EDITORIAL

Action Research in OD:RIP?

Since the 1950s, action research has been the foundational core of organiza-
tion development (OD) and is consistently identified as one of the roots of its
present-day practice. But within the past few years, there has been increasing
uneasiness with the action research approach to OD, perhaps most cogently
argued in the appreciative inquiry approach to OD. Two recent articles have
brought this issue to the fore once again (Bushe, 1995; Gotches and Ludema,
1995).
Gotches and Ludema interviewed David Coopemder, one of the two pri-
mary drivers behind appreciative inquiry. The other is Suresh Srivastva (see
Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987). In the interview, Coopemder suggests that
action research focuses on “human deficit” by defining “our whole field as
problem solving” (Gotches and Ludema, 1995, p. 10). The following brief
explanation of appreciative inquiry is also provided:

An approach to organizationalanalysis and design that is uniquely intended

to discover, understand, and foster organizational learning and innovation in
organizationalarrangements and processes . . . that involves organizational
members in seeking out the very best of “what is” to help ignite the imagina-
tion of “whatcould be.” The aim of appreciative inquiry is to generate new
knowledge which expands “the realm of the possible” and helps the mem-
bers of an organization to envision a collectively desired future and to design
improved organizational systems and processes that successfully translate
their intentions into reality and beliefs into practice [Gotchesand Ludema,
1995, p. 81.

The argument appears to be that action research focuses on problems and

problem solving, whereas appreciative inquiry focuses on what’s going well to
“envision more provocative and positive futures” (Gotches and Ludema, 1995,
p. 7). The proponents of appreciative inquiry criticize action research as prac-
ticed in OD as reflecting “logical positivistic assumptions” in which “social and
psycholoDca1 reality” are treated as “something fundamentally stable, endur-
ing, and ‘out there.’ Appreciative inquiry, however, is a product of the socio-
rationalist paradigm” that “treats social and psychological reality as a product
of the moment, open to continuous reconstruction” (Bushe, 1995, p. 15).
Many of the arguments sound very familiar-they resemble the arguments
between a variety of qualitative approaches to research and quantitative or pos-
itivistic approaches. As those arguing for a broader paradigm for research

HUMANRSOURCE DEVELOPMENT vol. 7,no. 1. Spring 1996 0Jossey-BusPublishers

QUARTERLY, 1
confronted the logical positivists, they also often took a dialectic perspective.
It became a “good-bad argument. As researchers have matured in their under-
standing of the many new approaches to understanding that were evolving,
the question has moved toward, “What is the appropriate methodology for the
research question that is being asked?” The same, I suspect, will occur as the
relatively new field of organization development continues its maturation
process.
Although it is true that some of the early definitions of OD focused on
problem solving, many of the classical definitions do not. McLagan’s (1989)
definition, for example, focused OD on “assuring healthy inter- and intra-unit
relationships and helping groups initiate and manage change. Organization
Development’s primary emphasis is on relationships and processes between
and among individuals and groups. Its primary intervention is influence on
the relationship of individuals and groups to effect an impact on the organiza-
tion as a system” (p. 7).
Although problem solving can occur in this context, so can finding the
positive and building on it. The behavioral sciences, the core of most OD def-
initions, in fact provide information about the holistic circumstances in which
humans live and form organizations. Burke (1982) proposed a set of four ques-
tions to be used in conducting interviews for the purpose of organizational
analysis. These questions are balanced between finding out what’s not work-
ing for the interviewee and what’s working really well. So it’s not true, as
Cooperrider argued, that OD focuses only on the problems. Appreciative
inquiry, however, seems to fall into the opposite trap of focusing only on what’s
going well, but still for the purpose of improving the organization and those
within it. Improvement requires an understanding both of what’s not working
well and what can be built on because it is working well. That’s the holistic
approach to organization development, and it can well exist within the con-
text of action research and organization development.
I wonder what it is in humans that pushes them so often to take a stand
that sets up one perfectly reasonable and useful paradigm over and against
another perfectly reasonable and useful paradigm? Why must it be quantita-
tive versus qualitative, action research versus appreciative inquiry? Cooperrider
stated that “the OD world has got to move away from this image of the ideal
group being six or seven. This was based on the group dynamics literature
which helped g v e birth to this field-but, I think it constrained our imagna-
tion and our capacity to really make transformation happen in organizations”
(Gotches and Ludema, 1995, p. 10).
He then went on to discuss a possible experience of three thousand peo-
ple involved in a future search conference. Is there value in conducting such a
large group activity? Perhaps, if done in the hands of someone really skilled in
this kind of work. But we have a local OD consultant who recently lost a con-
tract because he insisted on doing large group interventions only So have we
really lost the value of a small group intervention? I doubt it. My response,
Editorial 3

again, is, “What are we trylng to accomplish?” We then match our interven-
tion to our objective.
One of the most useful learnings for me from my Masters of Divinity
degree at United Theological Seminary in the early 1980s was the affirmation
by noted theologan Paul Tillich (1963) that the context of life is ambiguity He
argued that individuals set up polarities for themselves and that their task is to
create integration from these seeming polarities. How rich our lives would be
if we could always look for the enhancement in both our lives and our prac-
tice that would come from selecting the best from available options rather than
creating artificial dichotomies.
I have found my own understanding about research and the process of
“coming to know” greatly enhanced by my continuing growth in learning
about additional research methodologies. My scholarship and my practice will
continue to be enhanced as I learn better how my scholarship and practices
inhibit what is best for my students and clients and as I add those components
that improve what is best for them. Isn’t that what continuous quality improve-
ment is really about?
So is action research as a model for OD dead? Of course not, and I don’t
expect its early demise. Does appreciative inquiry have anything to say to our
practice of OD? Certainly. But it’s interesting how Cooperrider (legitimately)
points to the paucity of research supporting the use of the action research
model, yet provides no “proof” (what would that look like, anyhow?) that
appreciative inquiry can do any better. A synergistic approach will surely ben-
efit all involved.

GARYN.MCLEAN
EDITOR &
References
Burke, W. (1982). Organization development: Principles and practices. Boston: Little, Brown.
Bushe, G. R. (1995). Advances in appreciative inquiry as an organization development inter-
vention. Organization DevelopmentJournal, 13 (31, 14-22.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizationallife. In W. Pas-
more & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change development, Vol. I (pp.
129-169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gotches, G., &I Ludema, J. (1995). An interview with David Cooperrider on appreciative inquiry
and the future of OD. Organization DevelopmentJournal, 13 (3).5-13.
McLagan, P. (1989). Modelsfor HRD practice. Alexandria,VA: American Society for Training and
Development
Tillich, P. (1963). Systematic theology, Vol. 3. Chicago: The University of Chicago.