Abstract
This chapter discusses the potentials and possibilities of adopting a process perspective in action research for knowledge production, development, and change in the public sector. Often, we see that models from engineering and the business world are taken into use with the goal of implementing organizational change, often without involving organizational members and stakeholders in any kind of dialogic process. The authors wish to challenge these linear assumptions and practices and line out some perspectives for researchers within the field of organizational studies. The chapter builds on the following questions: What would happen if we put co-creation and process in the forefront of our inquiries? How can we, to a higher extent, incorporate co-creation and process-thinking in our research practices? And finally, how can we work from a “withness-thinking” approach, rather than the approach of “aboutness-thinking”? The chapter unfolds these ideas in relation to a specific action research project.
TopConditions For Co-Creation In The Public Sector
Since the 1980s, the public sector in many western countries has been governed by the concepts of New Public Management (NPM), drawing on practices from the business world, which basically views public organizations as private companies. NPM has its roots in the values and ideology of neoliberalism that were found in political governing systems under Thatcher and Reagan, in particular, where the intention was to reduce the public sector because of people’s ever-increasing demands for expensive public services. The part remaining after the public sector had been cut down was to be streamlined through market orientation, outsourcing, contract management, and benchmarking. One argument was that this would lead to a greater freedom of choice for citizens, such as a choice of hospital, educational institution, etc. (McDavid et al., 2013; Osborne & Gaebler, 1993; Pollitt, 1990). The overall idea was that the public sector should be run as a business, with the intention of creating more efficiency for less cost. Services were divided into silos and units that were controlled by managers who were held responsible for quantitative measurements of performance. In this way, management became a matter of controlling the fulfilment of performance goals by employees (and managers as well), with the goals being defined by the top management of the organization who applied an economics-based logic. Furthermore, in NPM, the citizens, to a high degree, were considered as customers of services. In parallel, the amount of quantitative measurement increased. Despite the intentions, several scholars have pointed out that NPM has done great harm to many public organizations by lowering productivity, demotivating employees, discouraging development and impairing a nurturing work culture (Hood & Dixon, 2015; Torfing, 2013). NPM has focused on management and implementation, predominantly following a top-down approach and applying economic rationality in a linear way. This led indirectly to the simplification of the complex tasks and challenges of public organizations that are constantly moving because of changes in professionalism, situations, citizens’ needs and local contextual conditions. In addition, it became clear at around the turn of the millennium that the NPM approach to managing and organizing had led to fragmentation and simplification (Andersen et al., 2017; Hammerschmid & Van de Walle, 2011; Koppenjan & Koliba, 2013; Savoie, 1995), and thereby had removed the potential for collaborative and co-creating processes for learning and development in public organizations.
This has led to increasing criticism from employees, managers, economists and researchers, and even from politicians, as analyses have shown that NPM has not led to cost reductions, improvements in productivity, greater efficiency or better quality of services. Instead, NPM has led to an undermining of local democracy, influence and participation in public organizations (Hood & Dixon, 2015, p. 114).
Key Terms in this Chapter
Co-Production: A product or a service developed or produced by two or more people or between organizations. The term often refers to the idea of involving people across private and public organizations in collaboration with citizens and volunteers in order to co-produce social services, products or solutions to larger societal problems.
Dialogue: The chapter draws on an understanding of dialogue in accordance with Mikhail Bakhtins' “dialogism,” where dialogue is seen as ongoing (never ending) process between multiple voices in the whole world and across time and space.
Action Research: A democratic and participatory approach to solve problems, create development and change in organizations and communities, accompanied by systematic research during the process and thereby creating new knowledge.
Process thinking: A worldview based on a shift in focus from entities to process in organization theory.
Co-Creation: A process in which organizations or institutions jointly solve problems, share experiences or develop new knowledge, services or products through cooperation and participation of different parties, such as employees, citizens, customers, users.
Organizational learning: A process in which an organization improves over time as the organizational members learn to deal with problems, changes or new situations and thus become more experienced, skilled and knowledgeable.
Participation: A process where participants become actively involved, e.g. in an action research project where researchers and co-researchers collaborate in order to understand a problematic situation and change it for the better.
“Withness-Thinking”: An approach where we engage responsively in relationships and processes ‘from within’ our living involvement with them. ‘Withness-thinking’ is opposed to ‘aboutness-thinking’ where people meet their surroundings from a more detached and objectifying approach (term coined by John Shotter).
Knowledge Building: The chapter draws on a social constructionist understanding of the term where knowledge building is seen as a relational and social process.