Mode 2 Management Research
| Author | D. MacLean,R. MacIntosh,S. Grant |
| Date | 01 December 2002 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00237 |
| Published date | 01 December 2002 |
Introduction
Between 1995 and 1998, the British Academy of
Management (BAM) embarked upon a wide-
spread debate about the increasing distance of
research from its user base and a concomitant
decline in its ability to influence policy develop-
ment and practice.
Much of the discussion focused on ontological
issues. What makes management research unique
and different from associated disciplines such as
economics, sociology, social psychology, psychology
or anthropology? What makes for good quality
management research? How might one recognize
the boundaries of management research? How
might we best recover the support and involve-
ment of our user base? These themes have since
been taken up by the US Academy (see Huff,
2000) and have been the focus of further debate
in this journal (see Hodgkinson, 2001).
The initial discussions were led by the BAM
Research Policy Committee and subsequently
developed in Council, culminating in a paper by
David Tranfield and Kenneth Starkey. The paper
aimed to stimulate further debate on the nature
of management research and highlight the potential
of so-called mode-2 practice as an avenue for fruit-
ful development (Tranfield and Starkey, 1998).
This paper offers a response to Tranfield and
Starkey’s discussion piece (1998) and contributes
to the ongoing debate in two ways. First, we
believe that the social sciences have an estab-
lished tradition of conducting research in mode 2,
albeit expressed in different terms. Indeed, some
forms of management research might be said to
be at the leading edge of a broader movement
towards increased levels of mode 2 knowledge
production. Whilst there is undoubtedly a wealth
of material on approaches such as action research,
cooperative inquiry and clinical method, a map-
ping of these practices onto the methodological
territory of mode 2, as laid out by Gibbons et al.
(1994), remains noticeably absent from the
literature.
The other gap in the literature is the lack
of empirical accounts specifically related to the
detailed features of mode 2 proposed by Gibbons
et al. (1994). The original work (predominantly
British Journal of Management, Vol. 13, 189–207 (2002)
© 2002 British Academy of Management
Mode 2 Management Research
D. MacLean, R. MacIntosh and S. Grant*
Department of Business and Management, University of Glasgow, West Quadrangle-Gilbert Scott Building,
Glasgow G12 8QQ and *Scottish Health Advisory Science, 8–10 Hillside Crescent, Edinburgh EH7 5EA, UK
Corresponding author email: D.MacLean@mgt.gla.ac.uk
The terminology of mode 2 knowledge production has become increasingly prominent
in discussions on the nature and purpose of management research. This paper attempts
to move our understanding of this terminology forward, by providing a detailed ex-
position of the five features of mode 2 knowledge production in the context of manage-
ment research and by offering an empirical account of a research project conducted in
mode 2. The paper relates the established problem-solving management research
traditions of action research, cooperative inquiry, grounded theory and clinical method
to the conceptual territory of mode 2. It then considers a specific form of knowledge
production where all five features of mode 2 appear simultaneously. The paper demon-
strates how the terminology of mode 2 might provide a useful basis for dialogue between
management researchers from different methodological traditions. Moreover, the paper
concludes that the specific form of mode 2 where all five features are present (called
here 5mode2) does differ, in both its conduct and the character of its output, from any
of the established approaches considered in this paper.
01_Mac 26/11/02 1:05 pm Page 189
rooted in developments in the natural sciences
and technological research) offers little to justify
the authors’ choice of descriptive features (as
opposed to some other set of features) in the
particular context of the social sciences. Indeed, if
the features of mode 2 presented by Gibbons et al.
are thought of as a set of ingredients, the various
recipes which might be created from different
combinations of these ingredients are not dis-
cussed – although there is passing reference to a
form of research where all the features of mode 2
‘appear together’, signalling possible distinctive-
ness of this particular form (Gibbons et al., 1994,
p. 8).
This paper therefore has two aims. First, it
attempts to relate established problem-solving
management research traditions to the conceptual
territory of mode 2. The second aim of the paper
is to consider the specific form of knowledge
production where all five features of mode 2
appear simultaneously. By reviewing an empirical
example of this form of knowledge production,
the paper aims to give readers a flavour of one
particular form of mode 2 management research,
and thus assist them in relating their own
research practices to the concept of mode 2. This
in turn should increase the scope for partici-
pation in the debate on the development of
practice-oriented research, whilst offering in-
sights into the practice of mode 2 management
research on the other.
Management research – the ongoing
debate
Management research is in the throes of a healthy
debate on both its ontological status and the
appropriateness of various research processes.
This debate has been prompted partly by a
recurring concern that much of the management
research appearing in top-rated academic journals
is of little relevance to most practitioners (see
Schein, 1987; Gopinath and Hoffman, 1995;
Starkey and Madan, 2001). More recently, the
debate on research process has begun to focus on
the differences between two distinct research
approaches, which have been labelled mode 1 and
mode 2 knowledge production (Gibbons et al.,
1994).
Pettigrew (1995, 2001) draws attention to the
need for research to clear ‘double hurdles’ such as
simultaneously delivering practitioner relevance
and scholarly excellence. He discusses the fea-
tures of mode 2 knowledge production in relation
to these double hurdles. Tranfield and Starkey
(1998) use Becher’s taxonomy to describe man-
agement research as ‘soft, applied, divergent
and rural’. They conclude that mode 2 reflects the
ontological status of management research more
faithfully than does mode 1. Their discussion
of management research as mode 2 knowledge
production culminates in the authors advancing a
series of propositions and speculations ranging
from themed centres of excellence, to calls for
dialogue with (rather than adherence to) existing
dominant (American) standards, and the need for
researchers to avoid becoming trapped in either
practice or academia in which they risk the perils
of ‘epistemic drift’ or ‘academic fundamentalism’
respectively (p. 353).
In the USA, Anne Huff used her presidential
address to the Academy of Management (AoM)
annual conference to address issues of practitioner
relevance, drawing attention to ‘mode 1.5’ as a
term which she used to denote the combination of
disciplinary scientific rigour normally associated
with mode 1 and the practically valued problem-
solving orientation of mode 2 (Huff, 2000).
Further reflection led to a call for ‘Mode 3’ know-
ledge production (Huff and Huff, 2001). This
highlights a growing interest in the nature and
role of practice-oriented research in the US, as
evidenced by AoM’s research methods division’s
special theme on ‘practice-grounded research’ at
the 2001 and 2002 conferences.
As stated in the introduction, the academic
debate has thus far been conducted largely in
committee or meeting rooms. The papers cited
above attempted to open the debate to a broader
audience but responses have been few and far
between in the literature. We feel that contributory
factors in this regard may be, on the one hand, a
lack of empirical accounts which are explicitly
mode 2 in orientation and, on the other hand,
a general confusion around the use of the term
mode 2 and its relationship with other terms such
as action research. This paper thus attempts
to deal with both these factors, starting with the
latter. To do this, we will draw on the original work
of Gibbons et al., first presenting the concept of
mode 2 in relation to mode 1 and then detailing
the distinctive features of knowledge production
in mode 2.
190 D. MacLean, R. MacIntosh and S. Grant
01_Mac 26/11/02 1:05 pm Page 190
To continue reading
Request your trial