Could Action Research Provide the Key to TrueWorkplace Collaboration?

Abstract

Management practices that serve principles of "efficiency" and "effectiveness" in the capitalist understanding of such notions have generated work practices that purport to empower employees under the guise of employee participation programs. In the fieldwork reported here, action research was used as a vehicle to initiate collaborative workplace engagements for the benefit of an organization and its employees. Our results have implications for action researchers and for social construction theory. We found that collaborative behaviors, modeled through action research to all organization levels, have the potential to initiate change toward respectful pluralist engagements. Authentic participation requires a supportive environment in order for organizations and their employees to truly flourish. It became apparent that New Zealand employment law provided a framework within which to work collaboratively, but the will to do so was not fully evident. However, through action research, the participants began to construct their "common sense" (Berger & Luckmann, 1966: 37) of their shared workplace reality and goals.

Comparative Study on Workplace Collaboration across the Leading Global Organizations in IT Sector

“…The research has limited number of respondents hence the results of the research may vary in entirety or long run. Twiname (2008) has done study on action research and how it is used to initiate and implement workplace collaboration. The research uses secondary data to establish that often management policies sought employees to comply with organizational objective and goals at their own expense.…”

[Re]considering the Workplace: Teaching and Learning for Critical Consciousness

“…Several scholars maintain that the key component of critical literacy initiatives resides in moving beyond functional skill-based competence to include the ability to engage in critical discussions about the hidden curriculum (Corus & Ozanne, 2011;Freire, 1972Freire, , 1976Gee, 2004;Giroux, 2005;Kincheloe, 2008;Kincheloe, McLaren, & Steinberg, 2011;Luke, 2012;Luke & Freebody, 1997;McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004;Shor, 1992Shor, , 1999Twiname, 2008). In essence, this commitment resides in resisting the blind consumption of text through consciousness of context, worldview, agenda, discourse, and intertextuality.…”