10.2190/WR.13.2.d 0611653040X10M3H 4 Could Action Research Provide the Key to TrueWorkplace Collaboration? 147 166 20081118 20081118 20081118 20081118 0611653040X10M3H.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=0611653040X10M3H 2 Linda Twiname University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Management practices that serve principles of "efficiency" and "effectiveness" in the capitalist understanding of such notions have generated work practices that purport to empower employees under the guise of employee participation programs. In the fieldwork reported here, action research was used as a vehicle to initiate collaborative workplace engagements for the benefit of an organization and its employees. Our results have implications for action researchers and for social construction theory. We found that collaborative behaviors, modeled through action research to all organization levels, have the potential to initiate change toward respectful pluralist engagements. Authentic participation requires a supportive environment in order for organizations and their employees to truly flourish. It became apparent that New Zealand employment law provided a framework within which to work collaboratively, but the will to do so was not fully evident. However, through action research, the participants began to construct their "common sense" (Berger & Luckmann, 1966: 37) of their shared workplace reality and goals.

Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. 2000. Doing critical management research. London: Sage.

Barker, J. 1993. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 408-437.

Barker, J. R. 1999. The discipline of teamwork: Participation and concertive control. London: Sage.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Press.

Bryceson, D., Manicom, L., & Kassam Y. 1982. The methodology of participatory research approach. In Y. Kassam & K. Mustafa (Eds.), Participatory research: An emerging alternative methodology in social science research: 67-82. New Delhi: Society of Participatory Research in Asia.

Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. 2003. Why action research? Action Research, 1(1): 9-28.

Cooke, B. 2006. The Cold War origin of action research as managerialist cooptation. Human Relations, 59: 665-693.

Cunningham, J. 2001. Researching organizational values and beliefs: The echo approach. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Deetz, S., Grim, A., & Lyon, A. 2003. Communicative praxis and collective decision making: From phenomenology to the politics of experience to dialogic constitutive practices. In E. Ramsey & D. J. Miller (Eds.), Experiences between philosophy and communication: Engaging the philosophical contributions of Calvin O. Schrag: 55-71. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Dickens, L., & Watkins, K. 1999. Action research: Rethinking Lewin. Management Learning, 30(2): 127-140.

Gastil, J. 1994. A definition and illustration of democratic leadership. Human Relations, 47: 953-975.

Habermas, J. 1971. Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hughes, J. 2004. The sky is falling … again. Employment Law Bulletin, 7 (October): 77-93.

Humphries, M. 1992. Working with our differences: A contribution from New Zealand. Journal of Management Education, 14 (Supp.): 28-42.

Humphries, M. 1998. For the common good? New Zealanders comply with quality standards. Organizational Science, 9: 738-749.

Humphries, M., & Dyer, S. 2001. Changing the nature and conditions of employment: Stimulating critical reflection. Journal of Management Education, 25: 325-340.

Humphries, M., & Dyer, S. 2005. Introducing critical theory in the management classroom: An exercise building on Jermier's "Life of Mike." Journal of Management Education, 29: 169-195.

Kemmis, S. 2001. Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jurgen Habermas. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice: 91-102. London: Sage.

Koster, F., & Sanders, K. 2006. Organisation citizens or reciprocal relationships? An empirical comparison. Personnel Review, 35: 519-537.

Marrow, A. J. 1969. The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York: Basic Books.

Marrow, A. J. (Ed.). 1972. The failure of success. New York: Amacom.

McShane, S., & Travaglione, T. 2005. Organisation behaviour on the Pacific Rim. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Reason, P. 1988. Human inquiry in action: Developments in new paradigm research, London: Sage.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. 2001. Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice: 1-14. London: Sage.

Skiffington, L. 2001. The making of the ER Act—A recipe for success. Employment Law Bulletin, 3 (April): 37-64.

Twiname, L., & Humphries, M. 2006. Out of the iron cage: Employee liberation through communicative action. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 4: 1740-1754.

Twiname, L., Humphries, M., & Kearins, K. 2006. Flexibility on whose terms? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19: 335-355.

White, A. M. 2004. Lewin's action research model as a tool for theory building: A case study from South Africa. Action Research, 2(2): 127-144.

Wilson, M. 2001. New Zealand's path forward. Employment Law Bulletin, 1 (January): 1-16.