Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Researcher–Practitioner Partnering in Industry-Funded Participatory Action Research

  • 85 Accesses

  • 10 Citations


This paper reflects on our experiences with researcher–practitioner partnering within an industry-funded Participatory Action Research (PAR) project. We find that the nature of partnering in our industry-funded engagement differs from that of traditional, non-industry funded PAR research. The distribution of power on the industry-funded academic-practitioner research team, whilst fairly equitable at the outset of the project, shifted in favour of the practitioner partners with the progressive spillover of credibility and knowledge from the academic to practitioner partners during the course of the engagement. Adhering to recommendations for academic-practitioner research teams, in our experience, does not guarantee successful partnering according to PAR due to the spillover problem. As the academic partners' power base erodes, the discretion to preserve the integrity of the PAR method is increasingly placed in the hands of the practitioner partners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P. W., Marsh, M., and Kramer, S. J. (2001). Academic–practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Acad. Manage. J. 44(2), 418–431.

  2. Breu, K., Hemingway, C., and Peppard, J. (2004). Challenges for participatory action research in industry-funded IS projects. In Relevant Theory and Informed Practice: Looking Forward from a 20 Year Perspective on IS Research. IFIP 8.2, International Federation for Information Processing, WG: Interaction of Information Systems and the Organization, July, 15–17, Manchester, UK.

  3. Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organ. Sci. 2(1), 40–57.

  4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ. Res. 18(1), 32–42.

  5. De Venney-Tiernan, M., Goldband, A., Rackham, L., and Reilly, N. (1994). Creating collaborative relationships in a co-operative inquiry group. In Reason, P. (ed.), Participation in Human Inquiry, Sage, London, pp. 120–137.

  6. Eden, C., and Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for management research. Br. J. Manage. 7(1), 75–86.

  7. Edwards, M. (1989). The irrelevant of development studies. Third World Q. 11(1), 117.

  8. Fals Borda, O., and Rahman, M. A. (1991). Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action-Research, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi, India.

  9. Fernandez, W., and Tandon, R. (eds.) (1981). Participatory Research and Evaluation: Experiments in Research as a Process of Liberation, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi.

  10. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Herder and Herder, New York.

  11. Grimshaw, D., and Breu, K. (2000). Releasing the Value of Knowledge: A Survey of UK Industry, Cranfield School of Management, Information Systems Research Centre and Microsoft Research Report, Cranfield.

  12. Heron, J. (1971). Experience and Method: An Inquiry into the Concept of Experiential Research, University of Surrey, Human Potential Research Project, Survey.

  13. Heron, J. (1981). Philosophical basis for a new paradigm. In Reason, P., and Rowan, J. (eds.), Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 19–35.

  14. Heron, J. (1988). Validity in co-operative inquiry. In Reason, P. (ed.), Human Inquiry in Action: Developments in New Paradigm Research, Sage, London, pp. 40–59.

  15. Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative Inquiry: Research into the Human Condition, Sage, London.

  16. Heron, J., and Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qual. Inq. 3(3), 274–294.

  17. Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  18. Liedtka, J. (1999). Linking competitive advantage with communities of practice. J. Manage. Inq. 8(1), 5–16.

  19. Merrifield, J. (1993). Putting scientists in their place: Participatory research in environmental and occupational health. In Park, P., Brydon-Miller, M., Hall, B., and Jackson, T. (eds.), Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada, Bergin & Garvey, Westport, CT.

  20. Park, P. (1999). People, knowledge, and change in participatory research. Manage. Learn. 30(2), 141–157.

  21. Reason, P. (1981). Issues of validity in new paradigm research. In Reason, P., and Rowan, J. (eds.), Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 239–250.

  22. Reason, P. (1988). Introduction. In Reason, P. (ed.), Human Inquiry in Action: Developments in New Paradigm Research, Sage, London, pp. 1–17.

  23. Reason, P. (1993). Sacred experience and sacred science. J. Manage. Inq. 2(3), 10–27.

  24. Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 324–339.

  25. Reason, P. (1998). A participatory world. Resurgence 186, 43–44.

  26. Reinharz, S. (1979). On Becoming a Social Scientist, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

  27. Rowan, J. (1973). Psychological Aspects of Society, No. 2: The Social Individual, Davis-Poynter, London.

  28. Rowan, J. (1981). A dialectical paradigm for research. In Reason, P., and Rowan, J. (eds.), Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 93–112.

  29. Rynes, L. S., McNatt, D. B., and Bretz, R. D. (1999). Academic research inside organizations: Inputs, processes, and outcomes. Pers. Psychol. 52(4), 869–898.

  30. Skolimowski, H. (1994). The Participatory Mind: A New Theory of Knowledge and of the Universe, Arkana Books, London.

  31. Stamps, D. (1997). Communities of practice: Learning is social. Training is irrelevant? Training 34(2), 34–42.

  32. Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Doubleday, NY.

  33. Tandon, R. (1988). Social transformation and participatory research. Convergence 21(2/3), 5–18.

  34. Thorsrud, R. (1977). Democracy at work: Norwegian experience with nonbureaucratic forms of organization. Appl. Behav. Sci. 13(3), 410–421.

  35. Torbert, W. R. (1976). Creating a Community of Inquiry: Conflict, Collaboration, Transformation, Wiley Interscience, London.

  36. Van de Ven, A. H., and Johnson, P. E. (forthcoming 2005). Knowledge for theory and practice. Acad. Manage. Rev.

  37. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  38. Wenger, E. C., and Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harv. Bus. Rev. 78(1), 139–145.

  39. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., and Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

  40. Whyte, W. F. (1989). Introduction. Action research for the twenty-first century: participation, reflection, and practice (special issue). Am. Behav. Sci. 32(5), 502–512.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Karin Breu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Breu, K., Hemingway, C. Researcher–Practitioner Partnering in Industry-Funded Participatory Action Research. Syst Pract Act Res 18, 437–455 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-005-8482-6

Download citation


  • participatory action research
  • industry collaborations