29th Annual International Labour Process Conference Leeds University Business
School, UK, 5th to 7th April 2011
Labour Process Analysis, Performativity and the Trade Unions: Towards an Action
Research Agenda
Tony Huzzard (Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Sweden)
tony.huzzard@fek.lu.se
Hans Björkman (Unionen, Stockholm, Sweden)
hans.bjorkman@unionen.se
Abstract
There is little or no tradition of action research outputs reaching the mainstream industrial
relations and work sociology literatures. The aim of this paper is to address why this is so
and argue for an action research agenda for work with unions that entails the researcher
assuming the role of change agent to facilitate union capacity building or developing
workplaces for better jobs. A key issue is how such an agenda can be advanced that does
not compromise the integrity of the researcher or the quality of research output. This, we
argue, is worth exploring as a means for putting union research on to a more interventionist
footing. However, we also suggest that the successful pursuit of such an agenda depends on
meeting a number of methodological challenges.
Keywords
Trade unions, industrial relations, action research, methodology
1
Introduction
Most mainstream research on unions to date has been dominated by traditional
methodologies albeit from various perspectives and disciplines. For example, researchers
have studied unions as systems in the sense of traditional systems theory (eg Craig, 1975;
Dunlop, 1958), as economic systems wherein focus has been on market exchange (eg
Booth, 1995; Hicks, 1932) or bearers of transactions costs (eg Williamson, 1985), as
institutions within wider industrial relations systems (eg Clegg, 1975; Flanders , 1970), as
expressions of corporatism (eg; Crouch, 1982; Panitch, 1980; Schmitter, 1974), as political
arenas (eg Edelstein and Warner, 1979; Levin, 1980; Lipsey et al, 1956; Martin, 1968;
Michels, 1915/1949; Undy et al 1981;Webb and Webb, 1902/1920;), as representatives of
labour in the class struggle under capitalism (eg Fairbrother, 2000; Hyman, 1971; Kelly,
1996;) or as articulators of interests in a particular geo-political configuration (Hyman, 2001;
Upchurch et al., 2009).
The work cited above overwhelmingly concerns an orientation entailing research on unions.
More recently, a more normative orientation has been evident that can be understood as
research for unions. In this approach they have been studied from a more managerial
perspective that has foregrounded union effectiveness as organizations (Boxall and Haynes,
1997; Dempsey, 2004; Dunlop, 1990; Hannigan, 1998; Heery and Kelly, 1994; Huzzard,
2000; Reshef and Stratton-Devine, 1993; Scheck and Bolander, 1990; Undy et al, 1996;
Willman et al, 1993). This development perhaps reflects a trend whereby the discourses of
managerialism and business are now sufficiently hegemonic that they have also taken root in
the organizations that exist to secure a greater share of the added value of business for
labour. But much of this has been basic research that has sought to advance explanations
and understandings on union practices, structures, strategies, outcomes and so on.
In contrast to the two orientations outlined above, a small number of researchers have
sought to undertake research with unions (Björkman, 2005; Gregory, 1996; Holgate, 2005;
Heery and Simms, 2010), notably through various action and collaborative methods. This
approach has a normative ambition in that it seeks to advance knowledge in ways that are
beneficial to them as organizations and to their members. But it also aims at intervening to
develop practices and in so doing recasts the researcher role as that of a change agent.
Here, union practitioners are not just objects of study but also co-producers of knowledge
(Coghlan and Brannick, 2010; Greenwood and Levin, 2007). The action researcher, following
both Levin and Marx, starts out from the basic position that it is not enough to understand the
world, there is also a responsibility (in this case that of researchers) to change it. In this
2
paper we argue in this spirit for greater attention to be paid to interventionist work such as
action research, or to put it differently, for labour process scholarship to embrace more
explicitly the action turn in social research.
The ambition to secure actual change to social and organizational phenomena is perhaps the
key distinguishing characteristic that sets action research (AR) apart from more orthodox
approaches to studying work organizations including unions (Reason and Bradbury, 2008).
The role of the researcher in AR is not that of the detached observer doing research about
the object of study. Neither is it that of taking a rather closer orientation producing knowledge
at the behest of the object of study. Rather than researching about something or researching
for someone, the action researcher is engaged in researching with them. This role includes
that of being a change agent but this poses particular methodological demands. Action
research ideally aims to secure two types of knowledge outcomes, namely a contribution to
knowledge of a traditional scientific character for dissemination within the research
community and secondly a contribution to practical knowledge in context or situated
knowledge that underpins the intervention within the focal organization. The distinction here
is that coined by Gibbons et al (2000) as that between mode 1 and mode 2 knowledge.
Despite offering a research tradition and wide application across the social sciences
(Bradbury and Reason, 2008), AR has only had modest application in unions and IR settings
(Huzzard and Gregory, 2008), but the incursions of this work into mainstream IR publications
have been virtually non-existent. Such work has tended to confine itself to specialist journals
(eg Deutsch, 2005; Gregory, 1996; Moir, 2005), book chapters (eg Huzzard and Gregory,
2008; Van Klaveren, 2004), PhD theses (eg Björkman, 2005; Lopes, 2005) or working
papers. In focus here are either unions as organizations or relations at the workplace.
Moreover, recent attempts to map the research field of industrial relations make no reference
to AR (see eg Blyton et al, 2008; Darlington, 2009; Kelly, 1998 ch 2). In some cases
researchers have entered collaborative relationships, for example work in connection with
union organizing in the UK (eg Heery and Simms, 2010; Holgate, 2005). Yet this work has
tended to focus on the mode 1 knowledge outcomes of the collaboration rather than the
mode 2 knowledge associated with the intervention.
AR has thus not generally been seen as something of interest to the scholarly establishment
either within industrial relations or the studies of the sociology of work more generally. This is
equally notable in more critically inspired domains within these fields, notably labour process
analysis and critical management studies (CMS). For example, a search for the keyword
‘Action Research’ in Work, Employment and Society in the article database of Lund
3
University revealed no matches. Our point of department in this paper is that unions, in the
post-crisis context are facing major challenges throughout Europe and beyond. This is not
just in terms of the pursuit of better jobs and workplaces. It also entails activities to ensure
the preservation of the jobs in question in the context of draconian public expenditure cuts
and the knock-on effects of these on the broader economy. Put simply: are the unions up to
the task? And what role might the research community now play in trade union capacity
building?
What is action research?
Our answer to these two questions is for labour process and industrial relations scholars to
embrace more readily AR methodologies that, rather than entail research on unions and/or
industrial relations processes, focus on researching with them. But a discussion on the
utilization of AR perspectives and methods calls for some definitions. What is action research
and what is it not? Clearly the ‘action’ is not that of the unions per se but, rather, that of the
intervention that aims to effect change or build union capacities. This entails the generation
of two distinct types of knowledge: first that pertaining to the nature and process of the
intervention, and second that of scientific output arising from the outcome of the intervention.
As stated, an approach that encompasses both of these is rare in unions. But what are the
differences, if any, between AR and collaborative research? Is action science the same as
action research? What is clinical research? The format of a paper does allow us to enter a
thorough discussion on these issues (but see eg Shani et al, 2004). However, a brief attempt
to bring some clarity would, we feel, be helpful.
The rather broader term ‘Collaborative Research’ encompasses methodologies that can be
defined as ‘an emergent and systematic inquiry process, embedded in an agreed upon
partnership between actors with an interest in influencing a certain system of action and
researchers interested in understanding and explaining such a system’ (Shani et al, 2007,
p.13). This implies collaboration between participating organizations and researchers. The
definition also implies that the results of the process should be organizational learning and
change as well as better understanding. In other words, collaborative research should meet
the criteria of organizational relevance and research rigour. This definition – broadly entailing
the idea of researching with - does, it would seem, fit some work already being done with
unions (see eg Wilson, 2009, for a summary of such work in the UK context). But it does not
tell us anything specific about the collaboration during the research process. The more
focused term ‘action research’ which we are arguing for here can be defined as one form of
4
collaborative research that has a much stronger emphasis on both action and collaboration.
Coghlan and Brannick (2010) use the following characteristics to define such a view of AR:

research in action, rather than about action

a collaborative democratic partnership

research concurrent with action

a sequence of events and an approach to problem solving.
Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987), however, have expressed misgivings about AR being
reduced to problem-solving. In their approach of appreciative enquiry, they also see merit in
a more ‘positive’ interventionist methodology that seeks to form agreement on good practice
with a view to diffusing it. Our perspective is that any approach must have strong demands
on practical relevance and scholarly rigour; moreover intervention goals should be
underpinned by high levels of participation by union practitioners both in the change
processes and the (co) production of knowledge. Hence, we support Coghlan and Brannick
(2010; following Lippitt) in their most demanding definition of AR as being a procedure in
which the participants are involved, together with the researchers, in all parts of the research
process: collection of data of themselves, utilization of data, and developmental action.
Action research as a term is generic and can be used as a framework for a family of more
specific concepts, such as participatory action research, action learning, appreciative
enquiry, action science and clinical research. For us, then, to qualify as AR, the following
criteria should be met:

research rigour

relevance for the client organization: learning, organizational development, problem
solving or diffusing good practice

research in/as action

a strong participation from the client union, sometimes including employers, in all
stages of the research/development process
It may be the case that some IR researchers are engaged to some extent with this work
without using the term ‘action research’. Our contention, however, is that there is little or no
published work arising from the mode 2 knowledge on the interventions in question, and that
a more explicit bridging between the IR and AR communities would thereby be a fruitful
endeavour.
5
The action research tradition
Why has the AR tradition largely passed labour process industrial relations scholarship by?
To understand and explain this disconnect it is perhaps worthwhile reflecting briefly on the
historical evolution of AR. The origins of AR are usually attributed to the works of Kurt Levin
in the 1940s (Reason and Bradbury, 2001). Setting down an experimental and interventionist
methodology, its basic ideas were subsequently picked up by socio-technical theorists at the
Tavistock Institute in London and notably thereafter by Fred Emery and Einar Thorsrud. Their
work, in particular that of the latter, diffused the approach to an impressive number of
workplace development programmes in Scandinavia in the 1960s and 1970s. Thorsrud
believed that democratization of industrial relations had to be embedded in the structure of
work organization and job content. This necessarily implied a key role for unions in a labour
market that was comprehensively regulated by collective bargaining with the unions as key
actors.
The key point of departure for much of this work was that socio-technical systems design
could be used both for democratization and for organizational effectiveness (den Hertog and
Schröder, 1989). For this reason it became quite natural to involve unions in the various AR
programmes of the 1960s onwards at least in Scandinavia. Much of the early work focused
on job redesign and the employment relationship that called for employee participation in
change processes as well as to sensitivity towards solutions that foregrounded human needs
in line with the then influential variants of motivation theory (Huzzard, 2003). A further
manifestation of this was the emergence of the quality of working life (QWL) movement in the
US and to some extent in Europe.
But the QWL movement, as with many other AR initiatives at the time, was conceived largely
in terms of improving the instrumental conditions for the effectiveness of organizations,
notably capitalist businesses. In the view of critics, the calls for greater participation, both in
change processes and in their enduring solutions did not ultimately alter power relations.
Many authors, for example those in the labour process tradition, sought research approaches
that offered a more trenchant critique of industrial capitalism (see eg Ramsay, 1985).
Change, where it occurred, was largely on management’s terms; even if managerial attitudes
and behaviours were sometimes a legitimate and explicit target of change processes,
managerial prerogative nonetheless prevailed. Accordingly, AR could be seen as located
firmly within what had been labelled as the ‘sociology of regulation’ (Burrell and Morgan,
1979). This critique of the QWL movement and AR more generally is an important
6
explanation, we believe, for the disconnect between AR methodology and industrial relations
and sociology research practice, at least within the UK.
In Scandinavia, however, different institutional conditions prevailed. The social partners
assumed a more corporatist stance, at least until the early 1990s, and governments funded a
number of development programmes. Moreover, statutory co-determination procedures
underpinned joint development efforts. Approaches drew on socio-technical principles, high
levels of participation and a specific role for unions in AR processes. The approach in
Norway has continued to the present day in the form of the Enterprise Development 2000
programme and its successor the Value Creation 2010 Programme. Much of the research
effort has been undertaken at the Work Research Institute in Oslo with involvement from a
wide range of unions and employers (Gustavsen et al, 1998; Gustavsen et al, 2001; Qvale,
2003). This work has created the inspiration for much action research with unions elsewhere
around the globe, notably work in the US on occupational health and safety and work
environment issues (Deutsch, 2005; Moir, 2005).
The endeavours of Thorsrud and colleagues also spread to Sweden. In the late 1980s the
Swedish government levied a special work environment tax on firms in the first instance to
rehabilitate sick employees, but the need to address related fields such as work organization
was soon identified. The focus, however, switched from rehabilitation to productivity as
Sweden entered recession in the 1990s. In all some 25,000 projects were financed from the
fund generated by the tax (Gustavsen et al, 1996). At approximately the same time a further
fund was set up to support workplace change initiatives - the Swedish Work Environment
Fund. This facilitated working life research in various sectors of the Swedish economy and
supported, amongst other initiatives, the Programme for Learning Organizations at the
Swedish National Institute for Working Life which was backed by unions and employer
organizations and comprised development projects at some 40 organizations in both private
and public sectors.
Levin’s ideas and their adoption by researchers at Tavistock and others were clearly
functionalist or at least were applied on functionalist assumptions, drawing inspiration, as
stated, from socio-technical systems theory and perhaps even earlier ideas from the human
relations tradition. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly the case that from the early days a
heavy emphasis was placed on participation in change processes and thereby on research
designs underpinning interventions. But the key question is whether critically oriented
researchers should engage with a methodology that is explicitly instrumental, functionalist or,
7
in terms preferred by writers within critical management studies, performative (Fournier and
Grey, 2000; Spicer et al, 2009).
One response to this is to argue that all organizations including unions are sites of
domination and that our critical gaze should not solely be focused on the practices of the
capitalist firm or possibly the public sector bureaucracy – the task is to expose domination
wherever it exists. This would preclude ‘research with’ unions from the AR approach.
Alternatively, and this is the position we would support, we can draw on AR methodologies
and the performative intent they presuppose as a means of working with organizations
whose missions are to counter the reproduction of power relations under contemporary
capitalism. These may be organizations that seek to alter gender relations, the relationship
we have with the natural environment or the relations between capital and labour at the
workplace. It is the latter of these we are of course focused on here, be it in terms of
developing the unions’ own internal practices and processes or in terms of a union role in
developing workplaces perhaps on some occasions in collaboration with employers.
Illustrations of action research in unions
Action research has the potential to be applied across the spectrum of union activities,
strategies and orientations. Researchers have noted various strategic models, options or
orientations for unions. Briefly we can categorise these as follows:

Distributional unionism – traditional collective bargaining practices and the
mobilisation of members around these

Developmental unionism – practices aimed at developing workplaces and forms of
work organization that entail an improved quality of working life. Broadly speaking
such approaches require a degree of collaboration with managers

Organizing unionism – practices that foreground the recruitment of new members and
push for new recognition agreements with employers

Servicing unionism – practices that seek to develop services to members that can
perhaps be unrelated to the core activities of the union in relation to the (joint)
regulation of the employment relationship

Social movement unionism – practices that seek to reach out to broader social
movements and align unions with such movements in order to advance common
agendas in civil society
8
As stated, although industrial relations researchers, particularly in the UK, have generally
eschewed action research, there have been notable exceptions. In the mid 1990s the Trade
Union Research Unit at Ruskin College, Oxford, engaged in interventions focused on the
union role in workplace change and its consequences. Gregory (1996), reporting on his work
at the Ford Motor Company, 3M and Yorkshire Water with various unions, argued that much
of the action research activity relied on the primacy of dialogue as a means of finding shared
spaces in what was a plurality of interests and that, as a guiding principle, the issue in
question should form the point of departure rather than theory. Typical activities undertaken
by the action researcher included the formulation of an employee development programme
(Ford), facilitating democratic dialogue to promote change (3M) and the formulation, with
unions, of an alternative approach to corporate HRM strategy (Yorkshire Water). However,
other examples of action research supporting developmental unionism in the UK are rare.
More recently in Sweden, Björkman’s work with Sif (formerly the Swedish Union of Clerical
and Technical Employees in Industryi) (Björkman, 2005) is an exemplary case of insider
collaborative research (Coghlan and Brannick, 2001). The focus here was more internal than
in the Ruskin studies in that the union sought new tools for strategic positioning and new
service innovations. Enjoying high density levels and comprehensive collective bargaining
coverage across its serviceable job territory, Sif looked to the servicing model as a means of
organizational development. This necessitated intense engagement by the researcher with
his workplace colleagues in the union in the form of interviews, focus groups and formal
report backs to senior managers as well as key actors in the union’s representative system.
Björkman also collaborated with researchers from the ‘outside’ in order to provide sources of
critical reflection through having a somewhat more distanced relationship to the organization
(Björkman and Huzzard, 2005).
Another theme that appears to feature in action research efforts is that of membership
recruitment as articulated in the organizing model. For example, in her PhD Project Jane
Holgate focused on organizing migrant workers. This research explored the issues of
disadvantage faced by black and minority ethnic workers, both in the labour market and in
trade unions. Although working with union organizers and workers in the field, she was also
interested in assessing the outcomes of recruitment campaigning on union densities
(Holgate, 2005). Recruitment and union organization was the focus of another PhD project
adopting a an action research methodology – that by Ana Lopes in 2005 who sought to study
the organizing of sex workers and their securing of union representation in the UK. Working
with the GMB union in London and the International Union of Sex Workers, Lopes, formerly a
9
union activist herself, collaborated with a wide range of stakeholders including sex workers,
small businesses in the industry, support agencies, the police and the media (Lopes, 2005).
Table 1: Samples of trade unions and action research – an illustrative summary
Action focus
Distributional
Study
None
Intervention
Targeted
Research Institution and
stakeholders
Union
----
----
----
Developmental Gregory
Organizational
Employers,
Ruskin College Oxford;
unionism
change at Ford Motor
union members
TGWU, AEEU, MSF
unionism
(1996)
Company, 3M and
(United Kingdom)
Yorkshire Water
Service
Björkman
Development of
Internal union actors Fenix Programme
unionism
(2005)
market
(employees and
(Stockholm School of
orientation methods
members)
Economics);
Sif (Sweden)
Organizing
Holgate
Organizing migrant
Members and
Queen Mary, University of
unionism
(2005)
workers.
potential
London;
members
Southern and Eastern
Region TUC
(United Kingdom)
Social
Fitzgerald
Trade union
Community
University of Newcastle
movement
and
engagement in
representatives
(CURDS)
unionism
O’Brien
regional development
(2005)
and the Northern Region
of the TUC
(United Kingdom)
An example of action research supporting social movement unionism is that by Fitzgerald
and O’Brien focusing on union roles in regional development processes. The former is a
researcher at Northumbria University, the latter an official of the UK’s Trade Union Congress
(Fitzgerald and O’Brien, 2005). This project was originated by regional union leaders who
sought a proactive role for the unions on the issue in a context of the labour market problems
of the region on the one hand and the introduction of new regional institutions to tackle them
on the other. The view taken here was that these challenges required new capacities in the
unions internally for effective interventions to be made. Ian Fitzgerald has also engaged in
collaborative methods in a project aimed at building links with the black minority ethnic (BME)
community in the Northern region of England to ‘establish a baseline for building effective
relationships of mutual benefit’ in a clear exemplar of social movement unionism. Through an
10
intense interview programme, the project identified the main obstacles to engagement as
being a lack of knowledge, language and culture and racism. The lack of knowledge existed
on both sides – members of the BME communities knew little about the presence and history
of union struggles at regional workplaces whereas union activists and full-timers knew little
about the BME communities and the rich and diverse cultures and traditions that they
brought to the workplace. The project concluded by proposing a series of action measures
for developing relationships between the sides (Fitzgerald and Stirling, date unknown).
The examples cited here suggest that action research can contribute to most of the models
of unionism identified here. We have not been able to track down, however, any published
work undertaken within the distributional model. Some unions certainly engage researchers
to draft pay claims, for example. However, it seems to us that there is no reason why unions
should not also call on researchers to help on the more organizational aspects of
distributional unionism, for example solving mobilisation problems, refining membership
dialogue practices, diffusing best practice in the organizing of strikes or publicity campaigns
around distributional demands. An illustrative summary of various action research efforts to
date is set out in table 1.
Methodological challenges
Notwithstanding earlier scepticism by certain scholars (eg Ramsay, 1985), the collaborative
and participative approach is one that should in our view be embraced more readily by
unions and researchers who are sympathetic to union aims, be they about campaigning for
better jobs and workplaces or the struggle to save jobs in the face of imminent assaults on
the public sector . The extent to which AR can be a vehicle for radical change is, however, a
matter of some debate (Johansson and Lindhult, 2008). Research approaches with strong
connections to participation and social change are well established (eg Freire, 1970).
Moreover, Scandinavian approaches have been strongly influenced by Habermasian ideas
on ideal speech situations as a means of suspending power asymmetries. An exemplar of
the latter of course is Gustavsen’s principles of democratic dialogue designed to guide
intervention endeavours (Gustavsen, 1992). Despite all this, publications arising from these
approaches have not found their way into the mainstream industrial relations and work
sociology literatures. We suggest that one explanation for this is that most trade unions are
not particularly connected to the research community. Hence, awareness of research
methods in general and AR methods in particular, is not particularly well developed.
11
Thus, if one explanation for a poor diffusion of AR methods in trade union research is that of
unions’ rather undeveloped connections with academia, why are not more initiatives taken
from academic researchers? We can see at least four possible explanations. The first relates
to the dominance of certain research paradigms. To conduct, write, and publisher AR,
researchers will need a community or infrastructure, with peers, an ongoing research
methodology discussion, research conferences or conference tracks, and relevant journals. If
mainstream research focuses on utilizing other methods, i.e. more quantitative approaches
or traditional case studies, it would be rather poor research tactics to embark on the AR
track.
A second reason for not using AR is its methodological challenges. There are certainly some
aspects to deal with:

The risk of ‘going native’, blurring the perspective of the researcher and
compromising the need for critical distance.

The ‘helping approach’, which can result in ‘too much action, too little research’.

The ‘consultant role’ taken by the researcher, which may result in the avoidance of
criticism, and a tendency to ‘telling success stories’.

The need to balance mode 2 knowledge encapsulating the local perspective (and
practice) with that of generating more generalizable mode 1 knowledge (theory).

The need to temper the strategic interests of the intervention and change process
with certain ethical judgements.
In table 2, we have tried to pinpoint some advantages of and challenges of conducting AR
(see also Svensson et al, 2007). Our opinion is that the advantages are considerable and
that the challenges can often be met – but this does pose certain demands in terms of
research rigour.
Table 2: Action research in trade unions – advantages and challenges
Research elements
Advantages
Challenges
Formulation of
As hypotheses and research
As the action research process
hypotheses/research questions
questions are formulated
is cyclical, hypotheses and
together with participants from
research questions may be
the client organization, it is likely
reformulated during research
that they will meet relevance
projects: doubts can arise on
criteria well.
research rigour, ‘interesting
A. The researcher’s perspective
12
results, but without connections
to your initial research
questions’.
Research quality
Dual criteria: quality and
The additional criteria
relevance (‘actionable
(relevance as perceived by the
knowledge’)
client organization) may be hard
to meet and/or evaluate.
A collaborative research
May infuse interest in ongoing
Makes the researcher(s)
process
research/change activities in the
dependent on a rather close
client organization. Strengthens
collaboration with members of
possibilities to formulate
the client organization:
relevant research questions.
vulnerability due to
Creates interest in evaluation
organizational changes, politics,
and the diffusion of results.
etc: a need to ‘get on well’ with
people.
May create access to rich
Dual roles as change agents
material.
and researcher may be hard to
separate: when ‘going native’
the risk is obvious that important
reflections are not made.
B. The client organization’s
perspective
Definition of the research
Co-creation of the research
More time-consuming than ‘just
agenda
agenda makes projects more
letting researchers in’.
interesting: projects could
address topical issues in areas
defined by the client
organization.
Participation
Opportunities to use and diffuse
Investment (time, emotions,
results during the action
costs of researchers). A certain
research process.
amount of unpredictability.
Education and training for
Processes difficult to manage
employees in change and
through hierarchical control.
reflection. Empowerment of
organizational members.
Utilisation of results
Participation creates interest
If union leaders/managers do
and ‘a sense of urgency’.
not or cannot use results, there
Change agents are trained
may be problems, as
throughout the action research
expectations may have risen.
process.
Easier to throw out ideas
13
created by consultants – you
just need to throw out the
consultants.
Diffusion of results
Internal diffusion – and to some
The client union may not want
extent external diffusion – is
to have its ‘dirty laundry’
helped by the existence of
exhibited (and therefore will
several active members of the
avoid researchers).
research project, not just the
Difficult to write action research
external researcher(s).
in normal paper format and get
published.
A third possible explanation for the rather low level of engagement by researchers in AR
could be that such projects are more difficult to organize. It is not enough to send a survey
and then process the results and it is not even enough to conduct interviews or to make
observations. As researchers, we not only have to be permitted to conduct the research. We
also have to negotiate the research agenda (Björkman and Sundgren, 2005). This agenda
needs to be important not just for us and academia more generally, but also for the
participating organization (union). Thereafter, we also need to ensure that the union and its
employees and/or members participate actively in the research process. Approaching unions
for organizing AR projects may be particularly difficult for cultural and financial reasons,
making them reluctant to enter time-consuming research based change programmes. There
might be easier ways of conducting research.
Finally, there are a number of barriers located in the institutional realm. We have already
noted various institutional facilitators in the Scandinavian context which have not been
present in say the UK or the US. But the unions themselves may also provide a barrier or at
least pose restrictions which might deter the researcher. Unions of course are highly
contested arenas and the participative ideals of the action researcher in some unions will
have to be adapted to be consistent with union representative structures which may entail
the gaining of a popular mandate for change. This could be demanding.
Moreover, the notion of democratic dialogue at the heart of the interventionist approach of
Gustavsen (1992) presupposes something similar to that of Habermasian ideal speech
situations in, for example, dialogue conferences. How realistic is such an approach in a
highly politicised trade union context? The approach presupposes that participants set their
normal roles aside with a view to seeing the world through the perspectives of others and the
‘best argument’ winning out. Is it possible for union officials to step outside their
representative responsibilities? Much of this may depend on the type of intervention that is
14
intended. Whilst pursuing the servicing model is uncontentious in say white collar unions or
professional associations in Scandinavia (Björkman, 2005), the model, as a development
template, may be more contestable among, say, blue collar unions in the UK. Similarly,
interventions aimed at developing workplaces, which tend to entail collaborative relations
with employers, will not be well received by unions that are ideologically hostile to social
partnership.
Conclusions
Researchers within critical traditions in Organization and Management Studies such as CMS
and the labour process tradition have recently begun to reflect on the shortcomings of their
endeavours in terms of impacting on practice (see eg Spicer et al. 2009). Critical approaches
typically have the instrumentality of the capitalist business as their primary target. Yet it has
not gone unnoticed that those enjoining such critiques are themselves beholden to the
instrumental discipline of academic publishing rather than making any difference to actual
work organizations in the real world. Our central argument in this paper has been that labour
process and other critically oriented scholars can and should engage in the ‘sociology of
radical change’ (Burrell and Morgan, 1979) through actual participation rather than simply
writing about it. One way of doing this is to intervene, perhaps functionalistically, to help
develop organizations that themselves are committed to changing power relations in
contemporary capitalism or at least to mitigating the effects of asymmetrical power relations
in certain organizational contexts. This approach necessarily recasts the role of the
researcher to that of change agent engaged in the co-creation of knowledge together and in
interaction with union practitioners (Greenwood and Levin, 2007). Knowledge generated in
this fashion has both a local character, that is, it is situated and related to the practical issues
associated with the intervention and has a more abstract form that lends itself to analytical
and perhaps empirical generalisability. This is the distinction between mode 2 and mode 1
knowledge (Gibbons et al, 2000).
In this article we have noted and welcomed collaborative approaches to researching with
unions. But we go further than this by arguing for employment scholars to engage more
readily with action research. In particular, this move entails not just the quest for mode 1
knowledge relating to the outcomes of such collaboration, but also mode 2 knowledge
relating to the specifics of interventions in context. We have also offered some explanations
as to why such engagement has had less historical lineage to date than we might expect as
well as taking up some of the methodological issues at stake. In the context of working with
unions, an AR agenda might include developing knowledge in a number of areas:
15

Diagnostic techniques for organizational development relating to union strategies (the
organizing model, the servicing model, social movement unionism and so on)

Tools for animating dialogue in a union context

Participatory techniques in unions to support change processes

The political dynamics of intervention, for example the challenge of change agency in
the context of representative structures

The ethical issues associated with change agency in unions

Approaches to appreciative enquiry within and between unions

Efforts at promoting reflective practice in union organizations.
Our argument is thus that certain AR approaches are worth exploring as a means for putting
union research on to a more interventionist footing. Clearly, however, there will be a
judgement call to make on any such intervention, namely the extent to which it might affect
change that alters power relations. This will require some sort of ethical-political judgement
on the part of the researcher (Watson, 2010) and a clear view on power relations. However,
this may mean that researchers may come up against constraints posed by University Ethics
Committees. That said, the argument for a more instrumental or performative role for
researchers, still poses a number of further methodological challenges which we have sought
to identify in this paper. Perhaps it is the overcoming of these challenges that is the core
issue for reconnecting AR and mainstream publishing practice.
References
Björkman H. and Huzzard T. (2005) ’Membership Interface Unionism: A Swedish White
Collar Union in Transition’; Economic and Industrial Democracy 26(1): 65-88.
Björkman, H. (2005) Learning from Members: Tools for Strategic Positioning and Service
Innovation in Trade Unions. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.
Björkman, H. and Sundgren, M. (2005) ‘Political Entrepreneurship in Action Research:
Learning from two cases’. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(5): 399415.
Blyton, P., Bacon, N., Fiorito, J. and Heery, E. (eds.) (2008) The Sage Handbook of Industrial
Relations. London: Sage.
Booth, A. (1995) The Economics of the Trade Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Boxall, P. and Haynes, P. (1997) ‘Strategy and Trade Union Effectiveness in a Neo-Liberal
Environment’, British Journal of Industrial Relations 35 (4): 567-591.
16
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.
Aldershot: Gower Publishing.
Clegg, H. (1975) Trade Unionism under Collective Bargaining. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T (2010) Doing Action Research in your own Organization (3rd
edn). London: Sage.
Cooperrider, D. L. and Srivastva, S. (1987) ‘Appreciative enquiry in organizational life’, in
Pasmore, W. A. and Woodman, R. W. (eds.) Research in Organizational Change and
Development (Vol 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Craig, A. W. J. (1975) ‘A Framework for the Analysis of Industrial Relations Systems’ in
Barrett, B, Rhodes, E. and Beishon, J (eds) Industrial Relations and the Wider Society.
London: Collier-MacMillan.
Crouch, C. (1982) Trade Unions: The Logic of Collective Action. London: Fontana.
Darlington, R. (ed.) (2009) What ‘s the point of industrial relations? Manchester: BUIRA
Dempsey, M. (2004) Managing Trade Unions: A Case Study Examination of Managerial
Activities in four UK Trade Unions Formed by Merger. Cranfield: PhD thesis.
Den Hertog, J. F. and Schröder, P. (1989) Social Research for Technological Change:
Lessons From national Programmes in Europe and North America. Maastricht: MERIT:
89-028.
Deutsch, S. (2005) ‘The Contributions and Challenge of Participatory Action Research’, New
Solutions 15(1): 29-35.
Dunlop, J. T. (1958) Industrial Relations Systems. New York: Holt.
Dunlop, J. T. (1990) The Management of Labor Unions. Lexington: Lexington Books.
Edelstein, J. D. and Warner, M (1979) Comparative Union Democracy. New Brunswick NJ:
Transaction Books.
Fitzgerald, I and Stirling, J. (date unknown) Black Minority Ethnic Groups Views of Trade
Unions. Newcastle: North Eastern TUC.
Fitzgerald, I. and O’Brien, P. (2005) ‘Trade Union Engagement in Regional Development: A
North East Perspective’, Northern Economic Review 33/34.
Flanders, A. (1970) Management and Unions: The Theory and Reform of Industrial
Relations. London: Faber and Faber.
Fournier, V. and Grey, C. (2000) ‘At the Critical Moment: Conditions and Prospects for
Critical Management Studies’, Human Relations 53(1) 7-32.
Freire, P. (1970) The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (2000) The
New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in
Contemporary Societies (2nd edn.). London: Sage.
17
Greenwood D.J. and Levin M. (2007) Introduction to action research – social research for
change (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications.
Gregory, D. (1996) ‘Action Research and Trade Unions: Some Experience from the UK’,
Concepts and Transformation 1: 2/3: 165-174.
Gustavsen, B. (1992) Dialogue and development. Social science for social action: towards
organisational renewal. Volume 1. Maastricht: Van Gorcum
Gustavsen, B., Colbjørnsen, T. and Pålshaugen, Ø. (1998) Development Coalitions in
Working Life. Enterprise Development 2000 in Norway. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gustavsen, B., Finne, H. and Oscarsson. (2001) Creating Connectedness: The Role of
Social Research in Innovation Policy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gustavsen, B., Wikman, A., Ekman-Philips, M. and Hofmaier, B. (1996) Concept-Driven
Development and the Organization of the Process of Change: An Evaluation of the
Swedish Working Life Fund. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Hannigan, T. (1998) Managing Tomorrow’s High-Performance Unions. Westport Co.,
Quorum Books.
Heery, E. and Kelly, J. (1994) 'Professional, Participative and Managerial Unionism: An
Interpretation of Change in Trade Unions', Work, Employment and Society 8 (1): 1-22.
Heery, E. and Simms, M. (2010) ‘Employer responses to union organising: patterns and
effects’, Human Resource Management Journal, 20(1): 3-22.
Hicks, J. R. (1932) The Theory of Wages. New York: MacMillan.
Holgate, J. (2005) ‘Organising migrant workers: a case study of working conditions and
unionisation at a sandwich factory in London’, in Work Employment and Society 19 (3):
463–480.
Huzzard, T. (2000). Labouring to Learn: Union Renewal in Swedish Manufacturing. Umeå;
Boréa.
Huzzard, T; (2003). The Convergence of QWL and Competitiveness: A Swedish Literature
Review. National Institute for Working Life, Stockholm: Arbetsliv i omvandling 2003:9.
Huzzard, T. and Gregory, D. (2008) ‘Collaborative Research and the Trade Unions: The
Challenge of Entering Social Partnership’, in Shami, A. B., Adler, N, Mohrman, S,
Pasmore, W. A., and Stymne, B. (eds) A Handbook of Collaborative Management
Research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
Hyman, R (1971) Marxism and the Sociology of Trade Unionism. London: Pluto Press.
Hyman, R. (2001) Understanding European Trade Unionism: Between Market, Class and
Society. London: Sage.
Johansson, A.W. and Lindhult, E. (2008) ‘Emancipation or workability?: Critical versus
pragmatic scientific orientation in action research’, Action Research Vol 6: 95-115.
18
Kelly, J (1996) ‘Union Militancy and Social Partnership’ in Ackers, P., Smith, C. and Smith, P.
(eds) The New Workplace and Trade Unionism: Critical Perspectives on Work and
Organization. London: Routledge.
Kelly, J. (1998) Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilisation, Collectivism and Long Waves.
London. Routledge.
Kelly, J. and Heery, E. (1994) Working for the Union: British Trade Union Officers.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
Lewin, L (1980) Governing Trade Unions in Sweden. Cambridge Ma: Harvard University
Press.
Lipset, S. M, Trow, M, A. and Coleman, J. S (1956) Union Democracy. Glencoe Ill: Free
Press.
Lopes, A. (2005) Organising in the sex industry: an action research investigation. PhD thesis,
University of East London
Martin, R (1968) ‘Union Democracy: An Explanatory Framework’, Sociology 2: 205-220.
Michels, R (1915/1949) Political Parties. New York: Free Press.
Moir, S. (2005) ‘Ideological Influences on Participatory Research in Occupational Health and
Safety: A Review of the Literature’, New Solutions 15(1): 15-28.
Panitch, L (1980) 'Recent Theorisations of Corporatism: Reflections on a Growth Industry',
British Journal of Sociology 31: 159-187.
Qvale, T. (2003) ‘New Concepts in Work Organization: A Case from the Norwegian Offshore
Petroleum Industry’ in Gold, M. (ed.) New Frontiers of Democratic Participation at Work.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Ramsay, H. (1985) ‘What is Participation For? A critical evaluation of “labour process”
analyses of job reform’ in Knights, D., Willmott, H. and Collinson, D. (eds.) Job Redesign:
Critical Perspectives on the Labour Process. Aldershot: Gower.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2001) ‘Introduction: Inquiry and Participation in Search of a
World Worthy of Human Aspiration’, in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds.) A Handbook
of Action Research. London: Sage.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2008) (eds.) The SAGE handbook of action research:
participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.
Reshef, Y. and Stratton-Devine, K (1993) 'Long-Range Planning in North American Unions:
Preliminary Findings', Industrial Relations Quebec 48(2): 250-266.
Scheck, C. L. and Bohlander, G. W (1990) 'The Planning Practices of Labor Organizations: A
National Study', Labor Studies Journal Winter: 69-84.
Schmitter, P (1974) ‘Still the Century of Corporatism?’, Review of Politics January: 85-129.
Shani, A. B., David, A. and Willson, C. (2004) ‘Collaborative Research: Alternative
Roadmaps’, in Adler, N., Shain, A. B. and Styrhe, A (eds.) Collaborative Research in
19
Organizations: Foundations for Liearning, Change, and Theoretical Development.
London: Sage.
Shani, A. B., Mohrman, S., Pasmore, W. A., Stymne, B. A. and Adler, N. (2007). Handbook
of Collaborative Management Research, New York, Sage.
Spicer, A., Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2009)’Critical performativity: The unfinished
business of critical management studies’ Human Relations Vol. 62, No. 4, 537-560
Svensson, L., Ellström, P-E. and Brulin, G. (2007) ’Introduction – on Interactive Research’,
International Journal of Action Research 3(3): 233-249.
Undy, R, Ellis, V, McCarthy, W. E. J. and Halmos, A (1981) Change in the Trade Unions The Development of UK Unions Since the 1960s. London: Hutchinson.
Undy, R, Fosh, P, Morris, H, Smith, P. and Martin, R (1996) Managing the Unions. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Upchurch, M., Taylor, G. and Mathers, A. (2009) The Crisis of Social Democratic Trade
Unionism in Western Europe: The Search for Alternatives. Farnham: Ashgate.
Van Klaveren, M. (2004) ‘Obstacles to Organisational Learning in Trade Unions: The Case of
the Dutch Industribution Project’ in Fricke, W. and
Totterdill, P. (eds) Regional
Development Processes as the Context for Action Research, Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Watson, T. J. (2010) ‘Critical social science, pragmatism and the realities of HRM’, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(6): 915-931.
Webb, B. and Webb, S (1902/1920) The History of Trade Unionism. London: Longmans
Green.
Williamson, O. E (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Willman, P, Morris, T. and Aston, B. (1993) Union Business: Trade Union Organisation and
Financial Reform in the Thatcher Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, T. (2009) ‘Critical Friends: The Relationship between Industrial Relations Academics
and Unions’ in Darlington, R. (ed.) What ‘s the Point of Industrial Relations? Manchester:
BUIRA
i
Sif has subsequently been renamed Unionen following a merger with HTF, the Swedish white collar
commerce union, on 1 January 2008 to form the ‘union for professionals in the private sector’.
20