1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd Person Enquiry

1. 1st, 2nd and 3rd Person Enquiry Action and Case Research in Management and Organizational Contexts

2. Learning Objectives • To identify and highlight the differences between, 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person inquiry; • To identify ways of evidencing 2nd person inquiry; • To identify ways in which 2nd person inquiry may be useful in the DBA .

3. First, second and third person inquiry • First-person inquiry - It is about inquiry (and action), for me. • Second-person inquiry - It is about collaborative inquiry/conversation, rather than competitive. It is inquiry (and action), for us. • Third-person inquiry - It is about inquiry (and action), for them. • Associated with Collaborative Inquiry form of AR. Bradbury and Reason, (2001: pp . 251 - 256).

4. First, second and third person inquiry • They are mutually supportive: • Second-person research/practice presupposes work to co-generate first-person research/practice ; • Successful third-person research/practice is an action inquiry leadership practice that presupposes first- and second- person action research/practice capacity on the part of leadership. Bradbury and Reason, (2001: p.256).

5. Second-person inquiry • Second person inquiry depends on conversation, • “Speaking-and-listening-with-others is the quintessential second-person research/practice”. Bradbury and Reason, (2001: p.253).

6. Second person inquiry conversation comes in four forms: • Framing - declaring or amending a possible shared sense of vision/intent for the occasion as a whole or for some fractal of the larger occasion; • Advocating - setting a goal, recommending a strategy, or making some other abstract claim (e.g. you’re beautiful); • Illustrating - offering a concrete, a visual picture/story based on observed performance; • and/or • Inquiring - inviting any contribution or feedback from others about their response to one's speaking and associated conduct. • Fisher, D. and Torbert, W.R., (1995). Personal and Organizational Transformation: the True Challenge of Continual Quality Improvement. London: McGraw Hill.

7. Second-person inquiry • Does it pass the test of giving beneficial results (as for all three forms of inquiry 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person): • Relationships; • Practical outcomes; • Extended ways of knowing; • Purpose; • Enduring consequences. Bradbury and Reason (b) in Bradbury and Reason (EDs)., (2001: p 449).

8. Second-person inquiry – quality checklist • Did it? • Maximise participation of all those involved? • Did the participants learn something useful? • Did participation increase ways of knowing, perspectives? • Did the research produce new knowledge/theory? • Was the method appropriate? • Was the work significant to the participants? • Were the participants harmed? Based on Bradbury and Reason (b) in Bradbury and Reason (EDs)., (2001: pp 451-452).

9. Second-person inquiry – ethical and professional considerations • Was the fieldwork described accurately; • Were the participants treated equally and honestly; • Were the conclusions drawn merited by the data; • Has triangulation taken place; • Were any theoretical claims fully justified by the data and were alternatives considered.

10. Relevance of 2nd person inquiry to DBA • Inquiry on behalf of us; • Interventionist on behalf of us; • Practical results as well as academic research; • Well established method in the business world.

11. References Bradbury and Reason (a), (2001). Introduction, in Bradbury and Reason, (EDs)., (2001), “Handbook of Action Research”. London: Sage. Bradbury and Reason (b), (2001). Issues for the improving of action research, in Bradbury and Reason, (EDs), (2001), “Handbook of Action Research”. London: Sage. Torbert, W, (2001). The practice of action inquiry, in Bradbury and Reason, (EDs)., (2001), “Handbook of Action Research”. London: Sage. Fisher, D. and Torbert, W.R., (1995). “Personal and Organizational Transformation: the True Challenge of Continual Quality Improvement”. London: McGraw Hill.