other perspectives influence AR). This was accentuated by role duality, which
made positions less clearly delimited. This is the reason why AR needs spaces of
its own, which in Orkestra were provided by projects with stakeholders.
what is also to be learned from this paper is that conflict between individual and
organisational goals regarding AR is a natural situation in university environ-
ments, which sometimes concretises in the relationship between specific action
researchers developing their own path into AR and specific managers avoiding
Larrea 15

conflict in the organisation. The process of constructing agreements over this con-
flict can be the way to achieve the constructive tension between different research
approaches that is interpreted in this paper as a desirable result of AR in the
transformation of universities.

Acknowledgment
The author(s) would also like to thank Dr. Kent Glenzer for leading the review process of
this article. Should there be any comments/reactions you wish to share, please bring them to
the interactive portion of our blog on the associated AR+| ActionResearchPlus website:
http://actionresearchplus.com

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

ORCID iD
Miren Larrea http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4724-0015

References
Adler, S. A. (2003). Dilemmas of action research. Action in Teacher Education, 25(1), 76–82.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1987). Membership roles in field research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Bradbury, H. (2010). What is good action research? Why the resurgent interest? Action
Research, 8(1), 93–109.
Bushe, G. R., & Shani, A. B. (1991). Parallel learning structures. Increasing innovation in
bureaucracies. Addison Wesley series on organization development. Boston, MA: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company.
Coghlan, D. (2014). Insider action research. In D. Coghlan & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of action research (pp. 443–445). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2010). Doing action research in your own organization (3rd ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. B. (2015). Developing the practice of leading change through
insider action research: A dynamic capability perspective. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The
SAGE handbook of action research (pp. 47–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Emery, F. E., & Thorsrud, E. (1969). Form and content in industrial democracy. London,
UK: Tavistock Publications.
Emery, F. E., & Thorsrud, E. (1976). Democracy at work: The report of the Norwegian
industrial democracy program. Leiden, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Social
Sciences Division.
16 Action Research 0(0)

Estensoro, M. (2015). How can Social Innovation be Facilitated? Experiences from an

Action Research Process in a Local Network. Systemic Practice and Action Research
28, 527–545.
Estensoro, M. (2012). Local Networks and Socially Innovative Territories. The Case of the
Basque Region and Goierri County. Bilbao: University of the Basque Country.
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London, UK: Penguin Books.
Freire, P. (2008a). Pedagogı´a de la Autonomı´a. Saberes necesarios para la práctica educativa.
Buenos Aires, Argentina: Siglo XXI.
Freire, P. (2008b). Pedagogı´a de la Esperanza. Un reencuentro con la pedagogı´a del oprimido.
Buenos Aires, Argentina: Siglo XXI.
Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (2016). Creating a new public university and reviving democracy.
Action research in higher education. New York, NY: Berghahn.
Gustavsen, B. (1992). Dialogue and development: Theory of communication, action research
and the restructuring of working life. Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding gover-
nance in the network society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Huges, J., Denley, P., & Whitehead, J. (1998). How do we make sense of the process of
legitimizing an educational action research thesis for the award of a PhD degree?
A contribution to educational theory. Educational Action Research, 6(3), 427–451.
Jackson, E. T. (2016). Community–university research partnerships. In D. Coghlan & M.
Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research (pp. 163–166). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Johnsen, H. C. G. (2001). Involvement at work: A study of communicative processes and
individual involvement in organizational development. Copenhagen, Denmark:
Handelshøjskolen i København.
Karlsen, J., & Larrea, M. (2014a). The contribution of Action Research to Policy Learning.
International Journal of Action Research, 10(2), 129–155.
Karlsen, J., & Larrea, M. (2014b). Territorial Developmement and Action Research:
Innovation through Dialgoue. Farnham Gower.
Karlsen, J., & Larrea, M. (2016). Collective knowing. In H. Johnsen, E. S. Hauge, M.
Magnussen, & R. Ennals (Eds.), Applied Social Science Research in a Regional
Knowledge System (pp. 75–89). London and New York: Routledge.
Karlsen, J., & Larrea, M. (2017). Moving context from the background to the forefront of
policy learning: reflections on a case in Gipuzkoa, Basque Country. Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy. doi:10.1177/0263774X16642442.
Klocker, N. (2012). Doing participatory action research and doing a PhD: Words of encour-
agement for prospective students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 36,
149–163.
Levin, M., & Greenwood, D. (1998). Pragmatic action research and the struggle to trans-
form universities into learning communities. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.),
Handbook of action research, participative inquiry and practice (pp. 103–113). London,
UK: SAGE.
Maguire, P. (2005). Foreword. In K. Herr & G. L. Anderson, The action research disserta-
tion: A guide for students and faculty (pp. xi–xiv). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Larrea 17

Marshall, J. (2008). Finding form in writing for action research. In P. Reason & H.
Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (2nd ed., pp. 682–94). London, UK:
SAGE.
Marshall, J. (2016). First person action research: Living life as inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Pålshaugen, Ø. (2004). How to do things with words? Towards a linguistic turn in action
research. Concepts and Transformation. International Journal of Action Research and
Organizational Renewal, 9, 181–203.
Pålshaugen, Ø. (2013). Meta-theory and practice: A plea for pluralism in innovation studies.
In H. C. G. Johnsen & P. Pålshaugen (Eds.), Hva er innovasjon? Perspektiver i norsk
innovasjonsforskning (pp. 286–306). Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Seifer, S. (2016). Community–campus partnerships for health. In D. Coghlan and M.
Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research (pp. 159–163). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Stevenson, R. B. (1991). Action research as professional development: A US case study of
inquiry-oriented in service education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 17(3), 277–292.
Toulmin, S., & Gustavsen, B. (1996). Beyond theory: Changing organizations through par-
ticipation. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wittmayer, J., & Sch€apke, N. (2014). Action, research and participation: roles of researchers
in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 483–496.

Author Biography
Miren Larrea is a Senior Researcher at Orkestra-Basque Institute of
Competitiveness and lecturer at the University of Deusto (Spain), University of
Agder (Norway) and National Technological University (Argentina). She leads
Zubigintza, an action reseach lab in Orkestra where she conducts long term
action research projects with various regional governments to develop collabora-
tive policy processes. She has published in international journals and books on
topics such as action research for territorial development, governance and policy-
learning.