Mode 2 Management Research

Abstract

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 exposition of the five features of mode 2 knowledge production in the context of management 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 demonstrates 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.

The action research cycle reloaded: Conducting action research across buyer-supplier relationships

“…Authors (e.g., Bartunek, 2011;Hodgkinson, 2001;MacLean, 2002;Tranfield and Starkey, 1998;Gibbons et al, 1994) distinguish between Mode 1 knowledge production and Mode 2 knowledge production. Mode 1 occurs mainly as a result of an academic agenda, and "Mode 1 problems are set and solved in a context governed by the largely academic interests of a specific community" (Gibbons et al, 1994, p. 3).…”

“…In addition, Mode 1 aims at universal knowledge production, which should be context free. The measurement of variables should follow a logical linear measurement procedure, and the scholar should be as detached as possible from the phenomenon under inquiry (Tranfield and Starkey, 1998;MacLean et al, 2002;Coghlan, 2011). By contrast, Mode 2 requires collaboration among academics and practitioners across different academic disciplines "rather than heroic individual endeavour" (Tranfield and Starkey, 1998, p. 347), and scientific knowledge is developed in the context of application.…”

“…This mode assumes as a starting point the problem in practice, which leads to the development of a research team to address it (Starkey and Madan, 2001). Moreover, Mode 2 research is trans-disciplinary, heterogeneous, socially accountable, reflexive, and produced in the context of a particular application (MacLean et al, 2002;Gibbons et al, 1994). Both Mode 1 and Mode 2 can adopt research tools such as surveys, case studies, and other analytical processes to gather and analyse data.…”

“…The epistemological underpinnings of action research are grounded in so-called Mode 2 knowledge production, defined and discussed as being antithetic to the traditional Mode 1 approach (Bartunek, 2011;Hodgkinson, 2001;MacLean et al, 2002;Tranfield and Starkey, 1998;Gibbons et al, 1994). In the Mode 1 approach, knowledge production occurs mainly as a result of an academic agenda.…”

“…On the one hand, some Mode 1 scholars claim that collaborating with practitioners may bring a lack of rigour to the research process (e.g., Kieser and Leiner, 2009). On the other hand, Mode 2 scholars show how, in the last decade, much of the management research appearing in top-rated journals has been of little relevance for most practitioners (e.g., MacLean et al, 2002;Bartunek, 2011;Zhang et al, 2015).…”