Search results

In this chapter we discuss how, as a tool for organizational change, action research can affect the development of cooperation between a traditional university and the external environment. The case analyzed was a two-year action research project carried out in cooperation with over 20 employers. This project was carried out at multiple levels and had several essential goals. Apart from its emancipatory role in the shift in the way students carry out their master's theses (toward application, implementation, where organizations become the research subject instead of the research object), the project's aim was to open up the university to cooperation with its environment and conduct useful research. The results indicate that action research through the democratization of the process of introducing changes and its bottom-up nature influences the development of real cooperation between the university and external organizations. Additionally, they contribute to the emancipation of university knowledge, its democratization, dehierarchization, as well as cocreation and sharing with cooperating organizations.

The purpose of this paper is threefold. To clarify what is meant by “pragmatism” as a philosophy for social and environmental accountability (SEA) research, to survey its use within this research field and to explore how a further pursuit of pragmatism may extend this research field.

An extensive review of the SEA literature was conducted in order to determine what aspects of the philosophy of pragmatism have been used within the research. The authors organised the discussion of the literature around the pragmatist ideas of “truth” and “sensemaking”.

SEA research is a heterogeneous space in which various ideas are commonly attributed to the philosophical notion of pragmatism. However, there is a tension in the literature between seeing accounting as a medium for representing social and environmental organisational activities and a pragmatist view of accountings as a way of allowing managers and stakeholder to make sense of these same activities.

A clearer development of the ideas of pragmatism may be used to redirect the focus of SEA research in a number of useful ways. Seeing accounting as a medium of sensemaking between organisations and their stakeholders allows the authors to widen the exploration of accounting not only to the production of reports but also their interpretation by users. The ideas of pragmatism also allow the authors to explore the ways stakeholders might affect change within organisations and how accounting may support this process rather than capture or limit it.

This paper concludes by providing a set of methodological prescriptions for conducting future SEA research in a way that is inspired by pragmatism. It outlines an approach to research that focuses on users and their sensemaking and encourages an exploration of the possible ways accounting may create positive change in organisations.

Overall, this paper refines what it means to follow pragmatism within SEA research. It will promote a clearer understanding of how we, as a research community, may engage with practice in more positive ways in order to facilitate corporate social responsibility.

This paper aims to determine whether a combined set of process models for university contributions to social innovation can be effectively used to describe how higher education institutions facilitate and disseminate research for social value.

The author applies Cunha and Benneworth’s (2013) social innovation process model, with additions from the Nichols et al. (2013) model of campus-community collaboration and the Jain et al. (2020) social value framework, to a pair of case studies at Portland State University about research projects on homelessness. Information was gathered through primary sources, observation and secondary texts.

Applying the models to the case studies provides additional detail on the types and value of Portland State University’s contributions to addressing homelessness through social innovation. The models are found to be effective in describing and providing guidance for social innovation research projects at other higher education institutions.

The models may have widespread applicability in understanding or designing university contributions to social innovation, but additional case studies and analysis are needed to understand the full range of project types and institutional contexts to which they can be successfully applied.

The projects described in the paper’s case studies have not been analyzed elsewhere using social innovation frameworks and are valuable in their own right as social innovations worthy of replication. The findings of the paper extend the applicability of a process model for university contributions to social innovation.

The purpose of this study was to identify the status of using crowdsourcing to develop information services through the Twitter platform and to determine the factors affecting such usage.

A qualitative action research approach was employed to achieve the objectives of the study and to provide answers to the research questions. The effectiveness of using crowdsourcing technique for improving information services has been explored through five procedural stages: diagnostics, action planning, action taking, evaluation and determined learning. Three tools were used to collect data: open interviews, content analysis of the sampled accounts on Twitter and users' perceptions regarding information services.

The results of the study revealed that crowdsourcing was not used in the development of information services per se, but it has been used for other purposes. The results also revealed that several factors influenced the adoption of using crowdsourcing to develop information services, including factors related to the institutional trust in crowds' capabilities, the nature of service and type of the needed development, and finally, the platform used to conduct crowdsourcing. The results of the action research proved that using crowdsourcing to develop information services could be effective.

The study suggests a model that can be used to test changes implemented in organizations, especially regarding adoption of crowdsourcing as a framework to achieve the objectives of the institution, particularly in the planning processes.

This research paper produces new knowledge through using a qualitative action research approach to understand the potential of social media in crowdsourcing. There have been no similar studies conducted in the region for the specified research design. The results add to the level of learning and raise awareness within the research community regarding the effectiveness of using crowdsourcing via social media platforms to improve the efficiency of information services.

This chapter proposes a reconceptualization of undergraduate education to support the development of students as agents of positive social change. Social innovation education is put forward as a new pedagogy for the twenty-first century.

The chapter outlines a series of studies carried out at the University of Northampton between 2014 and 2015 to investigate social innovation education as a pedagogical design and practice for undergraduate curricula. Drawing on phenomenography, systematic literature review, and theory building, this chapter sets out conceptual, theoretical, and practical frameworks for designing and facilitating social innovation education.

Research findings include an ontology for understanding the concept of social innovation education, as well as a set of graduate attributes for designing learning for social change. A model of pedagogical praxis is proposed that supports the development of teaching and learning toward a more critical and socially impactful approach.

Despite some similarities to entrepreneurship and enterprise education, social innovation education is distinctive in its focus on social change-making with or without financial gain. Not only does this chapter present a set of abstract and practical tools for embedding social innovation in an undergraduate program, but also it provides a possible methodology for institutions who wish to embody particular principles within their curricular offerings.

The sex work research field has expanded significantly in recent years, and a myriad of studies have highlighted diverse forms of injustice that sex workers endure. Sex workers are a marginalised and criminalised population and thus researchers have an ethical responsibility to undertake research that challenges existing social conditions and can help support sex worker-led campaigns for change. But what does ‘making a difference’ mean in the context of sex work research and what factors may constrain the extent to which this can be achieved? In this chapter, I explore the promise and pitfalls of undertaking politically engaged, activist research on sex work. I do so by reflecting on my experience as a researcher in the New Zealand context. The aim of this chapter is to unpack the challenges of undertaking research for social change and to explore the possibilities for strengthening the impact of research in this ideologically charged area.

This research aims to examine the challenges of recruiting participatory action research (PAR) in managing innovation projects. An enhanced methodology based on PAR was developed to mitigate the challenges related to recruiting PAR in managing innovation projects. The proposed methodology was evaluated by comparing it to established methodologies/frameworks such as Scrum, Design Thinking (DT) and The Lean Startup (TLS). The evaluation aimed to determine the advantages and limitations of the proposed methodology in managing innovation projects.

The proposed enhanced methodology consists of eight steps, ranging from developing an understanding of the industry and business structure to learning and knowledge management. In addition, the enhanced methodology uses other techniques, such as Force field analysis and 12 boundary questions.

The research findings indicate that using the proposed methodology can improve the formalization of collaboration in PAR, enabling the organization to respond better to market changes. It helps define the project scope more clearly, encouraging innovation, addressing communication barriers and considering different worldviews and practical issues. Based on the findings, the proposed enhanced methodology could complement other methodologies/frameworks such as Scrum, DT and TLS.

The current research adds to the existing literature by identifying the challenges of recruiting PAR in managing innovation projects. A deductive reasoning process was utilized because there is no comprehensive research concerning the challenges of recruiting PAR in managing innovation projects. On the other hand, the PAR 4-phase cycle has been reviewed and enhanced to manage innovation projects.

The proposed methodology was used in a new product development project. The case study was done on one of the payment service provider companies that design, develop and deploy a digital product for marketing, installation, repair and maintenance of electronic funds transfer at point of sale devices.

No research has yet sought to identify the challenges of using PAR in innovation project management (IPM). Identifying the challenges associated with applying PAR in the IPM and providing an enhanced methodology to mitigate the challenges could fill a gap in IPM studies.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the reader to the Nordic tradition of Critical Utopian Action Research (CUAR) and to demonstrate how CUAR might reinvigorate participatory democracy as an intrinsic characteristic of social enterprise. This leads us to sketch out the beginnings of how researchers might work with communities to help realise their democratic impulses through social enterprise.

This paper aims to synthesise the participatory action research literature, particularly CUAR, with literature on social enterprise and democracy to demonstrate how the two approaches might fruitfully be combined.

The authors show how CUAR might be utilised by researchers, to articulate new social enterprise organisational responses to local problems or to reinvigorate democracy within existing social enterprises.

This exploratory paper marks (we believe) the first attempt to bring together social enterprise and CUAR.

How can people with lived experiences of marginalisation actively participate in contesting their marginalisation? This article aims to review the literature on PAR as a research approach. It will first describe what PAR means and consider this approach's particular features. The paper will go on to explore the advantages, limitations and criticisms of this approach to research.

How can people with lived experiences of marginalisation actively participate in contesting their marginalisation? The approach of this paper is to provide needed viewpoint discussion on Participatory Action Research (PAR) advantages, limitations and criticisms. PAR is mostly a qualitative research approach that takes account of researchers and participants collaborating to investigate social issues and take actions to bring about social change.

The aim of (PAR) is to systematically collect and analyse data to take action and make a change by generating practical knowledge. However, PAR as an approach to research has advantages and disadvantages. Also, PAR as an approach can be a problematic tool for facilitators and communities to apply due to power relations within the research process. However, PAR can help the praxis of collective critical consciousness of the participation and democratisation of participants presented in studies where this approach is used. Although a PAR approach can be an unknown and challenging tool, it is a path through which communities can explore their society and ignite to change it.

This paper provides a discussion of the critical consciousness value of PAR that seeks to bring academics, researchers and practitioners to the approach to primarily qualitative research methodology that should be understood with advantages, limitations (ethical challenges) and criticisms.

This chapter presents a framework for an action research based intervention to develop and transform sustainable healthcare in a regional context. The framework is illustrated by the case of the Regional Cancer Centre (RCC) West in western Sweden.

The framework draws upon and develops Pettigrew’s context–content–process model of strategic change and applies it to the unfolding narrative of the change effort. The empirical focus is the activities of a learning platform consisting of the RCC leadership, senior cancer physicians designated as process owners and an action research team. Data were collected from documents, observations of the learning platform, notes from meetings and interviews. Outcome data were obtained via the self-reporting of the physicians.

The learning platform established the capability for wide ranging development and quality improvement on the 23 cancer pathways as well as some support activities around principles of patient-centred care. A clear result is greater inter-organisational collaboration between care professionals as well as the introduction of new medicines, clinical methods, joint learning activities and new forms of measurement and monitoring of care practices. All of the improved measures are sustained.

Whilst there is no shortage of rhetoric on patient-centred care, the reality is that in complex healthcare systems solutions such as process-oriented approaches often fail. This case presents a model and an approach that eschews clear visions for change and instead places an emphasis on dialogue, participation, professional autonomy and collaborative communities as means for achieving the patient-centred ideal. The case also shows the value of seeing sustainable health systems as being grounded on practitioner–scholar collaboration that combines practical knowing with scientific knowledge.