Introduction

In 2012 Morten Levin had an article called “Academic integrity in action research” published in the journal, Action Research (Levin 2012). I have valued this article since its publication, as it brings core action research themes together in a reflective manner. I have recommended it as core reading in my courses and have included it in the four-volume collection, Action Research in Business and Management (Coghlan and Shani 2016). I am revisiting this 2012 article and developing its main theme of rigour and relevance from the perspective of interiority. Interiority is a philosophical theory and method that enables action researchers attend to the data of their consciousness, that is how they experience, question, understand, test their understanding, make judgements, make decisions and act (Coghlan 2010; Cronin 2017). Through attention to differentiation of consciousness and recognising the differences between the realms of knowing and recognizing their distinctive contributions, interiority enables action researchers to deal with the polarization between rigour and relevance that has beset the field of social science research and provides an integrated process based on the operations of human knowing (Shani & Coghlan 2021). I offer interiority as the perspective on how rigour and relevance may be understood and integrated in a reframing of the bildung of action researchers as Morten discussed it in 2012.

Academic Integrity in Action Research (2012)

The stated focus of Levin’s (2012) article was to attend to “how claims for rigour and relevance can be met in action research” (p. 133). Drawing on the image of Janus, the Roman two-faced god, Morten explored academic integrity in action research in terms of the integration of rigour and relevance, which are typically polarised in traditional research.

The rigour vs. relevance debates have been an expression of the gap between scholarship and practice for decades (Gulati 2007; Bartunek and Rynes 2014). It is often expressed simplistically in terms of a tension between different communities. Researchers seek rigour; practitioners seek relevance. But as Bartunek and Rynes explore there are more strands to this tension. Susman and Evered (1978) refer to it as an issue of epistemology. Paine and Delmhorst (2020) explore how rigour and relevance may be balanced in, what is termed, engaged scholarship, that is the coproduction of knowledge by scholars and practitioners with the aim of advancing both theory and practice in a given setting. Engaged scholarship and action research are equivalent terms for each other.

In 2012 Morten Levin made the case that academic integrity is conceptualized in terms of the combination of formal (substantive and methodological) research skills, strategic political capacity, and the ethical and moral stature necessary to argue and act for seeking the best possible understanding (truth). He reviewed contemporary critiques of action research, discussed the nature of collaboration and suggested that, through a discussion of what is the essence of social science research, the solution may be found in the ‘bildung’ of action researchers. He defined bildung as “the process of mastering significant and relevant scientific knowledge, knowing how to run participative processes, commanding political and strategic skills, and able to reflect on ethical and moral challenges to the research process” (p 135). Picking up on Levin’s use of ‘bildung’ and Susman and Evered’s view that the problems of rigour vs. relevance is an issue of epistemology I explore how concerns of rigour and relevance are grounded in the operations of differentiated consciousness and therefore, bildung.

Modes of Knowing as an Extended Epistemology

We know that there are several modes through which we come to know, such as aesthetically when we go to a concert, a play or an art gallery, relationally when we are working in teams, scientifically when we read technical material and practically when we try to make something work. How we can recognise and value these different forms of knowing in their respective contexts is an issue of differentiated consciousness by which I mean how we can distinguish different settings and spheres of activities which hold different meanings and which require their own sometimes specialized forms of knowing and methods. Heron and Reason (1997) expressed the different modes of knowing as an “extended epistemology” to capture the polymorphic nature of human knowing. They present four modes of knowing: experiential, presentational, propositional, and practical. They describe experiential as the knowing that comes through direct experience, and presentational as knowing through music, art and literature. Propositional knowing is what we understand as theoretical or scientific knowing, acquired through systematic investigation and finally, practical knowing as the know-how in completing everyday tasks, dealing with situations as they arise and discovering solutions that work. I add relational knowing as the accumulated knowing through which we form, develop and maintain relationships, whether in a working or a friendship setting. Each mode of knowing is governed by rules and norms appropriate to its own form and has its own criteria for affirming what is so. Heron and Reason conclude that practical knowing is primary as it “brings them to fruition in purposive deeds and consummates them with its autonomous celebration of excellent accomplishment” (1997, p. 281). Recognising and engaging with a differentiation of consciousness are instances of bildung.

Processes of Human Knowing

Common across all modes of human knowing and behaving is the sequential process of experience, understanding, judgement and decision and action. There is the empirical level of experience where we hear, see, smell taste and touch and uncover data produced by the senses (data of sense) and the inner-oriented activities of thinking, feeling, remembering, and imagining (data of consciousness). There is the intellectual level where we inquire, come to understand and express what we have understood. There is the rational level where we check if our understanding fits the evidence and if we can affirm by judgement that our understanding is correct or accurate. We make value judgements about what is good to do and make decisions and take action.

While this account of human knowing is simple, coming to know is typically more complex. Our understanding may not flow spontaneously from experience; an insight may be incorrect. We may interpret data superficially, inaccurately or biased. Our judgements may be flawed. We may have unconscious fears which censor, block or divert questioning. As members of groups we can be blind to the limitations of our culture, race, gender, occupation and how power operates. At the same time, we can gain insight into these blocks to knowing by the same three-fold process of experience, understanding and judgement. The act of judgement enables critical reflection on insights and so enables distinctions between what we affirm by judgement and what we think we know through untested assumptions, emotional reasoning and jumping to conclusions (Kahneman 2011). As an answer to the question as to how we might access differentiated consciousness and be able to discuss it I introduce the notion of interiority.

Interiority

Interiority is a philosophical term that expresses a way of holding both the outer data of sense with our inner data of consciousness (Coghlan 2010, 2017, 2024; Cronin 2017). The point is that we be attentive to experience, intelligent in understanding, reasonable in judging and responsible in taking action to the data of consciousness as well as to the data of sense. Interiority enables action researchers to attend to the different modes of knowing, as in the extended epistemology, recognize the value and characteristics of each and be able to catch the knowing mode operative and required in a given situation (Fig. 1).

For instance, in an action research setting, action researchers may move between the different modes of knowing. In a propositional mode they engage in the gathering and analysis of such scientific data as technical reports, market analysis, financial data and assess the accuracy of how this data has been gathered and what valid conclusions can be drawn from it. Through presentational knowing they may facilitate members of the organization to express their experience of the organization and their vision of its future through visual imagery, story-telling and drama. At the same time in a relational mode they are trying to know how trust building and collaborative engagement with the organizational members is developing and working. All of which is leading to the generation of practical knowing of how the organization may change.

Not only do action researchers engage in the different modes of knowing but they move from one to another, in for example, catching how in a discussion of technical data accessed through propositional knowing the atmosphere may get tense and conflictual. Then they may switch to a relational mode of knowing to ensure continuing communication and collaboration. In recognizing how the different forms of knowing are operative for different conversations and being able to move from one mode to another as appropriate to the need of a given situation, action researchers are exercising their interiority or bildung.

Holding Rigour and Relevance through Interiority

Through attention to differentiation of consciousness and recognising the differences between different realms of knowing and recognizing their different contributions, interiority enables action researchers to deal with the polarization between rigour and relevance that has beset the field of social science research and provides an integrated process based on the operations of human knowing (Shani & Coghlan 2021). Rather than externalising rigour and relevance I suggest that we approach them in terms of differentiated consciousness. Rigour is at home in the realm of propositional knowing where the questions posed to experience focus on how data are gathered, assessed and judgements formed. Establishing rigour in these terms acts as a foundation for the development of the theoretical outcomes of an action research initiative. Relevance is a quality within practical knowing that runs through the enactment of cycles of design, action and reflection as the purpose and actions of the initiative are advanced. Both are necessary as the extended epistemology is engaged to generate practical outcomes and robust knowledge.

Bildung as Interiority

Hynes (2014) has presented bildung as a process of self-education where the individual recognises different ways of seeing the world and can move in and out of these views and brings them back to the self. It is a first-person practice that which draws “attention to and seeks engagement with the everyday tensions between the practitioner and the world of practice, including the often competing voices from one’s profession, other disciplines, policy and institutions” (Hynes, p. 80). We can view Levin’s description of bildung as the process of mastering significant and relevant scientific knowledge (propositional knowing), knowing how to run participative processes (practical and relational knowing), commanding political and strategic skills (relational knowing), and able to reflect on ethical and moral challenges to the research process (practical knowing) as expressing a differentiation of consciousness (Fig. 2). In short, interiority is the mechanism by which bildung works.

Conclusions

In this reflective essay I have revisited Morten Levin’s 2012 article and developed its main theme of rigour and relevance from the perspective of interiority by reframing his use of bildung as interiority to ground the explanation of what action researchers do as they engage with the challenges of rigour and relevance. Interiority is the mechanism by which action researchers may both engage in the extended epistemology and draw on as appropriate modes of knowing so as to generate practical knowledge that is useful to practice and robust for scholars. By understanding the challenges of rigour and relevance as perspectives within human consciousness captured by the term, interiority, we can advance Levin’s proposal that the bildung of action researchers is central to how action researchers can both understand and use them.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Differentiated consciousness

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Bildung as interiority

Full size image