Developing Reflexive Practitioners through Collaborative Inquiry: A Case Study of the UK Civil Service
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852303693005 |
| Published date | 01 September 2003 |
| Date | 01 September 2003 |
| Author | Nada K. Kakabadse,Andrew Kakabadse |
| Subject Matter | Journal Article |
Developing reflexive practitioners through collaborative
inquiry: a case study of the UK civil service
Nada K. Kakabadse and Andrew Kakabadse
Abstract
This article examines how a collaborative inquiry (ci) intervention has been
effectively used to enhance change within central government organizations. The
experience and learning from a 15-month ci process with a group of 12 senior
managers from various departments/agencies within the UK civil service, is presented.
The purpose of the inquiry was to assist public servants to meaningfully promote the
‘Modernizing Government’ agenda. Various participatory forms of inquiry and
discourse dedicated to grasping cultural meaning from within the public service are
explored as well as the requirements necessary for the creation of meaningful change.
This article illustrates how harnessing diverse opinions through mutual inquiry can be
a more fruitful form of pursuing change than the top-down rational approach or the
more confrontational rhetorical models of debate. It concludes that the collaborative
qualities of participation and democratic dialogue are especially pertinent to individual
and organizational development as emphasis is placed on the contextual relevance of
experiential knowledge, group and community development and the need to involve
all participants in the task of defining the aims of change and creating meaningful
futures. The impact of this inquiry is now being positively felt within the UK’s civil
service as the members of the inquiry community apply their learning within their own
departments.
Introduction
In 1999, the Prime Minister (PM) of the UK, Tony Blair, launched the ‘Moderniz-
ing Government’ initiative, emphasizing the need for inclusiveness and integra-
tion in the pursuit of change. He stated that change in government ought to be
‘forward looking, inclusive and fair’ and that the challenges facing government
should be tackled ‘in a joined-up way regardless of the organizational structure of
government’ (Blair, 1999: 10). Emphasized was the need for collaboration and
Dr Nada K. Kakabadse is Professor of Management and Business Research, University
College Northampton and Dr Andrew Kakabadse is Professor of International Manage-
ment Development at Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Bedford,
England. CDU: 35.08 (42).
© A.P. Kakabadse & N. Kakabadse
This document may not be copied in any form, in whole or in part, without the express per-
mission of either of the authors. Developing Reflexive Practitioners Through Collaborative
Inquiry: A Case Study of the UK Civil Service.
International Review of Administrative Sciences [0020–8523(200309)69:3]
Copyright © 2003 IIAS. SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New
Delhi), Vol. 69 (2003), 365–383; 036084
02_IRAS69/3 articles 15/8/03 10:37 am Page 366
366
International Review of Administrative Sciences 69(3)
coordination, both horizontally and vertically, within and among, public service
organizations and associated institutions. The message was also echoed in the
Civil Service Reform initiative and was more recently described in terms of
focusing on delivery (Blair, 2001). The UK government is committed to enabling
the civil service to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the global
drivers for change and thus deliver better quality services on a ‘value for money’
basis to its citizens. Thus, the modernizing government movement implies funda-
mental change to the traditional operation of the civil service. In response, the
Change Agents Network, a formal network across government departments
and agencies consisting of civil servant representatives responsible for sharing
information covering progress with change, reported that many agencies and
departments have difficulties in making sense of the proposed initiatives. The
critical challenge has been how to engage people in delivering the modernization
agenda, bearing in mind the level of understanding necessary for effective appli-
cation in each organization.
Limitations to the rational strategic approach to change are being increasingly
recognized by both practitioners and theorists alike. For example, meta-studies
(Robertson et al., 1993; Rajagopalan and Spreitzer, 1996) emphasize the link
between perceived environmental trends and espoused organization change
agendas. However, the same studies also show the weak link between espoused
organization change agendas and the changes enacted by people in those organi-
zations (Robertson et al., 1993; Rajagopalan and Spreitzer, 1996). In other words,
there is little evidence that effective top-down change is being coherently driven
through organizations but a great deal of ‘talk’ exists that it is! Traditional man-
agement theories have under-estimated the power of knowledge that already
exists with individuals in organizations, as well as over-estimating the power to
introduce change through planned, top-down initiatives (Habermas, 1984).
On the basis that planned top-down change has its limitations, it is considered
that public sector practitioners who are affected and who, at the same time, effect
and implement change need to be involved in a more meaningful way (Kakabadse
and Kakabadse, 2002). Practice, in itself, means doing and doing requires
involvement, which lies at the heart of all meaningful human action (Suchman,
1987). Practice, or the ‘coordinated activities of individuals and groups in doing
their “real work” as it is informed by a particular organization or group’, takes
into account not only the way in which work is accomplished but also the way in
which knowledge is created and used in context (Cook and Brown, 1999: 386).
Considering that the knowledge is co-produced by the actors involved in the
situation through their activities and, therefore, context-dependent, then knowing
and doing are inseparable (Suchman, 1987; Brown et al., 1989). However, in
order to create meaningful knowledge among participants who share similar chal-
lenges, a variety of opinions need to be brought to the fore (Feyerabend, 1987;
Webb, 1995). Hence, open dialogue among practitioners is necessary in order to
enable them to organize the emerging points of view into a meaningful whole and,
thus, identify the ‘collective nature of thought’ as a prelude to building shared
02_IRAS69/3 articles 15/8/03 10:37 am Page 367
Kakabadse and Kakabadse: Developing reflexive practitioners
367
values (Somekh and Thaler, 1997). Shared values are a recurring theme in the
accounts of successful change programmes in organizations (Senge, 1990). Apart
from their ‘tying together nature’, shared values also provide a common bench-
mark against which an individual can reflect on the outcomes of an intervention.
The idea of cycles of action followed by reflection against a platform of shared
values provides an appealing model for supporting processes of change (Tandon
et al., 1998).
Against the backdrop of wishing to promote meaningful change, the inquiry
into culture change was initiated and sponsored by the Civil Service College
Directorate within the Centre for Management and Policy Studies (CMPS) in
the Cabinet Office, through their Modernization Fund Programme. The reason
collaborative inquiry (ci) was adopted was due to the desire to build on the
experiences of the individuals involved, with them deciding what questions and
issues were worth researching and, in so doing, encourage the development of
the individuals, the participating group and the organizations the group members
represented. The aim was to have a group of practitioners participate in the initia-
tion and design stages through data-gathering, analysis and report writing to the
implementation of the conclusions that emerged from the inquiry (Dash, 1998).
This article presents the learning and experience of the 12 individuals who
formed the CMPS, inter-organizational inquiry group. Some of the members held
an official ‘change agent’ role, whilst others occupied various management
positions. The group was supported by the first author in the role of external ci
facilitator who provided a theoretical underpinning for ci models, as well as par-
ticipating and sharing in their practical experience. The group became officially
known as the ‘Enquiry Action Research Project (EARP)’. The second author was
engaged by the sponsoring organization as an advisor on leading change.
Collaborative inquiry (CI)
ci has its origins in ‘action research’ and ‘humanistic’ psychology. ‘Action
research’ was introduced to social science some 50 years ago by Kurt Lewin
through his work with deprived people in developing countries (Lewin, 1946).
‘Humanistic’ psychology emerged from the London Tavistock Institute early in
the 1950s during its attempts to change industrial practice through both research
and therapy applications (Neumann and Hirschhorn, 1999). The Tavistock pio-
neers believed that their research projects should not only attempt to increase
knowledge but that they should also embrace improving work situations which
were deemed as unsatisfactory (Neumann and Hirschhorn, 1999). The proposal
for ci was first made by Heron (1981), who argued that traditional social science
inquiry methods are neither adequate nor appropriate for the study of persons
who, in themselves, are self-determining. From these beginnings, varieties of
action-oriented research, such as action inquiry (ai), collaborative inquiry (ci),
participatory action research (par) and appreciative inquiry (appi)...
To continue reading
Request your trial