Research in Organizational Change and Development
How Might We Learn about the Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD?
An Invitation to Interiority
David Coghlan,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document: David Coghlan, "How Might We Learn about the Philosophy of
ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD? An Invitation to Interiority" In Research in
Organizational Change and Development. Published online: 03 Jul 2017; 335-361.
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0897-301620170000025010
Downloaded on: 19 November 2017, At: 02:08 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 38 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"The Future of Research and Practice in Organizational Change and
Development", Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 25 pp. 1-32
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/S0897-301620170000025001">https://doi.org/10.1108/
S0897-301620170000025001</a>
(2017),"Taking Stock of 30 Years of Change Management: Is It Time for a Reboot?",
Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 25 pp. 33-79 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/S0897-301620170000025002">https://doi.org/10.1108/
S0897-301620170000025002</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
emerald-srm:425905 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please
use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.
The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books
and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products
and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner
of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the
LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
HOW MIGHT WE LEARN ABOUT
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ODC
RESEARCH FROM 24 VOLUMES OF
ROCD? AN INVITATION TO
INTERIORITY
David Coghlan
ABSTRACT
For 30 years the series, Research in Organizational Change and
Development (ROCD) has provided an extensive range of scholarly research
and philosophical reflections on the field of organization development and
change (ODC). On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the first volume,
this chapter poses the question as to how we might learn about the philosophy
of ODC research from the 24 published volumes. Taking the author’s explicit
pursuit of the question as a process of interiority, it invites readers to engage
with the question themselves and thereby enact interiority within ODC itself.
Keywords: Organization development and change; research philosophy;
interiority
INTRODUCTION
As I set about exploring how we might learn about the philosophy of organization development and change (ODC) research I’m adopting the stance of
Research in Organizational Change and Development, Volume 25, 335 361
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 0897-3016/doi:10.1108/S0897-301620170000025010
335
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
336
DAVID COGHLAN
“interiority,” that is, I am attending to the data of my consciousness through
subjecting to inquiry my own thinking in how I am considering what has been
published in Research in Organizational Change and Development (ROCD) since
1987. I am asking myself: what am I doing when I am investigating research in
organization development and change? My purpose is both to explore my own
understanding and learning about the philosophy of ODC research from my
reflections out of my perusal of the 24 volumes and to share that with the readers of Volume 25. I also want to be explicit about my way of engaging my question and thereby provide a method that other ODC readers, especially doctoral
students, may gain insight into how they might approach the dense world of
engaging with a philosophy of the social science of ODC. This is primarily a
chapter about a philosophy of social science and methodology and it does not
engage in reviewing the content of ODC in ROCD. That is the task for another
author on another occasion. In adopting this stance and framing a method I’m
developing what I myself have published in Volumes 18 and 21 (Coghlan, 2010,
2013). The chapter is structured as follows. First, I explore the subject of meaning and how differentiation of consciousness distinguishes between three realms
of meaning: practical, theory, and interiority. Second, I introduce interiority as
the process whereby we mediate between the realms of practical knowing and
the realm of theory. Third, I describe how I engaged in the process of interiority in selecting examples of these realms of meaning in the 24 volumes of
ROCD. Fourth, In the “Discussion” section, I explore how interiority is important for the field of ODC. I draw on the work of the philosopher-theologian,
Bernard Lonergan (1972, 1992, 1993) who has directed my thinking and work
in OD (Coghlan, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013; Coghlan & Shani, 2013).
MEANING
The core of human living in large measure is mediated through acts of meaning.
We express ourselves through language, art, symbols, rituals, how we live, and
what we do, to name some obvious ones. Meaning is not only what is experienced but is also what is questioned, understood, interpreted, and affirmed.
Organizations and communities are not simply groups of people hanging out
together. Rather, organizations and communities come about insofar as people
share common meanings: from common fields of experience, common understandings, common measures of judgment, and common consent. Organization
and community is only possible through a common ground of meaning which
find expression in the articulation of shared values and aims and in shared
actions. As adaptive coping systems, organizations engage in defining identity,
naming driving forces, assessing the external and internal environments, making choices, taking corporate action and evaluating corporate outcomes world
and these operations rest on how these activities are understood and enacted, in
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD
337
other words, through acts of meaning (Coghlan, Rashford, & Neiva de
Figueiredo, 2016). Organization development and change works through interpreting events and intentional acts that envisage ends, select means and works
collaboratively to achieve those ends. It works by understanding how these
ends are achieved, by critiquing these ends and by deciding whether we want to
achieve these ends or something different. Through such processes, we may
also transform ourselves, our ways of thinking, and our skills at researching
change and enacting OD interventions.
At the same time, we understand that meaning itself is insecure because we
can mix truth with error, fact with fiction, science with myth, and honesty with
deceit. Beyond the world we know about there is the future we create by intending, investigating possibilities, planning, weighing options, making contacts,
taking action, and learning. We are constantly engaging in acts of meaning in
our experiencing, our understanding, our judgments, our decisions, and our
actions.
REALMS OF MEANING AND DIFFERENTIATED
CONSCIOUSNESS
We learn about ourselves and our world in different ways. One way is through
the trial and error of everyday living, where we learn experientially. This is the
realm of practical knowing and is where most of our daily engagement occurs.
Practical knowing relates to the completion of everyday tasks and their meaning in relation to us. It seeks to help us deal with situations as they arise and to
discover immediate solutions that will work. In the realm of the practical, we
are interested in knowing, not for its own sake, but for developing more intelligent and successful ways of living. It focuses on the concrete and the particular.
If we don’t apply our intelligence when we are cooking a meal, then the meal
will be inedible. It has no use for technical language (though it might use it) or
formal mode of speech; it moves fluently between saying and meanings and
undertakes communication as a work of art, drawing on resources of language,
support of tone and volume, eloquence and facial expression, pauses, questions,
and omissions. It operates in everyday descriptive language through focusing
the mind on intentions and actions, rather than the intrinsic properties of
things. The content of that practical accumulation and store of knowledge is
not definitions or universally valid propositions but rather proverbs and rules
of advice. At its core, practical knowing describes things as they relate to us; it
is a descriptive, subject-centered context of knowing, that is not interested in
universal solutions.
On occasions, particularly where a situation is beset by complex problems
which are difficult to resolve, we reach out from this practical realm to the
realm of systematic and ordered explanations that are provided by textbooks,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
338
DAVID COGHLAN
by teaching and by research. This is the realm of theory whose role is to serve
the practical. The critical difference between the two realms is that in the practical mode, we are the reference points. We relate things to ourselves; this room
feels cold. In the realm of theory, the reference point is how things relate to
each other; the temperature in this room is 17 degrees. Theoretical explanations
are incorporated into the books and papers of their respective disciplines and,
insofar as they successfully illuminate what is happening, ultimately filter down
to become part of the realm of practical know-how.
The realms of practical knowing and of theory provide different and disparate views of the world, such as in the above example as to whether the room at
17 degrees feels cold or not. These realms of meaning are reflected as levels of
consciousness. We know the well-trod example of a zoologist taking her small
son to the zoo where the child is in awe of the giraffe and its long neck while
the parent as a zoologist is aware of the multiple integrated and inter-related
biological systems that constitute the giraffe
an anatomical system, a nutritional system, a circulatory system, an immunology system, a reproductive system, and so on. In parallel while employees may rile at miscommunication and
managerial behavior in their organization which inhibits their contribution to
the operational improvement, the ODC scholar reflects on the embedded hidden cultural assumptions that are operative in the firm and that covertly direct
managerial behavior that might be the focus of ODC interventions. In these
two scenarios, both perspectives are real and true. The physicist and mathematician, Arthur Eddington, struggled to decide which was the real table. Was it
the one table at which he sat that had shape, color and could take weight or the
table of the physicist which is a vacuum of colourless wavicles so minute that
the table is mostly empty space? He decided that the table of the scientist was
the real table. Through differentiation of consciousness, we can affirm both to
be true but through different realms of knowing. It is through differentiated
consciousness of the realms of meaning that I am able to hold ODC as practice
and as science as both being true. The question then is, by what mechanism do
we recognize the realm of theory and the realm of practical knowing and be
able to move from one realm to another and thereby achieve authentic objective knowing. The third realm, interiority, emerges as the answer to this
question.
Interiority is the process whereby we attend to what is going on in ourselves
as we operate in the realm of practical knowing or the realm of theory. The
data we attend to are the cognitional processes within ourselves, that is, data of
consciousness. So, this is a personal process in which we heighten our awareness of ourselves as we undertake activities such as knowing and doing. We
have to “catch ourselves in the act” of knowing and bring it into our consciousness. Thus, we can discover that our knowing process operates at four levels:
the empirical level of our experiencing, the intelligent level of our understanding, the rational level of our reflection, marshalling evidence, and judging, and
the responsible level of our decision-making and acting.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD
339
Each of these three realms is governed by rules and norms appropriate to its
own realm. Each has its own criteria for affirming what is so: the criteria for
practical knowing is whether it works; the criteria for theory is whether it is
based on evidence; the criteria for interiority is whether it is based on internal
evidence. For example, the realm of theory is not interested in things and people as they relate to us but rather by prolonging the questioning process they
relate things to one another in a verifiable manner. It is knowing for the sake of
knowing and of knowing objects as explained. Accordingly, theoretically differentiated consciousness operates systematically, is governed by logic and uses
language in a technical and explanatory manner. Explanation has to be accurate, clear, and precise so the ambiguities of commonsense everyday language
are to be averted. Special methods are required to govern different types of
investigation.
On the individual level learning to differentiate is a process of growing up.
The child grows from a world of immediacy to a world of meaning. In history,
traditional societies operated within a practical realm where survival in a hostile
environment was primary. Distinctions between myth and reality were not
made; crops could fail because people thought that the gods were angry. As
these societies developed, they began to differentiate between different functions and develop specialized institutions: agriculture, technology, production
of goods, culture (drama, music, and art), religion, law and statecraft, military,
etc. The move to theory can be found in Greek culture with the emergence of
mathematics, logic, and philosophy, developed more rigorously in the Middle
Ages through the founding of universities and the science of astronomy. Then,
there is the emergence of modern philosophy and science in the seventeenth
century and thereafter. This path reflects developments in differentiated consciousness. The current limitations in science are that while scientific developments have been and are successful, they have also been used for destruction.
The realm of science cannot operate outside its primary task of explaining the
observable world. Accordingly, the realm of consciousness that engages with
how we question, understand, judge, make decisions, and take action in both
the realms of practical knowing and of science is necessary. The realm of interiority mediates between these two realms.
Fig. 1 captures my insight into the core relationships between science/theory,
practical knowing and interiority and presents an integrated framework by
which readers can understand how their minds engage with each. Science is
concerned with discovering/understanding what is or has been happening (the
practical knowing that is already operating); it draws on empirical evidence to
develop theory. Practical knowing is concerned with working out what to do. It
is concerned with implementation and the technologies that can be implemented. Interiority mediates critically between theory/science and practical knowing
through attention to the cognitive processes of the researcher. The question
then arises, how does the notion of differentiation of consciousness, and interiority, in particular, inform the philosophy of ODC research? To explore this
340
DAVID COGHLAN
Interiority
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Critically mediating between theory and
practical knowing.
Theory
Practical knowing
Concerned with
discovering/explaining what is or has
been happening.
Data related to each other
Concerned with implementation
and the technologies that can be
implemented.
Fig. 1.
Data related to us
Differentiated Consciousness.
question, I describe how I engaged in interiority in seeking to learn from what
has been presented across the 24 volumes of ROCD.
REVIEWING ROCD AS AN ACT OF INTERIORITY
What am I doing when I engage in inquiry and seek to come to know? To
answer this question, I need to become self-attentive, attentive to what is going
on when I turn to the material on ODC. At one level, what I see are simply
marks on a page and what I hear are sounds in the air. At another level, they
are the marks and sounds of someone (an author) seeking to communicate
something to me and I am asking what they mean by these marks and sounds.
I am seeking to make sense of them. As I ask questions about those marks and
sounds, I grasp some insights and reach some provisional answers to my questions to what the author is seeking to communicate. As further questions arise,
my understanding increases. Eventually, I reach a point where I have no more
relevant questions and then I can affirm that, with a certain level of probability,
my understanding is correct. Now this can happen almost instantaneously
where the reader/hearer is familiar with the topic or it can be a long drawn out
affair where the reader/hearer is engaging with something new or something
complex and difficult.
We come to knowledge by the repeated process of subjecting our experience
to questioning, arriving at theories which answer these questions and making
reasonably grounded judgments in terms of those theories. Thus, we can integrate the role of description (experience) with analytic and critical reflection
and with judgment and be enabled us to discuss experience, exploration, explanation, critical thinking, and verification as operations in the process of knowing. Each of us can be conscious of these operations and we can verify them
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD
341
experientially in any process of knowing
whether solving a Sudoku puzzle,
addressing a practical problem, engaging in scientific research in a laboratory
and in researching change.
It is what we do as social scientists. We use our experience, intelligence, and
reason in order to come to know the mixture of experience, understanding,
judgment, decisions, and actions in the organizations that we study. This is an
account of the invariant operations of human knowing. Of course we may
decide otherwise to ignore our experience, to refuse further questions, and to
avoid making affirmations. This account of human knowing also frames the
notion of objectivity as the fruit of authentic subjectivity, whereby what we
know to be other than ourselves is reached by experience, understanding, and
judgment. Working from the operations of human knowing provides a general
empirical method: of being attentive to experience at the empirical level of consciousness, being intelligent in understanding and the intellectual level of consciousness, being reasonable in judging at the rational level, and being
responsible in making decisions and taking action at the responsible level
(Table 1).
This inquiry into how we might learn about the philosophy of ODC research
from the 24 volumes of ROCD is empirical, not only because I am exploring
my own experience, questioning, understanding, and judgment but also because
readers can verify these processes themselves. They can experience within themselves the same questions about the research chapters. I invite readers, not only
to assess the external data (the chapters in the volumes) but also to identify and
question their own frames and insights. As they experience the data presented
here, they can raise questions and come to insight and test those insights
themselves.
Table 1. General Empirical Method.
Operations of
Human
Knowing
Levels of
Consciousness
Activity
General
Empirical
Method
Experience
Empirical
level
Attentiveness
(to data of sense and of consciousness)
Be attentive
Understanding
Intellectual
level
Intelligence
(envisaging possible explanations of that data)
Be intelligent
Judgment
Rational level
Reasonableness
(preferring as probable or certain the
explanations which provide the best account for
the data)
Be reasonable
Action
Responsible
level
Responsibility
(for action)
Be
responsible
342
DAVID COGHLAN
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
The Classification Process
Classifying research output is a complex process. Classification systems in the
natural sciences are more or less useful in sorting organizing samples for further
investigation, that is, classifications of birds or mushrooms. But in the field of
ODC, the organizations, the challenges, they face, the questions that lead to
research, the interventions and the classifications of research are constructs of
human minds. Consequently, seeking an answer to my question involves me
articulating my understanding and locating it in the scheme of meaning. The
field of ODC has been classified in terms of the issues under consideration and
the focus of intervention (i.e., Friedlander & Brown, 1974). It could, of course,
also be classified in terms of the contents of the chapters: types of organizations, forms of intervention, outcomes, and so on. But as I’ve already stated,
this is not the focus of this chapter. Many authors (e.g., Delanty & Strydom,
2003; Sherman & Torbert, 2000; Van de Ven, 2007) have categorized the philosophy of social science in terms of schools of philosophy, such as positivism,
post-positivism, interpretism, realism, and more general objectivist or subjectivist ways of knowing and holding the tension between explanation and understanding (Hollis, 2002). In another classification, Gibbons et al. (1994)
distinguished between Mode 1 and Mode 2 as forms of knowledge production
grounded in different assumptions and purposes.
In my initial browsing of Volumes 1 24 where I was seeking answers to my
question about the philosophy of ODC research, I classified the 202 chapters
under 4 headings: conceptual chapters (i.e., Bartunek & Louis, 1988; Pasmore,
2011; Porras & Robertson, 1987; Wasserman, 2015), quantitative studies (i.e.,
Church et al., 2012; Golembiewski & Boss, 1992; Holt, Armenakis, Harris, &
Feild, 2007), case studies (i.e., Lillrank et al., 1998; Shani & Stjernberg, 1995;
Stebbins, Valenzuela, & Coget, 2009), and action research studies (i.e., Adler &
Shani, 2003; Beer, 2011; Coghlan & Coughlan, 2005; Fredberg, Norrgren, &
Shani, 2011; Huzzard, Hellstrom, & Lifvergren, 2014). That worked as an initial classification but I was left with two questions. Is it that simple? So what? I
have long had a discomfort with the position that tends to categorize research
into a quantitative/qualitative bipolarization (Asberg, Hummerdal, & Dekker,
2011). I was dissatisfied with this outcome. My insight was that I had engaged
in a single-loop process and which had produced a familiar outcome, with
which I was dissatisfied. Accordingly, I had further questions to pursue, including how are these different types of studies conceptual reflections, quantitative studies, case studies, and action research studies might link together.
My second review was to classify the chapters in terms of three categories
named by Edgar Schein. In an address to the ODC division of the Academy of
Management in 1989, Schein (2010) posed the question as to whether OD is a science, a technology, or a philosophy. He pointed to Lewin’s work as the tap root
of OD and he grounded Lewin’s work as being rooted in the practical social science that Lewin practiced. He reflected that for Lewin, it was not enough to try
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD
343
to explain things; one also had to try to change them. This insight, in Schein’s
view, led to the development of action research and the powerful notion that
human systems could only be understood and changed if one involved the members of the system in the inquiry process itself. So the tradition of involving the
members of an organization in the change process which is the hallmark of OD
originated in a scientific premise that this is the way (a) to get better data and (b)
to effect change. Schein noted that he was opting to use the term “inquiry” rather
than “research” as action research undermines the basic assumptions of the philosophy of science as developed in social psychology in the 1940s, 1950s, and
1960s. He attested to the value of descriptive and qualitative scientific methods
derived from sociology, anthropology, and clinical work in therapy and consulting. He reflected that what “created OD was a combination of a new inquiry
approach based on a willingness to gather data in the field by non-traditional
methods, with the vivid concerns of a set of practitioners who wanted to improve
organizations” (2010, p. 93). He also noted that through the decades, OD had
become product and technology driven and OD practitioners had become very
skilled and successful in the market place with tools, such as group facilitation,
team building, as administrators of surveys, and so on. His conclusion was that
OD had lost its ability to see itself as a philosophy, a paradigm for thinking
about the complexities of change in human systems. He argued for OD to be
scientific, not in the “outmoded model of experimental physics but scientific in
the emphasis on careful observation and careful study of the effects of one’s
own actions on the human systems we deal with” (2010, p. 100).
This paper by Schein, one of the grandmasters of OD, has been very formative
for me over 25 years. It has enabled me to think through the tensions between
OD as practice and OD as scientific inquiry and it has provided an explanation
of how they have diverged and has helped me develop my own position as an
OD scholar practitioner. In reviewing and classifying the 202 chapters in terms
of science, technology, and philosophy, my observation was that over half of the
chapters fell under the category of science, none specifically under technology
(though demonstrating it in some action-oriented research accounts) and over
a third under philosophy. These categories are not clear cut by any means and
a case for overlaps could be made easily. Yet I was still not satisfied.
Adopting Schein’s three categories that his rich questioning of OD had
named, while valuable, seemed to be yet another single-loop classification exercise. As I reflected further, I had the insight that the selection of any classification system created by others, while useful, would not address my question
unless the respective authors of that classification themselves had been explicit
as to how they had come to that system through their own processes of questioning, receiving insights and verification so that I too could understand and
appropriate a system as meaningful. On further reflection, I had the insight that
Schein’s paper itself was an exercise in interiority. Schein did not reflect on OD
as a science, a technology, and a philosophy as a detached observer or as the
outcome of a traditional empirical research process, but rather as an engaged
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
344
DAVID COGHLAN
OD scholar practitioner in which he showed the train of his thought and experience so that his audience (the listeners on the day and the readers of the published paper) could engage with his observations about the field, his
interpretations and his prescriptions for the future of OD. Therefore, I could
adopt his three categories, not out of an impersonal single-loop classification
exercise, but as an invitation to develop my own understanding of how ODC
research has been conducted and presented in the 24 volumes of ROCD.
Accordingly, my exploration of what we might learn about the philosophy
of ODC research from these volumes works from Schein’s question as to
whether OD is a science, a technology, or philosophy. Rather than adopting
Schein’s science, technology, or philosophy as alternatives, I will show my
insight through the process of interiority that the philosophy of ODC may be
understood as comprising all three. I will explore how I understand how these
three categories are more than a simple classification system but that they
reflect three realms of differentiated consciousness which are part of the process
of going from where we are now to implementing something new.
DIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS IN ROCD
I now explore the question, what might we learn about the philosophy of ODC
research in terms of differentiation of consciousness. In this section, I review the
accounts of ODC as represented by the authors in ROCD as a science, a technology, and a philosophy. I am being selective in the chapters that I reference, referring to them primarily as examples rather than attempting to provide a
comprehensive review of all 202 chapters. Table 2 provides an outline summary of
my review. Remembering that this is an account of the inner workings of my
inquiry and how I come to judgment, I invite readers to attend to their own questions, insights, and judgments and, thereby, to engage in interiority in critically
questioning, understanding, and coming to judgment on the philosophy of ODC.
OD as a Science/Theory
How do the ODC authors generate theory in ROCD? From the range of chapters
across the 24 volumes that I understood to be offering a contribution to theory,
I judged that they could be studied in terms of three philosophical strains.
The first strain of science or theory generation that I have identified is that
where the ROCD authors work from a paradigm whereby science is a deductive
form of knowledge creation that draws on a statistical mode of inquiry to
achieve explanation. A sample of chapters that worked within this paradigm show
that each provided an account of the issue being researched, the relevant literature
into which the research would contribute and the design for data collection
345
Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD
Table 2.
Examples of Differentiated Consciousness in ROCD.
Nature of OD
Samples in ROCD
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
OD as science
• Deductive form of knowledge creation that
draws on a statistical mode of inquiry to
achieve explanation
Bernstein and Burke (1989), Quinn and Spreitzer
(1991), Golembiewski and Boss (1992), Church
and Burke (1995), Kilbourne, O’Leary-Kelly, and
Williams (1996), Davis, Maranville, and Obloj
(1997), Coyle-Shapiro (1999), Waneous and
Reichers (2003), Holt et al. (2007), Church et al.
(2012), Jansen and Hofman (2011), Szabla,
Dardick, and Devlin (2016), Bullock and Tubbs
(1987), Macy and Izumi (1993), Robertson,
Roberts, and Porras (1993), Hunter and Rodgers
(1995)
• Interpretist paradigm whereby understanding
is sought
Katz (1993), Shani and Stjernberg (1995), Lillirank
et al. (1998), Bradbury-Huang, Lichtenstein,
Carroll, and Senge (2010), Stebbins et al. (2009),
Fredberg and Pregmark (2016)
• Action research and collaborative
management research
Adler and Shani (2003), Coghlan and Coughlan
(2005), Beer (2011), Fredberg et al. (2011),
Huzzard et al. (2014), Schuiling (2014), Ollila and
Ystrom (2015)
OD as technology
• Technology of action research interventions
Beer (2011), Fredberg et al. (2011), Schuiling
(2014), Stebbins and Valenzuela (2015)
OD as philosophy
• Changing nature of OD
Porras and Robertson (1987), Brown and Covey
(1987), Cummings and Mohrman (1987), Mirvis
(1988, 1990), Jelinek and Litterer (1988), Weisbord
(1988), Bartunek and Louis (1988), Church and
Burke (1995), Vansina and Taileu (1996), Boyatzis
(1996), Gottlieb (1998), Armenakis, Harris, and
Feild (1999), Weidner and Gulach (1999), Church
(2003), Roth (2005), Ford and Ford (2009), LivneTarandach and Bartunek (2009), Pasmore (2011),
Shull, Church, and Burke (2013), Bushe and
Marshak (2014), Wasserman (2015)
• Philosophy of OD
Argyris (1987), Armenakis (1988), Reason (1988),
Torbert (1989), Denison and Spreitzer (1991),
Zammuto and Krakower (1991), Thachankary
(1992), Schwartz (2009), Coghlan (2010),
Friedman (2011), Coghlan and Rigg (2012),
Stensaker (2013), Avramchuk, Manning, and
Carpino (2013), Coghlan (2013), McIntosh,
Bartunek, Bhatt, and MacLean (2016)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
346
DAVID COGHLAN
and the analytic tools used (Bernstein & Burke, 1989; Church & Burke, 1995;
Church et al., 2012; Coyle-Shapiro, 1999; Davis et al., 1997; Golembiewski &
Boss, 1992; Holt et al., 2007; Jansen & Hofman, 2011; Kilbourne et al., 1996;
Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991; Szabla et al., 2016; Waneous & Reichers, 2003). Also in
that vein, those chapters that engaged in meta-analysis (Bullock & Tubbs, 1987;
Hunter & Rodgers, 1995; Macy & Izumi, 1993; Robertson et al., 1993) provided
clear details as to the design and implementation of the meta-analysis.
The second strain of science or theory generation that I have identified is that
where the ROCD authors work from an interpretist paradigm whereby understanding, rather than explanation is sought to establish historical and cultural
understanding of specific settings. A selection of case-based chapters (BradburyHuang et al., 2010; Fredberg & Pregmark, 2016; Katz, 1993; Lillrank et al., 1998;
Shani & Stjernberg, 1995; Stebbins et al., 2009) shows that while they provide a
description of how and from whom data were collected, especially through interview, but rarely is there an account of how the interviews were conducted (structured, semi-structured, etc.) or how the data were triangulated. The general
exception to this observation was those conducted through grounded theory
(Ferdig & Ludema, 2005; Ludema & DiVirgilio, 2007). Chapters that used a mixed
methods approach (e.g., Connell & Tenkasi, 2015; Manning & Delacerda, 1993;
Schroeder, Sorensen, & Yaeger, 2014; Whelan-Berry, Gordon, & Hinings, 2003)
provide descriptions of how they constructed and used the different methods.
The third strain of theory generation that I have identified is that where the
ROCD authors work through action research and collaborative management
research. Action research and collaborative management research are grounded
in philosophical assumptions that are radically different from the above two
forms of knowledge creation because they understand that the purpose of
research is to generate theory through deliberate engagement in changing
(Coghlan, 2011; Susman & Evered, 1978). Accordingly, engagement in deliberate action is at the heart of action research as it aims to contribute both to
more effective organizational strategy and action and to the generation of
actionable knowledge. The action-oriented chapters, while they provide rich
accounts of the interventions and inquiry that were conducted in the respective
organizational settings, they provide little details on methodology and methods
(Adler & Shani, 2003; Beer, 2011; Coghlan & Coughlan, 2005; Fredberg et al.,
2011; Huzzard et al., 2014; Ollila & Ystrom, 2015; Schuiling, 2014).
ODC as a Technology
The tools and techniques developed in ODC have enabled and supported OD
practitioners to work with organizations and help them to restructure, to
improve their teamwork, leadership skills, strategy making, and many other
practical mechanisms of change and changing. This is an essential component
of the field of ODC and, as Mirvis (1988, 1990), Church and Burke (1995), and
Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD
347
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Church (2003) explore, it constitutes the heart of the origins and development of
OD. It consolidates the identity of OD as a field of practice and a technology,
however open to interpretation as to what that identity might be. The focus of the
ROCD series is on research rather than on “how-to” tools. Nevertheless, accounts
of interventions in the mode of action-oriented research describe some practical
techniques of those interventions in their respective organizational settings (i.e.,
Beer, 2011; Fredberg et al., 2011; Schuiling, 2014; Stebbins & Valenzuela, 2015).
ODC as a Philosophy
I’ve taken “philosophical” as a broad term to include chapters where the
authors (a) reflected on the theory and practice of OD and (b) explicitly
explored philosophical questions and reframed OD philosophically.
I take examples of chapters where the authors provide reflective and considered
insights into the changing nature of ODC across the decades and the changing
understanding of the dynamics of change and changing (Armenakis et al., 1999;
Bartunek & Louis, 1988; Boyatzis, 1996; Brown & Covey, 1987; Bushe & Marshak,
2014; Church, 2003; Church & Burke, 1995; Cummings & Mohrman, 1987; Ford &
Ford, 2009; Gottlieb, 1998; Jelinek & Litterer, 1988; Livne-Tarandach & Bartunek,
2009; Mirvis, 1988, 1990; Nord, 1989; Pasmore, 2011; Porras & Robertson, 1987;
Purser & Pasmore, 1992; Roth, 2005; Shull et al., 2013; Vansina & Taileu, 1996;
Wasserman, 2015; Weidner & Gulach, 1999; Weisbord, 1988; Woodman, 1989;
Yuan & Woodman, 2007). The authors do not discuss ODC research explicitly.
A second category in what I’m including as “philosophical” is where ODC
scholars introduce a new concept in a reflective manner. In my view, the outstanding example of this form is the Cooperrider’s and Srivastva’s (1987) chapter that introduced appreciative inquiry to the field, if not the world, for the
first time. I suspect that this chapter is probably the most influential and most
cited chapter across the 24 volumes. It spawned several reflective chapters in
ROCD (Golembiewski, 1998; Yaeger, Sorensen, & Bengtsson, 2005). A further
example is the reflection on ODC’s engagement with the challenges of sustainability (Docherty, Kira, & Shani, 2009; Ludema, Laszlo, & Lynch, 2012).
There are several chapters where the authors explicitly address issues of research
philosophy and methodology (Argyris, 1987; Armenakis, 1988; Avramchuk et al.,
2013; Coghlan, 2010, 2013; Coghlan & Rigg, 2012; Denison & Spreitzer, 1991;
Friedman, 2011; McIntosh et al., 2016; Reason, 1988; Schwartz, 2009; Stensaker,
2013; Thachankary, 1992; Torbert, 1989; Zammuto & Krakower, 1991).
Interiority
In my view, there are five examples of interiority in ROCD. These are the chapters that provide personal reflections on authors’ experience of the theory and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
348
DAVID COGHLAN
practice of OD (Bunker, 2016; Burke, 2015; Hinings & Greenwood, 2016;
Mirvis, 1988, 1990; Schein, 2013). Mirvis (1988, 1990) in his exploration of the
development of OD provides a personal account of an ongoing consultation
with an organization. As the business and organizational change climate changed from the 1960s through the 1970s and the 1980s, the challenges to OD
changed in his work with the organization. Mirvis’ chapters provide not only a
reflection on the changing nature of OD in those decades (theory), but also a
reflection (interiority) on his thinking and practice of OD through those
changes (practical knowing). Schein (2013) reflects on the role coercive persuasion plays in education and learning. His reflection draws on the relevant literature (theory) and on his own experience as a social psychologist in OD
(practical knowing) in a manner that enables him to offer his learning to the
readership of Volume 22 (interiority). In a parallel vein, Burke (2015) reflects
on the choice points in his development as a scholar practitioner and Bunker
(2016) on gender and OD through her experience. Hinings and Greenwood
(2016) explore their experience of collaboration, not only in their direct shared
experience, but how their collaboration shaped the theory they generated. I
understand these five chapters to constitute exercises in interiority as they are
not merely practical life stories but they include explicit accounts of the authors
engaging the relevant theory of their own disciplines to demonstrate their learning in their respective practice.
There is evidence of an invitation to interiority in the prefaces to each volume written by the editors of the series. In the preface to the first volume, Dick
Woodman and Bill Pasmore (1987, p. xi) refer to “challenging accepted paradigms.” In other prefaces, they introduce the contents of volumes as “raising
questions about identity, methods of inquiry and modes of action” and of
chapters being “provocative and timely” and creating “energy and vitality in
research and practice.” The later editors, Rami Shani and Debra Noumair, are
more explicit in inviting interiority. They write in the first person plural and
invite readers to “consider our thought and practice.” In Volume 22, they write,
“we are continually making progress in our understanding of change, development, organization development and change. We are continually asking questions to find ways to make a difference” (2014, p. xiii). These invitations to
catch what we might find “provocative” and to attend to the questions we are
asking are explicit invitations to attend to the data of consciousness as we
engage with what we are reading in the volumes (data of sense).
DISCUSSION
I am pursuing the question as to how we might be learning about the philosophy of ODC research from the authors in the 24 volumes of ROCD. While the
above section, classifying a selection of the 202 chapters in terms of ODC as a
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD
349
science, a technology, and as a philosophy, may be understood to be a rather
simplistic, single-loop outcome, I am adopting the position of interiority.
Interiority is the realm of meaning that enables me to engage explicitly in
how I come to affirm what I am learning as an answer to the question in an
empirical manner so that readers of Volume 25 may do likewise. In this
“Discussion” section, I reflect on my use of Schein’s triple classification of OD
as a science, a technology, and a philosophy in a broader philosophical context
of understanding meaning in exploring research philosophy in the field of
ODC. My understanding of what Schein (2010) was at in his paper is that,
while not using these terms, he was reflecting on the different meanings that
exist within the field of OD and that was doing so within the realm of
interiority.
Practical Knowing
One of the limitations of the emergence and development of modernist science
was the privilege given to scientific knowing and the exclusion or degradation
of practical knowing in the academy (Toulmin, 1990). In an effort to articulate
a philosophy of practical knowing so as to contribute to retrieving it from the
obscurity into which it has been pushed by the academy, Coghlan (2016)
framed a philosophy of practical knowing as characterized by (a) being focused
on the everyday concerns of human living, (b) by being socially derived and
constructed, (c) requiring attentiveness to the uniqueness in each situation, and
(d) being driven by values and being fundamentally ethical.
In the mode of differentiated consciousness, I am exploring action research/
collaborative management research in ODC in terms of a philosophy of practical knowing. This is controversial and I invite readers to engage with the question as to whether action research may be classified under practical knowing or
as a form of science/theory, which as we’ve seen typically excluded practical
action as constitutive of research. It may not be an either-or as we are understanding that there are different paradigms of what constitutes science in ODC.
The traditional framing of practical knowing and action as being outside of scientific paradigms in the academy has often been challenged (Reason, 1988;
Shani & Coghlan, 2014; Susman & Evered, 1978) and has been framed as a science of action (Argyris, 1987). So orientation of the authors of the action
research chapters listed earlier under the heading of science/theory (Adler &
Shani, 2003; Beer, 2011; Coghlan & Coughlan, 2005; Fredberg et al., 2011;
Huzzard et al., 2014; Ollila & Ystrom, 2015; Schuiling, 2014) may also be classified under practical knowing, not as technique in the sense of practitioner
tools, but as instances of research that aimed to contribute both to more effective organizational strategy and action and to the generation of actionable
knowledge.
350
DAVID COGHLAN
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Science/Theory
The realm of science/theory is a specialization of human knowledge that aims
to understand things in an explanatory way, how things relate to one another,
irrespective of the observers or their interests. Chalmers (1999) commented that
there is no general account of science or scientific method that applied to all
sciences. There is a key heuristic difference between the natural and the human
and social sciences, a difference between explaining facts and understanding
meaning and values.
We can see across the 24 volumes that ODC has an eclectic approach to theory development from a more traditional approach built on statistical methods (e.g., Golembiewski & Boss, 1992), to being challenged by interpretist
thinking (Reason, 1988) with a focus on language (Thachankary, 1992) to
knowledge generated through action (Coghlan & Coughlan, 2005). Some of the
philosophical reflections on the nature of ODC may also be classified as theory
as they develop understanding of the field of ODC, that is, the nature of change
and changing (Bartunek & Louis, 1988; Pasmore, 2011; Porras & Robertson,
1987), and the practice of OD (Church, 2003; Church & Burke, 1995; Shull
et al., 2013; Weidner & Kulick, 1999).
INTERIORITY FOR ODC
The goal of interiority is to turn from the outer world of practical knowing and
theory with the ability to recognize their competence and to meet the demands
of both without confusing them. Interiority involves shifting from what we
know to how we know, a process of intellectual self-awareness. Interiority analysis involves using our knowledge of how the mind works to critique an intellectual search for truth in any area.
I understand Argyris’ work on action science to provide a clear example of
the practice of interiority within ODC. Argyris (1987), while not using the
term, grounds the notion of action science in interiority. At the heart of action
science is an inquiry into theories-in-use that is, the tacit theories of action that
are contrasted with espoused theories and the assumptions that actually guide
behavior. In action science, OD practitioners, the focus of Argyris’ chapter in
Volume 1, are challenged to examine their reasoning processes so as to learn
how they are prone to act from privately held untested inferences and attributions and thereby are ineffective in their OD work. Uncovering theory-in-use is
an activity that is not learned by reading about it but by engaging in attending
to reasoning processes, a process of interiority.
Many elements in contemporary philosophy point toward interiority,
through an emphasis on the subject. Modern philosophy, under the influence of
positivism, avoided the issue of the subject in his/her acts of consciousness and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD
351
so the subject became neglected. For instance, positivist science which focuses
on externalized data of sense cannot consider how the researcher’s cognitional
process enables a revision of a work in progress, for instance, how a researcher
makes a judgment as to whether or not he/she has sufficient data. In such an
instance, the researcher turns inward and examines whether all the relevant
questions have been asked, whether there is sufficient evidence for making affirmations about what is happening and then makes a judgment. In other words,
there is a focus on data of consciousness. Interpretist science focuses on meaning and how meaning is conducted through language and culture and researchers in this mode attend to how meaning is constructed and carried in groups
and organizations. In this mode, researchers also turn inward and examine the
evidence for forming a judgment. The point is that there is a general empirical
method (be attentive to experience; be intelligent in understanding; be reasonable in judging, and be responsible in taking action) which can be applied to the
data of consciousness, rather as the specialized empirical method of the natural
sciences can be applied to the data of sense. Sensible data, such as the content
of acts of seeing and hearing, do not occur in a cognitional vacuum, but in the
context of the researcher’s interests and preoccupations. Hence, the case being
made in this chapter for an understanding the role of interiority explicitly.
Interiority is a theory about theories, a shift to a new perspective. It is going
beyond practical knowing and theory, not by negating them or leaving them
behind, but by appreciating them and recognizing their limitations. Questions
of science can be settled by appealing to observable data. However, in the
world of interiority, data are not sensible or observable, but belong to the private world of intentional consciousness. Interiority involves the self-appropriation of oneself as a knower and doer through critical attention to the workings
of the mind, thereby being able to distinguish between practical knowing and
theory, recognizing the value of both, and meeting the demands of both without confusing them. Eddington could not hold both the physicist’s table whose
theory is that it is largely of empty space and the practical table at which he sat
and on which he rested his books. In summary, we have to enter into interiority
in order to understand why and how there is a difference how we know in the
realms of practical knowing and of theory.
HOW THEN MIGHT WE BE LEARNING ABOUT ODC
RESEARCH?
I am grounding this exploration of how we might be learning about ODC research
from the 24 volumes of ROCD through identifying the 3 realms of meaning (practical, theory, and interiority) across the contributions. Schein (2010) posed the
question as to whether OD is a science, a technology, or a philosophy. In exploring
the answer to the question, how might we be learning about the philosophy of
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
352
DAVID COGHLAN
ODC in the 24 volumes of ROCD, I have sought to engage in an exercise of interiority. By interiority, I mean that I am not simply classifying the chapters across
the volumes as an externalized theory activity but am engaging my own questioning, insights, and judgments explicitly in my quest to answer the question. While I
am drawing on interiority as a mode of classification, writing this chapter is itself
an exercise in interiority and I am inviting readers to also do the same. The invitation to interiority is also an invitation to double-loop learning (Argyris, 1987) in
that I invite readers not merely to engage in a single-loop process of accepting my
(or any other) classifications of the range of chapters or not but to question their
assumptions and frames of how the authors have approached their research papers
and how their approaches may be classified and to verify their own insights as to
how we might be learning about ODC research from ROCD.
IMPLICATIONS FOR AN ODC PHILOSOPHY
OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
What are the implications for ODC research beyond what might be seen as my idiosyncratic approach in this chapter? Does interiority matter? How? I propose that
being explicitly grounded in the processes of human knowing provides insights
into ODC’s philosophy of social science. Every quest for the intelligible begins
with questions from experience. The human mind is always moving from what is
already know to the next unknown. It is also likely to be distracted with disjointed
knowledge and flawed logic (Kahneman, 2011). The mind always seeks to integrate the disparate, to make meaning into a sense of the whole.
Fig. 2 adapts Fig. 1 more specifically to the field of ODC. ODC theory is
derived through different philosophical grounds and approaches: deductive
explanation, interpretist understanding, and action-oriented actionable knowledge. ODC operates as a practice intervening in systems and enabling them
to change. Interiority is the mental process that holds both and that mediates
between what is typically polarized. ODC research needs to be empirical, theoretical, evaluative, critical, and practical. As I’ve concluded from the review of
the 24 chapters in ROCD, ODC research is eclectic and engages the different
forms of theory generation in organizational experiences and their interpretation as carriers of meaning. ODC is normative as well as interpretive. Again
linking back to the pattern of human cognition, once we understand and interpret some organizational phenomenon we tend to evaluate it. The process of
evaluation, whereby we make value judgments as to what is good or otherwise,
is grounded in the operations of experience, understanding, and judgment. Our
examination of making value judgments is a process of interiority.
Meynell (1999) argues that being attentive to experience, to questioning, to
insights, to appraising evidence, and to making judgments forms the “new enlightenment,” a synthesis of modern thesis and postmodern antithesis. Such synthesis
353
Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD
Interiority
Critically mediating between ODC as
theory and ODC as practice
ODC Theory
ODC Practice
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Derived from
Intervening in systems and
enabling them to change
Deductive explanation
Interpretist understanding
Action-oriented actionable knowledge
Fig. 2. Differentiated Consciousness in ODC.
is expressed by interiority where attention to our mental acts (data of consciousness) is afforded equal attention to data of sense. Interiority is characterized by
awareness of the actual processes of human knowing and by reflection on the
operations of knowing. It calls for a self-knowledge not just of our feelings,
dreams, motivations but also of how we see, imagine, think, question, judge,
decide, and act. This is not just another theory about human knowing but it is
judging all theories about human knowing in the light of data of consciousness.
It is this light that interiority matters for the development of the field of ODC
and its research. The field of OD as science and as practice has been polarized, as
is the split between theory and practice. Interiority acts as the bridge between theory and practice, between theoretical modes of knowing and practical modes of
knowing as differentiated consciousness for different realms of meaning. By focusing on the operations of the mind, of what we do when we come to know, we can,
in the field of ODC, challenge the polarizations that beset the field and provide a
learning mechanism for doctoral students and future ODC researchers to draw on
both data of consciousness and data of sense. Interiority is important for doctoral
students as it enables them to adopt self-reflective skills, not only to distinguish
and work with different philosophies of science and methodologies and the world
of OD practice but also to learn how their minds work in judging between them.
Paralleling the emphasis on the self-skills of the OD practitioner interiority emphasizes the self-skills of the OD researcher.
CONCLUSIONS
We can see from the chapters in ROCD that the field of ODC research
approaches is eclectic in what ODC scholars and practitioners do. Some are
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
354
DAVID COGHLAN
doing science sometimes, some are developing techniques sometimes, and some
are philosophizing about it all sometimes. Almost all do a bit of everything.
Knowing where one positions oneself at any point in practice is not by application of an external checklist, but by deliberate attention to one’s own performance. I am thereby challenging the alternative framing in Schein’s paper and
am judging that ODC is a science, a technology, and a philosophy. ODC scholars can engage with the different philosophical paradigms and continue to
inform our understanding of organizational change and assist organizations in
their changing.
In this chapter, the focus has been on interiority because interiority is empirical
and critical by taking the whole of human consciousness into account data of
sense and data of consciousness. Interiority is the link between the evidence of the
24 volumes and how we think about and judge them. I have adopted an interiority
approach by being explicit about my experience of browsing the 202 chapters
across the 24 volumes of ROCD, my questions as to what I might be learning
about ODC research, my insights as to how the chapters may be classified and
thereby present an overview of ODC research. I have attempted to be attentive to
the data, intelligent in my understanding, reasonable in my judgments, and
responsible for what I write. I am showing that to understand the philosophy of
ODC, as presented across the 24 volumes of ROCD, it is necessary to go beyond
the limitations of science
statistical, interpretist, or action-oriented
and of
practical technology to interiority which is an empirical and critical realm of
inquiry. Interiority can explain and use both realms of meaning in advancing the
contribution that ODC can make to our world and its institutions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I acknowledge my debt to Sean McNelis and Patrick Riordan for their expert help
in clarifying the philosophical foundations of the chapter, to Ed Schein for his
challenge on the nature of OD, and to the action research writing group of which I
am a member: Vivienne Brady, Ann Donohue, and Geralyn Hynes for their work
and support in reading and critiquing an earlier draft. Finally, I am indebted to
the series editors, Rami Shani and Debra Noumair and the anonymous reviewer
for challenging me to deepen and clarify what I am attempting to communicate.
REFERENCES
Adler, N., & Shani (Rami), A. B. (2003). In search of an alternative framework for the creation of
actionable knowledge: Table-tennis research at Ericsson. In R. W. Woodman & W. A.
Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 13, pp. 43 80).
Oxford: Elsevier/JAI.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD
355
Argyris, C. (1987). Reasoning, action strategies, and defensive routines: The case of OD practitioners. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (Vol. 1, pp. 89 128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Armenakis, A. A. (1988). A review of research on the change typology. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W.
Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 2, pp. 163 194).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. (1999). Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing change interventions. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in
organizational change and development (Vol. 12, pp. 97 128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Asberg, R., Hummerdal, D., & Dekker, S. (2011). There are no qualitative methods Nor quantitative for that matter: The misleading rhetoric of the qualitative quantitative argument.
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 12(5), 408 415.
Avramchuk, A. S., Manning, M. R., & Carpino, R. A. (2013). Compassion for a change: A review
of research and theory. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, W. A. Pasmore, R. W. Woodman, & D. A.
Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 21, pp. 201 232).
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bartunek, J. M., & Louis, M. R. (1988). The interplay of organization development and organizational transformation. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 2, pp. 97 135). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Beer, M. (2011). Developing an effective organization: Intervention method, empirical evidence and theory. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, R. W. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 19, pp. 1 54) Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bernstein, W. M., & Burke, W. W. (1989). Modeling organizational meaning systems. In R. W.
Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol.
3, pp. 117 160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1996). Consequences and rejuvenation of competency-based human resource and
organization development. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 10, pp. 101 122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bradbury-Huang, H., Lichtenstein, B., Carroll, J. S., & Senge, P. M. (2010). Relational space and
learning experiments: The heart of sustainability collaborations. In W. A. Pasmore, A. B.
(Rami) Shani, & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development
(Vol. 18, pp. 109 148). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Brown, L. D., & Covey, J. G. (1987). Development organizations and organization development:
Toward an expanded paradigm for organization development. In R. W. Woodman & W. A.
Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp. 59 88).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bullock, R. J., & Tubbs, M. E. (1987). The case meta-analysis method. In R. W. Woodman & W. A.
Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp. 171 228).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bunker, B. B. (2016). Reflections on gender and organization development consultation. In D. A.
Noumair & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development
(Vol. 24, pp. 19 46). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Burke, W. W. (2015). Choice points: The making of a scholar practitioner. In A. B. Shani & D. A.
Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 23, pp. 1 38).
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2014). The dialogic mindset in organization development. In A. B.
(Rami) Shani & D. A. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development
(Vol. 22, pp. 55 98). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University
Press.
Church, A. H. (2003). The professionalization of organization development: The next step in an
evolving field. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational
change and development (Vol. 13, pp. 1 42). Oxford: Elsevier/JAI.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
356
DAVID COGHLAN
Church, A. H., & Burke, W. W. (1995). Practitioner attitudes about the field of organization development. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (Vol. 8, pp. 1 46). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Church, A. H., Golay, L. M., Rotolo, C. T., Tuller, M. D., Shull, A. C., & Desrosiers, E. I. (2012).
Without effort there can be no change: Reexamining the impact of survey feedback and
action planning on employee attitudes. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, W. A. Pasmore, & R. W.
Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 20, pp. 223 264).
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Coghlan, D. (2008). Authenticity as first person practice: An exploration based on Bernard
Lonergan. Action Research, 6(3), 351 366.
Coghlan, D. (2009). Toward a philosophy of clinical inquiry/research. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 45(1), 106 121.
Coghlan, D. (2010). Seeking common ground in the diversity and diffusion of action and collaborative management research methodologies: The value of a general empirical method. In W.
Pasmore, A. B. (Rami) Shani, & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organization change and
development (Vol. 18, pp. 149 181). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Coghlan, D. (2011). Action research: Exploring perspective on a philosophy of practical knowing.
Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 53 87.
Coghlan, D. (2013). Messy iterative groping in the swampy lowlands: Challenges and methods for
insider scholar-practitioners. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, D. Noumair, W. A. Pasmore, & R.
Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 21, pp. 121 147).
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Coghlan, D. (2016). Retrieving the philosophy of practical knowing for action research.
International Journal of Action Research, 12(1), 84 107.
Coghlan, D., & Coughlan, P. (2005). Collaborative research across border and boundaries: Action
research insights from the CO-IMPROVE project. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore
(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 15, pp. 275 296). Oxford:
Elsevier/JAI.
Coghlan, D., Rashford, N. S., & Neiva de Figueiredo, J. (2016). Organizational strategy and change:
An interlevels dynamics approach (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Coghlan, D., & Rigg, C. (2012). Action learning as praxis in learning and changing. In A. B. (Rami)
Shani, W. A. Pasmore, & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (Vol. 20, pp. 59 90). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. B. (Rami). (2013). Organizational developmental research interventions:
Perspectives from action research and collaborative management research. In S. Leonard, R.
Lewis, A. Freedman, & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology
of leadership, change, and organizational development (pp. 443 460). Chichester: Wiley.
Connell, S. E. F., & Tenkasi, R. V. (2015). Operational practices and archetypes of design thinking.
In A. B. (Rami) Shani & D. A. Noumair (Eds.) Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 23, pp. 195 252). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In R. W.
Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol.
1, pp. 129 170). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M. (1999). TQM and organizational change: A longitudinal study of the impact of
a TQM intervention on work attitudes. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research
in organizational change and development (Vol. 12, pp. 129 170). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cummings, T. G., & Mohrman, S. A. (1987). Self designing organizations: Towards implementing
quality-of-work-life innovations. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in
organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp. 275 310). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Davis, A., Maranville, S. J., & Obloj, K. (1997). The paradoxical process of organizational transformation: Propositions and a case study. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 10, pp. 275 314). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD
357
Delanty, G., & Strydom, P. (2003). Philosophies of social science. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational development:
A competing values approach. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in
organizational change and development (Vol. 5, pp. 1 22). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Docherty, P., Kira, M., & Shani (Rami), A. B. (2009). Organizational development for social sustainability in work systems. In R. W. Woodman., W. A. Pasmore, & A. B. (Rami) Shani
(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 17, pp. 77 144). Bingley:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Ferdig, M., & Ludema, J. D. (2005). Transformative interactions: Qualities of conversation that heighten
the vitality of self-organizing change. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in
organizational change and development (Vol. 15, pp. 169 206). Oxford: Elsevier/JAI.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2009). Resistance to change: A re-examination and extension. In R. W.
Woodman., W. A. Pasmore, & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Research in organizational change
and development (Vol. 17, pp. 211 240). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Fredberg, T., Norrgren, F., & Shani (Rami), A. B. (2011). Developing and sustaining change:
Capability via learning mechanisms: A longitudinal perspective on transformation. In A. B.
(Rami) Shani, R. W. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change
and development (Vol. 19, pp. 117 162). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Fredberg, T., & Pregmark, J. (2016). Transformation in a tightly nested system: Employing fast
cycles of change. In D. A. Noumair & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Research in organizational
change and development (Vol. 24, pp. 185 220). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Friedlander, F., & Brown, L. D. (1974). Organization development. Annual Review of Psychology,
25, 313 341.
Friedman, V. I. (2011). Revisiting social space: Relational thinking about change. In A. B. (Rami)
Shani, R. W. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (Vol. 19, pp. 233 257). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new
production of knowledge. London: Sage.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1998). Appreciating appreciative inquiry: Diagnosis and perspectives on how
to do it better. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational
change and development (Vol. 11, pp. 1 46). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Golembiewski, R. T., & Boss, W. (1992). Phases of burnout in diagnosis and intervention:
Individual level of analysis in organization development and change. In W. A. Pasmore & R.
W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 6,
pp. 115 152). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gottlieb, J. Z. (1998). Understanding the role of organization development practitioners. In R. W.
Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol.
11, pp. 117 158). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hinings, B., & Greenwood, R. (2016). Working together revisited. In D. A. Noumair & A. B.
(Rami) Shani (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 24, pp. 1 18).
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Hollis, M. (2002). The philosophy of social science. Rev and updated ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. (2007). Toward a comprehensive definition of readiness for change: A review of research and instrumentation. In W. A. Pasmore &
R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 16,
pp. 289 336). Oxford: Elsevier/JAI.
Hunter, J. E., & Rodgers, R. (1995). Flawed theories about study flaws. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W.
Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 8, pp. 297 336).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Huzzard, T., Hellstrom, A., & Lifvergren, S. (2014). System-wide change in cancer care: Exploring
sensemaking, sensegiving and consent. In A. B. (Rami) Shani & D. A. Noumair (Eds.),
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
358
DAVID COGHLAN
Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 22, pp. 191 218). Bingley: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Jansen, K., & Hofman, D. A. (2011). Mapping momentum fluctuations during organizational
change: A multistudy validation. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, R. W. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore
(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 19, pp. 163 190). Bingley:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Jelinek, M., & Litterer, J. A. (1988). Why OD must become strategic. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W.
Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 2, pp. 135 162).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, NY: Penguin.
Katz, R. (1993). Managing technological leaps: A study of DEC’s alpha design team. In R. W.
Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol.
7, pp. 217 234). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kilbourne, L. M., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., & Williams, S. D. (1996). Employee perceptions of fairness
when human resource systems change: The case of employee layoffs. In R. W. Woodman &
W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 9,
pp. 25 48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Lillrank, P., Shani (Rami), A. B., Kolodny, H., Stymne, B., Figuera, J. R., & Liu, M. (1998).
Learning from the success of continuous improvement change programs: An international
comparative study. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational
change and development (Vol. 11, pp. 47 72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Livne-Tarandach, & Bartunek, J. M. (2009). A new horizon for organizational change and development scholarship: Connecting planned and emergent change. In R. W. Woodman, W. A.
Pasmore, & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development
(Vol. 17, pp. 1 36). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Lonergan, B. J. (1972). Method in theology. London: Darton, Longman & Todd.
Lonergan, B. J. (1992). The collected works of Bernard Lonergan, Vol. 3. Insight: An essay in human
understanding., F. Crowe & R. Doran (Eds.); Toronto: University of Toronto Press (original
publication 1957).
Lonergan, B. J. (1993). Dimension of meaning. In B.J. Lonergan, The collected works of Bernard
Lonergan, Vol. 4. Collection. F.E. Crowe & R. Doran (Eds.) (pp. 232–245). Toronto:
Toronto University Press.
Ludema, J. D., & DiVirgilio, M. E. (2007). The role of energy-in-conversation in leading organizational change. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational
change and development (Vol. 16, pp. 1 42). Oxford: Elsevier/JAI.
Ludema, J. D., Laszlo, C., & Lynch, K. D. (2012). Embedding sustainability: How the field of organization development and change can help companies harness the next big competitive advantage.
In A. B. (Rami) Shani, W. A. Pasmore, & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational
change and development (Vol. 20, pp. 265 300). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Macy, B. A., & Izumi, H. (1993). Organizational change, design and work innovation: A meta-analysis of 131 north American field studies 1961-1991. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore
(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 7, pp. 235 314). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Manning, M. R., & DelaCerda, J. (1993). Building organizational change in an emerging economy:
Whole systems change using large group interventions in Mexico. In W. A. Pasmore &
R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 14,
pp. 51 98). Oxford: Elsevier/JAI.
McIntosh, R., Bartunek, J. M., Bhatt, M., & MacLean, D. (2016). I never promised you a rose garden: When research questions ought to change. In D. A. Noumair & A. B. (Rami) Shani
(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 24, pp. 47 82). Bingley:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Meynell, H. A. (1999). Postmodernism and the new enlightenment. Washington, DC: Catholic
University Press of America.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD
359
Mirvis, P. H. (1988). Organization development: Part I
An evolutionary perspective. In W. A.
Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development
(Vol. 2, pp. 1 58). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mirvis, P. H. (1990). Organization development: Part II
A revolutionary perspective. In W. A.
Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.) Research in organizational change and development (Vol.
4, pp. 1 66). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Nord, W. R. (1989). OD’s unfulfilled visions: Some lessons from economics. In R. W. Woodman &
W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 3,
pp. 39 60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ollila, S., & Ystrom, A. (2015). ‘Authoring’ open innovation: The managerial practices of an open
innovation director. In A. B. (Rami) Shani & D. A. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 23, pp. 253 291). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Pasmore, W. A. (2011). Tipping the balance: Overcoming persistent problems in organizational
change. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, R. W. Woodman &. W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 19, pp. 259 292). Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1987). Organization development theory: A typology and evaluation. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (Vol. 1, pp. 1 58). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Purser, R. E., & Pasmore, W. A. (1992). Organizing for learning. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W.
Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 6, pp. 37 114).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. In R. W.
Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol.
5, pp. 115 142). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Reason, P. (1988). Experience, action, and metaphor as dimensions of post-positivist inquiry. In
W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development
(Vol. 2, pp. 195 234). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Robertson, P. J., Roberts, D. R., & Porras, J. I. (1993). An evaluation of a model of planned organizational change: Evidence from a meta-analysis. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore
(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Roth, G. (2005). Creating new knowledge boundaries by crossing theory and practice boundaries. In
R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development
(Vol. 15, pp. 135 168). Oxford: Elsevier/JAI.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organization development: Science, technology or philosophy?. In D. Coghlan
& A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Fundamentals of organization development (Vol. 1, pp. 91 100).
London: Sage. [Original publication MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper,
3065-89-BPS, 1989].
Schein, E. H. (2013). The role of coercive persuasion in education and learning: Subjugation or animation?. In A. B. (Rami) Shani & D. A. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change
and development (Vol. 22, pp. 1 23). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Schroeder, K. A., Sorensen, P. F., & Yaeger, T. F. (2014). Accelerating global hybrid team effectiveness. In A. B. (Rami) Shani & D. A. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (Vol. 22, pp. 335 364). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Schuiling, G. (2014). The role of action research in changing leadership dynamics and agile-critical
interfaces. In A. B. (Rami) Shani & D. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organization change and
development (Vol. 22, pp. 219–298). Bingley: Emerald Group Publications.
Schwartz, G. M. (2009). Elephant on a treadmill: An evaluation of thematic narrowness in organizational change research. In R. W. Woodman., W. A. Pasmore, & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 17, pp. 301 348). Bingley: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
360
DAVID COGHLAN
Shani (Rami), A. B., & Coghlan, D. (2014). Collaborate with practitioners: An alternative perspective. A rejoinder to Kieser and Leiner. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23, 433 437.
Shani (Rami), A. B., & Stjernberg, T. (1995). The integration of change in organizations: Alternative
learning and transformation mechanisms. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 8, pp. 77 122). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Sherman, F., & Torbert, W. R. (2000). Transforming social inquiry, transforming social practice.
Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Shull, A. C., Church, A. H., & Burke, W. W. (2013). Attitudes about the field of organization development 20 years later: The more things change, the more they remain the same. In A. B.
(Rami) Shani, W. A. Pasmore, R. W. Woodman, & D. A. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 21, pp. 1 28). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Stebbins, M. W., & Valenzuela, J. L. (2015). Evolution of a parallel learning mechanism: Thirty-five
years with the Kaiser Permanente communications forum. In A. B. (Rami) Shani & D. A.
Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 23, pp. 39 90).
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Stebbins, M. W., Valenzuela, J. L., & Coget, J.-F. (2009). Long-term insider action research: Three
decades of work at Kaiser Permanente. In R. W. Woodman., W. A. Pasmore, & A. B.
(Rami) Shani (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 17, pp. 37 76).
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Stensaker, I. (2013). Methods for tracking and trailing change. In A. B. (Rami) Shani, W. A.
Pasmore, R. W. Woodman, & D. A. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (Vol. 21, pp. 149 174). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582 601.
Szabla, D., Dardick, W., & Devlin, J. A. (2016). The perception of change strategy scale: Validating
the measure. In D. A. Noumair & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Research in organizational
change and development (Vol. 24, pp. 83 112). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Thachankary, T. (1992). Organizations as “texts”: Hermeneutics as a model for understanding organizational change. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational
change and development (Vol. 6, pp. 197 234). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Torbert, W. R. (1989). Leading organizational transformation. In R. W. Woodman & W. A.
Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 3, pp. 83 116).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Vansina, L. S., & Taileu, T. (1996). Business process reengineering or social-technical systems design
in new clothes?. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational
change and development (Vol. 10, pp. 81 100). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Waneous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E. (2003). A quasi-experimental study of an action research project:
The effect of project visibility. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in
organizational change and development (Vol. 13, pp. 169 194). Oxford: Elsevier/JAI.
Wasserman, I. C. (2015). Dialogic OD diversity and inclusion: Aligning mindsets, values and practices. In A. B. (Rami) Shani & D. A. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (Vol. 23, pp. 329 356). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Weidner, C. K., & Kulick, O. A. (1999). The professionalization of organization development: A status report and look to the future. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in
organizational change and development (Vol. 12, pp. 319 472). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Weisbord, M. R. (1988). Notes on a new practice theory of OD: Notes on snapshooting and moviemaking. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (Vol. 2, pp. 59 96). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 02:08 19 November 2017 (PT)
Philosophy of ODC Research from 24 Volumes of ROCD
361
Whelan-Berry, K. S., Gordon, J. R., & Hinings, C. R. (2003). The relative effect of change drivers in
large-scale organizational change: An empirical study. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman
(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 14, pp. 99 146). Oxford:
Elsevier/JAI.
Woodman, R. W. (1989). Evaluation research on organizational change: Arguments for a ‘combined
paradigm’ approach. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 3, pp. 161 180). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Yaeger, T. F., Sorensen, P. H., & Bengtsson, U. (2005). Assessment of the state of appreciative
inquiry: Past, present and future. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in
organizational change and development (Vol. 15, pp. 297 319). Oxford: Elsevier/JAI.
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2007). Formation of expectations regarding change outcomes:
Integrating information and social efforts. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 16, pp. 81 104). Oxford: Elsevier/
JAI.
Zammuto, R. F., & Krakower, J. Y. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizational
culture. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (Vol. 5, pp. 83 114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.