Problem-solving and learning with academic accreditation: A flexible postgraduate program for managers and practitioners using action research at the workplace

This paper will describe some lessons learned by two supervisors from Australia and four doctoral candidates from Singapore. The candidates, who were senior managers in workplace organisations, successfully completed their doctoral programs and solved significant business problems facing their organisations, over a four-year period. Despite various organisational and personal hurdles facing them the four candidates and their supervisors worked together as an e-forum based 'action learning set', and on occasions face to face, to motivate and support each other.

The paper will describe how the program started and the trials and tribulations of the students as they inspired each other to complete and receive their doctorates simultaneously. It will also explain the model for action research based PhD programs they developed together through their research. A principal characteristic of this model is that both management and research outcomes are generated to the benefit of the organisation and the researcher.

Based on their experience of the candidates and their supervisors, an improved doctoral program is now being offered by the supervisors' home Australian University. Two companies have been started - one in Singapore and one in Australia - to promote and execute this innovatively designed PhD to both organisations and individual students from both Singapore and Australia. The approach will be extended to other countries in the future. The structure of the program can be flexibly adjusted to the needs of an organisation and its managers.

A 'pioneer' PhD program

Although the University of South Australia encouraged the first batch of candidates to use action research methodology, most candidates struggled with the concept. In the main they were managers whose world view was rooted in the 'positivist' paradigm. They found it difficult to understand how an action research methodology could actually be applied to their practice.

A search conference

One of the outcomes of the search conference was that the students formed 'peer groups' based on common research methodology and/or common themes to determine their research focus and develop their research proposal.

PhD supervision

Not all the supervisors for were from the University of South Australia. In fact, most of them were external to the University.

For example Professor Alan Davies, who was from Southern Cross University (SCU), was assigned six PhD students - two of who are co-authors of this paper. He requested Adjunct Professor Bob Dick from SCU to join as a co-supervisor, because of his experience with action research methodology. All six students agreed to use an action research methodology as a starting point. The action research methodology used by the students was initially based on the model of action research proposed by Professor Robin McTaggart who conducted a research seminar on behalf of the University of South Australia in Singapore. This was modified by the methodology used by Adjunct Professor Bob Dick. Papers written by Adjunct Professor Bob Dick about action research can be found in the action research resources available from the Graduate College of Management of the Southern Cross University at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arhome.html

The University of South Australia provided for three face to face workshops per year of candidature. Each of these ran for five days in Singapore. Each was organised along the following lines by the six Singapore candidates and their supervisors from Southern Cross University:

• A start up meeting involving all the candidates, and covering 'peer group' status reporting and planning.
• Individual sessions with candidates, where other candidates could participate as observers and 'idea generators'.
• A closing 'reflection' session with all the candidates, at which clearly defined milestones were negotiated for achievement by the next visit by the supervisors.

In the end, four of the original six members of the 'group' or 'set' motivated each other to submit their PhD theses at the same time, and were awarded their doctorates at the same convocation ceremony held in Adelaide. This motivation proved critical in overcoming the ebb and flow of enthusiasm and commitment that is part and parcel of any long research endeavour. The 'peer group' pulled each other through the 'low' periods produced by attempting to complete the program on time. The successful candidates are convinced that these factors contributed to the higher than usual success rate of their group (4 out of 6 candidates completing and graduating), which was higher than for any other grouping of students. Two out of the six students had to withdraw from the program due other priorities in their personal lives, which took precedence over their doctoral program.

Issues encountered

1. The requirement for an 'ethics approval' halted the work of all the students for nearly six months. The 'ethics approval' procedure was derived from medical research, involving a different set of ethical circumstances than those faced by those deploying an action research methodology to tackle organisational development and research challenges. Candidates did not know how to complete the required forms, and when they attempted to do so they did not meet the requirements of the ethics committee. The two supervisors took on the task of resolving the issue. Although the University granted a six-month extension to the students, valuable time was wasted.

2. The students continuously grappled with the difference between their sought management (or action) outcomes, and their sought research outcomes. Although an action research methodology is specifically designed to deliver both classes of outcomes, candidates found it difficult to distil their 'research' objectives from their more obvious management or action objectives.

3. As the entire program was held off shore in Singapore, it was difficult for the candidates to identify with the University in Adelaide. After the initial seminars, meetings with University staff were infrequent. Although the students met their own supervisors for lengthier times, they were not from the University of South Australia. The course co-ordinator did build a close rapport with the students, but he was not part of the regulatory and administrative trials and tribulations that the students experienced. This led to the students building closer relationships with their own supervisors and their home university, Southern Cross University.

4. The language in which the thesis had to be written posed a problem to some of the students who came through the Chinese education stream in Singapore. Although they were effective managers in their own right and were senior managers of large organisations they had to conform to the academic requirements of a 'Western' system that was actually doing business in the 'East'. Writing the thesis and editing was time consuming for both the students and their supervisors. Perhaps allowing students to write the detailed parts of each chapter in their 'mother tongue' but adding an overview of what they have written in English and using two supervisors one of whom is familiar with the 'mother tongue' of the student could help to speed up the writing process.

Strengths of the program

1. The involvement of A/Prof. Bob Dick provided candidates with contacts with action researchers around the world, through an electronic discussion list called 'arlist' that is managed by Bob Dick. For candidates based in Singapore, and a long way from the University of South Australia, this exposure to an international audience was valuable.

2. The Action Research and Evaluation on Line Course (AREOL) on Action research conducted by A/Prof. Bob Dick brought some of the candidates in contact with action researchers from Australia and New Zealand. This further built links with The Action Learning, Action Research and Process Management Association of Australia (ALARPM). A joint conference on action research was organised in Singapore by the candidates in conjunction with ALARPM and the Singapore Institute of Management. This helped legitimise the use of action research in management development in Singapore.

3. A/Prof. Bob Dick's familiarity with a range of methods that could be used in action research helped with achieving the research flexibility required for conducting research at the workplace.

4. The fact that the candidates came from different organisational cultures enabled them to draw out relevant knowledge from each other's field.

5. The graduation ceremony at The University of South Australia was a momentous one for the students. The University proudly and publicly acknowledged its 'international doctors' making the students feel very important. Unfortunately, this face to face contact came too late in the program.

A new PhD program

The successful candidates felt that since the University of South Australia had already established a close relationship with a local provider in Singapore, it would very difficult to modify the program based only on their own experience. At the time, the University of South Australia and the local provider were looking at a 'mass' market enrolling close to 25 students at each intake. The four PhD recipients felt that it would be better to take in small groups of students and work with them effectively to achieve a good completion rate in a short time. They felt that students in this market would not hesitate to pay the additional price that would be required with smaller intakes, so long as the success rate was high.

This led them to approach Southern Cross University, the home University of their Supervisors, with a proposal that a refined version of University of South Australia's program be offered through the Southern Cross University. The Vice Chancellor of the University, Professor Barry Conyngham, was interested in pursuing the proposal, but there was some difficulty in finding an academic home amongst the various schools and faculties. The Director of the Graduate School of Management, Professor Peter Graham, agreed to accept the challenge of promoting a 'newly designed' program.

New features added to the program

Items that were kept were:

• Use of email for supervision
• Participation in mailing lists devoted to action learning and action research.
• The 'pod' or 'group' structure
• Peer collaboration and cross-functional learning, by forming pods of managers from different disciplines/industry.
• Using action research flexibly
• Scheduled face to face meetings of the pod with the supervisors.

1. A 'residential seminar' at the beginning of the program, held at Southern Cross University using a 'search conference' format to focus on completing the doctoral program in three years. This seminar was designed to:
   
   
   • Build a face-to-face contact and rapport early in the program with the University
   • Shorten the period required by the students in preparing a 'thesis proposal', by producing a conducive academic environment, away from the workplace.
   
   This was designed to cut down on the time (nearly a year) that the candidates in the original program had taken to do this.

2. Using the four students who were involved in the original program as co-supervisors of the next group or 'pod' of students in Singapore. These co-supervisors now facilitate the monthly meetings of next the 'pod', and are available at other times when candidates need help.

3. Recently, an on-line collaborative platform for the candidates has been established using the CourseInfo platform available at Southern Cross University for on-line delivery of programs. The effectiveness of this facility to enhance the program is now being tested.

Problems faced at Southern Cross University

The proponents of the new program received initial support from the Graduate School of Management, but this school had had a very limited and unsatisfactory experience in using action research in the past. Offsetting this, action research had been used satisfactorily in an educational context at SCU.

New program begins

Southern Cross University is now exploring the possibility of adding some of the features of the Singapore program to enhance their Australian PhD programs. One of the issues in Australia is that full fee paying PhD students are not the norm, and there is market resistance to full fee payment. This is an issue that is being addressed now. Australian employers have to be convinced that it is a sound business proposition to fund their employees to use an action research methodology at their workplace in order to produce both management and research outcomes.

Relationship with flexible and problem-solving-and learning

The processes used by the doctoral programs described in this paper meet the requirements of the definition of the term Flexible Learning. (Taylor, Lopez and Quadrelli 1996: 6-7). They have also exhibited flexibility in producing practical and valuable research outcomes that can be applied directly to practice. Although the PhD programs described in this paper exhibit many characteristics of a problem-based learning approach (Woods 1994:2-1 to 2-2), they are differ in that they are designed to produce rigorously examined research outcomes.

Conclusions

It has shown that action research and action learning processes can be used at the workplace to help managers and practitioners research their own practice for both their personal development and organisational development, while at the same time producing research outcomes that can lead to academic research based accreditation. The paper has also examined how doctoral supervision can break geographical barriers and can be made more personal using email to enhance collaboration. It has also examined how a collaborative approach, based on a 'peer group' of students and supervisors, can assist in achieving a successful completion rate.

References

Pearson, M. and Ford, L. (1997). Open and flexible PhD study and research. Canberra: AGPS.

Taylor, P. G., Lopez, L. and Quadrelli, C. (1996). Flexibility, Technology and Academics' Practices: Tantalising Tales and Muddy Maps. Evaluations and Investigations Program, DEETYA.

Woods, D.R. (1994). Problem-based learning: How to gain the most from PBL. Waterdown: D.R. Woods.

Yee, A.H. (Eds) (1995). East Asian higher education: Traditions and transformations. Oxford: Pergamon.

Action Research Resources. [verified 26 Sep 2001] http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arhome.html

Contact details: Dr Shankar Sankaran, Director, Southern Cross Institute of Action Research (in formation), Graduate College of Management, Southern Cross University, Military Road, PO Box 157, Lismore NSW 2480, Australia Phone (02) 6620 3447 Fax (02) 6621 3407 Email ssankara@scu.edu.au Please cite as: Davies, A., Dick, B., Hase, S., Sankaran, S. and Kwok, R. (2001). Problem-solving and learning with academic accreditation: A flexible postgraduate program for managers and practitioners using action research at the workplace. In L. Richardson and J. Lidstone (Eds), Flexible Learning for a Flexible Society, 165-171. Proceedings of ASET-HERDSA 2000 Conference, Toowoomba, Qld, 2-5 July 2000. ASET and HERDSA. http://www.aset.org.au/confs/aset-herdsa2000/procs/davies.html