mdh.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Publications (10 of 56) Show all publications
McPhee, C. & Hoppe, M. (2019). Editorial: Action Research. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(5), 3-3
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Editorial: Action Research
2019 (English)In: Technology Innovation Management Review, ISSN 1927-0321, E-ISSN 1927-0321, Vol. 5, no 5, p. 3-3Article in journal, Editorial material (Other academic) Published
Abstract [en]

In April (timreview.ca/issue/2019/april), we published the first of this pair of special issues on the theme of Action Research. This second special issue can be said to be both a prolongation of the first issue and an expansion of the scope of the first issue. The aim, however, is the same: to express the action research discussion in an accessible manner such that academics, industry, and the public sector can adopt the frameworks, models, and ideas presented by the authors.

(...)

Taken together, we notice some central themes present in the articles of this special issue. The main one, to us, is the idea of the researcher to be or become part of the team that work with the real-world problem the action and knowledge process is supposed to solve. It takes commitment to the cause as well as time in order to be- come embedded and continuously adapt. Thus, flexibil- ity is key. This logic contrasts with traditional ideas of scientific rigour and control, meaning that action re- searchers need complementary views on quality, ob- jectivity, and validity, which we hope we have provided through this special issue. These insights might help re- searchers to reach their ends, but they will not suffice at the practical end. Instead, through the accounts avail- able here, we become aware that action research efforts do not trump organizational power structures. Instead, analyzing the organization, how it is run, and who has the power to change are vital when paving the way for in- novations, whether they are developed through action research or not. Action research is thus nothing you should do on a whim. You should not to just plunge into the practice. Instead, you will do better if you study the water first and decide when, where, and how to jump.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Ottawa: , 2019
Keywords
Editorial; Action Research; Participative Research
National Category
Economics and Business Engineering and Technology
Research subject
Innovation and Design; Industrial Economics and Organisations
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-43595 (URN)
Available from: 2019-06-04 Created: 2019-06-04 Last updated: 2019-06-04Bibliographically approved
McPhee, C., Hoppe, M. & Lindhult, E. (2019). Editorial: Action Research. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(4), 3-5
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Editorial: Action Research
2019 (English)In: Technology Innovation Management Review, ISSN 1927-0321, E-ISSN 1927-0321, Vol. 9, no 4, p. 3-5Article in journal, Editorial material (Other academic) Published
Abstract [en]

Through this special issue we sought to publish articles that will help us better understand how academia and practice can work together through new and contemporary accounts of “action research” and its close relative “participatory action research”, which stresses the mutuality of the approach.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Ottawa: , 2019
Keywords
Action research, participatory action research, innovation
National Category
Engineering and Technology Business Administration
Research subject
Industrial Economics and Organisations; Innovation and Design
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-43277 (URN)
Available from: 2019-04-30 Created: 2019-04-30 Last updated: 2019-06-04Bibliographically approved
Lindhult, E. (2019). Scientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part I. Rethinking Research Quality. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(5), 6-21
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Scientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part I. Rethinking Research Quality
2019 (English)In: Technology Innovation Management Review, ISSN 1927-0321, E-ISSN 1927-0321, Vol. 9, no 5, p. 6-21Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

A core impetus of participatory and action research is making science relevant and useful for solving pressing problems and improving social conditions, and enabling stakeholders to participate in research and development processes. There are claims in the community of participatory and action research of the potential for heightened scientific excellence, but at the same time, there are critiques in the mainstream community that more engaged, even activist, stances threaten scientific norms or that position these type of research approaches outside the field of science, for example, as issues of application. In the search of clarification of the scientific identity and the specific qualities of participatory and action research, scholars have been moving away from and sometimes have rejected traditional conceptions of quality. This leads to confusion about how to relate to the discourse on research quality and scientific excellence in mainstream science. Integration in this discourse is important in order to attain academic legitimation in prevailing institutions of science, for example, in applications for funding, in seeking to publish research, and in the acceptance of dissertations based on participatory and action research. The purpose of this article is to contribute to this integration by reconstructing the way traditional quality concepts - validity, reliability, and objectivity - can be fruitfully used in expanded frameworks for quality where scientific excellence of participatory and action approaches are visible and where mainstream science approaches also can be harboured. In this conceptual article, reconstruction of understanding of scientific inquiry is first made based on a praxis-oriented epistemology inspired by pragmatism. Through rethinking truth as trustworthiness, new proposals for the conceptualization and frames for research quality and scientific excellence are introduced. Second, a framework for understanding purpose in science and its basis in validity, reliability, and the core characteristics of participatory and action research is developed. Third, the turn to action, practice, and participation enables plural ways of knowing and ways that knowledge claims can be validated and made trustworthy. The article concludes that participatory and action research offers a broader landscape of purpose and validation than more traditional approaches to science. In a subsequent article, reliability and objectivity, and their use in participatory and action research, will be clarified.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
CARLETON UNIV GRAPHIC SERVICES, 2019
Keywords
action research, participatory research, quality
National Category
Other Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-44525 (URN)10.22215/timreview/1237 (DOI)000469475800002 ()
Available from: 2019-06-25 Created: 2019-06-25 Last updated: 2019-06-25Bibliographically approved
Lindhult, E. (2019). Scientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part II. Rethinking Objectivity and Reliability. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(5), 22-33
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Scientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part II. Rethinking Objectivity and Reliability
2019 (English)In: Technology Innovation Management Review, ISSN 1927-0321, E-ISSN 1927-0321, Vol. 9, no 5, p. 22-33Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The purpose of this article is to deal with the following question: Can the concepts of reliability and objectivity be reconceptualized and reappropriated to enable understanding of scientific excellence in participatory and action research? The article shows that it is fruitful to consider the "subjective" and active role of researchers as vital in enabling scientific objectivity and reliability. As an expansion from a replication logic, reliability can be conceptualized as adaptive, goal-seeking, dynamically regulated processes enabled by effective organization of interactive and participatory learning processes where all participants can contribute to learning and correction in inquiry. Instead of erasing subjectivity, objectivity can be enabled by critical subjectivity, intersubjectivity, practical wisdom, impartial norms of inquiry, and open democratic dialogue. Reliability and objectivity in this understanding can be enabled by participatory and action research through skilful performance of research practices such as reflective conversations between parties, dialogue conferences, experimentation, and experiential learning as part of action-research cycles, etc., which are common in participatory and action research initiatives and projects. By rethinking validity, reliability, and objectivity, recognizing the substantially more active and participatory stances enables scientific excellence, it can expand the repertoire of strategies for promoting research quality, and it helps to mainstream this type of approach in the scientific community.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
CARLETON UNIV GRAPHIC SERVICES, 2019
Keywords
action research, participatory research, objectivity, reliability
National Category
Other Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-44526 (URN)10.22215/timreview/1238 (DOI)000469475800003 ()
Available from: 2019-06-25 Created: 2019-06-25 Last updated: 2019-06-25Bibliographically approved
Lindhult, E. & Coghlan, D. (2019). The Status and Future of Action Research: An Interview with Professor David Coghlan. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(6), 42-49
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The Status and Future of Action Research: An Interview with Professor David Coghlan
2019 (English)In: Technology Innovation Management Review, ISSN 1927-0321, E-ISSN 1927-0321, Vol. 9, no 6, p. 42-49Article in journal, Editorial material (Other academic) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
CARLETON UNIV GRAPHIC SERVICES, 2019
Keywords
action research, insider action research, interview, David Coghlan, interiority, reflection
National Category
Economics and Business
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-44830 (URN)10.22215/timreview/1248 (DOI)000472945100005 ()
Available from: 2019-07-11 Created: 2019-07-11 Last updated: 2019-07-11Bibliographically approved
Lindhult, E., Chirumalla, K., Oghazi, P. & Parida, V. (2018). Value logics for service innovation: practice-driven implications for service-dominant logic. Service Business: An International Journal, 12(3), 457-481
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Value logics for service innovation: practice-driven implications for service-dominant logic
2018 (English)In: Service Business: An International Journal, ISSN 1862-8516, E-ISSN 1862-8508, Vol. 12, no 3, p. 457-481Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Service-dominant logic (SDL) provides a conceptual understanding of and widens the view on value creation in service innovation for product-centric companies. However, empirical research linking SDL and service innovation is still limited albeit expanding. This study provides insights beyond existing discussions on product and service dimensions using the theoretical lens of the value logic perspective. More specifically, the purpose of this study is to examine how value can be understood, targeted, and created in the pursuit of service innovation by product-centric manufacturing companies. Building on a previous investigation of two multinational product-centric manufacturing companies, this paper identifies and develops a theoretical model to describe the space shift in service innovation with four different kinds of value logics, namely, product-based value logic, service-based value logic, virtual-based value logic, and systemic-based value logic. Using a digitalization-driven new service innovation, namely the My Control System, which is a web-based service delivery platform, this paper describes space shifts to enhance value through four value logics as efforts. Further, challenges associated with different value logics are described in terms of complexity traps and service gaps. The study also contributes to bridging the gap between SDL theory and practice by developing a midrange theoretical model for value creation as a specification and amendment to SDL that supports SDL-guided service innovation and servitization in practice.

Keywords
Servitization, Product service system, Advance services, Value co-creation, Digitalization, Business model innovation
National Category
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-38630 (URN)10.1007/s11628-018-0361-1 (DOI)000440150700002 ()2-s2.0-85040765717 (Scopus ID)
Projects
XPRES - Excellence in Production ResearchSIMGIC - Service Innovation Management in Global Industrial Companies
Available from: 2018-03-06 Created: 2018-03-06 Last updated: 2018-11-05Bibliographically approved
Read, S. & Lindhult, E. (2016). Technology and transition: 'progressive evolution of regimes and the consequences for energy regime change. Paper presented at Applied Energy Symposium and Summit - Low Carbon Cities and Urban Energy Systems (CUE), NOV 15-17, 2015, Fuzhou, PEOPLES R CHINA. Energy Procedia, 88(1), 9-15
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Technology and transition: 'progressive evolution of regimes and the consequences for energy regime change
2016 (English)In: Energy Procedia, ISSN 1876-6102, E-ISSN 1876-6102, Vol. 88, no 1, p. 9-15Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Transition of energy systems has been under-theorised. We have argued previously that energy efficiency as a strategy for fossil fuel replacement is inadequate as energy demand is not being reduced by efficiency alone. This paper is intended to elaborate further on the reasons. We require better answers to better questions about the nature of energy regimes and how they resist change. Our present-day socio-technical energy regime is a global integrated technical arrangement based on cheap high-yield energy sources (fossil fuels) with built-in 'progressive' social and economic directions. This 'progressive' change relies on cheap energy as a resource towards ever greater global integration and economic efficiency. Energy regime change will be not a tinkering at the edges but will require a dismantling of this 'progressive' tendency with radical retrogressive economic and social consequences. We conclude a change of our relationship with energy will require the reversal of a contingent 'progressive' tendency that is as old as mankind and the necessarily modest building of a new infrastructural apparatus designed to a new 'end', or the reversion to previous low or lower demand apparatus based on non-fossil energy sources. Both solutions would imply major social and economic changes which we will deal with in another paper. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, 2016
Keywords
energy transition, urban energy system, socio-technical systems, systemic lock-in
National Category
Energy Engineering
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-38117 (URN)10.1016/j.egypro.2016.06.004 (DOI)000387975200002 ()2-s2.0-85007551045 (Scopus ID)
Conference
Applied Energy Symposium and Summit - Low Carbon Cities and Urban Energy Systems (CUE), NOV 15-17, 2015, Fuzhou, PEOPLES R CHINA
Available from: 2018-01-22 Created: 2018-01-22 Last updated: 2018-01-29Bibliographically approved
Read, S., Lindhult, E. & Mashayekhi, A. (2016). The inefficiencies of energy efficiency: Reviewing the strategic role of energy efficiency and its effectiveness in alleviating climate change. Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning, 2016(Spec. Iss. 5), 77-87
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The inefficiencies of energy efficiency: Reviewing the strategic role of energy efficiency and its effectiveness in alleviating climate change
2016 (English)In: Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning, ISSN 2069-3419, Vol. 2016, no Spec. Iss. 5, p. 77-87Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Our present economy is high-energy and demand-intensive, demand met through the use of high energy yield fossil fuels. Energy efficiency and renewable energy sources are proposed as the solution and named the ‘twin pillars’ of sustainable energy policy. Increasing energy efficiencies are expected to reduce energy demand and fossil fuel use and allow renewables to close the ‘replacement gap’. However, the simple fact is that fossil fuel use is still rising to meet increasing global demand and even when demand is stabilised, the substantial energy efficiencies achieved are not delivering the expected reductions in energy demand. The net effect is that efficiencies are gained and renewable energy use is increasing, even though the replacement of fossils is not an immediately plausible possibility. This points to the under-theorised problems in the ‘efficiency and replacement’ formula. We argue the need to pay closer attention to the ‘systemicity’ of the problem and to the technical and practical systems involved in energy demand. There are a number of detailed reasons why the ‘efficiency and replacement’ equation has become problematic (‘globality’, energy yield, ‘rebound’ and ‘momentum’ effects) and we include a short review of these and relate them to our ‘systemicity’ argument. We argue there is a need for better thinking, but also for a new primary instrument to drastically reduce energy demand and fossil fuel use. Attention should be urgently shifted from gains in energy efficiency to substantial year-over-year reductions in demand.

Keywords
Energy demand, Energy efficiency, Energy sustainability, Energy systems, Infrastructures, Sustainable energy policy
National Category
Energy Engineering
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-31238 (URN)000408238100008 ()2-s2.0-84958741381 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2016-03-03 Created: 2016-03-03 Last updated: 2017-09-07Bibliographically approved
Chirumalla, K. & Lindhult, E. (2015). Organizing Experience Feedback Loops for Continuous Innovation. In: 16th International Continuous Innovation Network Conference CINet 15: . Paper presented at 16th International Continuous Innovation Network Conference CINet 15, 13-15 Sep 2015, Stockholm, Sweden.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Organizing Experience Feedback Loops for Continuous Innovation
2015 (English)In: 16th International Continuous Innovation Network Conference CINet 15, 2015Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
National Category
Other Engineering and Technologies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-28157 (URN)
Conference
16th International Continuous Innovation Network Conference CINet 15, 13-15 Sep 2015, Stockholm, Sweden
Projects
SIMGIC - Service Innovation Management in Global Industrial Companies
Available from: 2015-06-12 Created: 2015-06-08 Last updated: 2015-06-12Bibliographically approved
Lindhult, E. (2015). Towards democratic scientific inquiry?: Participatory democracy, philosophy of science and the future of action research. In: Action Research for Democracy: New Ideas and Perspectives from Scandinavia (pp. 199-215). Taylor and Francis
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Towards democratic scientific inquiry?: Participatory democracy, philosophy of science and the future of action research
2015 (English)In: Action Research for Democracy: New Ideas and Perspectives from Scandinavia, Taylor and Francis , 2015, p. 199-215Chapter in book (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

One common feature of different variants of Action Research and Interactive Research is the rejection of technocratic, undemocratic streaks in science and inquiry, particularly those emanating from different aspects of the still quite strong positivist and contemplative academic heritage (Toulmin 2001). Action Research was, from the Lewinian start, already seen as a form of research to further the democratic process. A basic impetus in Participatory Action Research and Interactive Research is bringing practitioners into the scientific research process (Fals-Borda & Rahman 1991; Nielsen & Svensson 2006). This chapter will focus on the explicit or implicit democratising ambitions and tendencies in many of these types of approaches. I believe most of us value democracy and would see science as in service to it. The point here is to take the argument a step further in line with a position of a leading researcher in the field of Acton Research, who wrote, “Democracy does not only function as ‘something that is good’, but also as a theory of science point of departure-as the system of thought underlying the construction of the concept and-at a later stage-the survey of ‘facts’ and shaping of praxis” (Gustavsen 1990, p. 98). Democratising science raises the question of whether science will become more or less scientific? How can participatory democracy contribute to the scientific quality of inquiry? Or does it stifle it? Will the democratising researcher lose scientific perspective and become a political activist or a consultant-be it of a managerial or emancipatory kind? How can the academic researcher be engaged, useful and democratic-as well as scientific-at the same time? The purpose of the chapter is to develop a number of different arguments for taking participatory democracy not only as an extra-scientific value that, however commendable, should not disturb the scientific process, but as a comparatively advantageous philosophy of science orientation for Action and Interactive Research (see, e.g. Novotny, Scott & Gibbons 2001; Toulmin & Gustavsen 1996). I develop five types of arguments-empirical, epistemological, moral, institutional and political-which commend participatory democracy as a philosophy of science point of departure.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor and Francis, 2015
National Category
Other Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-43079 (URN)10.4324/9781315659909 (DOI)2-s2.0-85062073299 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2019-04-11 Created: 2019-04-11 Last updated: 2019-04-11Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0003-1902-5155

Search in DiVA

Show all publications