Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Process Model of Collaborative Management Research: The Study of Collective Creativity in the Luxury Industry

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Systemic Practice and Action Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article explores collaborative management research (CMR). As one of the streams within the action research family, CMR is one approach that has been identified as a potent method for advancing scientific knowledge and bringing about change in organizations. The article proposes a hybrid model of the CMR research process in organizations. Following a brief introduction of collaborative management research, we advance an emerging, inductively derived, hybrid process model of CMR. Three critical clusters for achieving the intended outcomes of collaborative management research include: (1) contextual factors, (2) quality of the collaboration, and (3) the development of the collaborative research process itself. Within each cluster, concepts, variables, and processes were identified and linked together to form a hybrid model of CMR process. An illustration of a collaborative management research project that focused on the study of collective creativity with an Italian fashion and design company is followed by a reflective analysis. The discussion provides directions for future research and implications for practice.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Campbell DT, Stanley JC (1966) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaharbaghi K, Cripps S (2007) Collective creativity: wisdom or oxymoron? J Eur Ind Train 31:626–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M (2006) Understanding the benefits and detriments of conflict on team creativity process. Creativ Innovat Manag J 15:105–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chirumbolo A, Livi S, Mannetti L, Pierro A, Kruglanski AW (2004) Effects of need for closure on creativity in small group interactions. Eur J Pers 18:265–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cirella S, Shani AB (2010) Towards a process model of team creativity: a design based perspective. Paper presented at the EURAM annual conference, Rome, May 2010

  • Coghlan D (1993) Learning from emotions through journaling. J Manag Educ 17:90–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coghlan D (2009) Toward a philosophy of clinical inquiry/research. J Appl Behav Sci 45:106–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coghlan D, Brannick T (2010) Doing action research in your own organization. Sage, Thosand Oak

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen SG, Bailey DE (1997) What makes teams work? Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive site. J Manag 23:239–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickens L, Watkins K (1999) Action research: rethinking Lewin. Manag Learn 30:127–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall G (1999) Creative climate. In: Runco M, Pritzker S (eds) Encyclopedia of creativity. Academic, San Diego, pp 403–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery FE (1981) System thinking. Harmonwords, Penguin

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Res Policy 29:109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood RL (2010) The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ to action research. Syst Pract Action Res 23:269–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel A, David A (2008) Collaborating for management research. From action research to intervention research in management. In: Shani AB, Mohrman S, Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Adler N (eds) Handbook of collaborative management research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, pp 143–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel A, Glise H (2004) Rebuilding management: a historical perspective. In: Adler N, Shani AB, Styhre A (eds) Collaborative research in organizations. Sage, London, pp 5–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey BA (2003) Is the social psychology of creativity really social? Moving beyond a focus on the individual. In: Paulus PB, Nijstad BA (eds) Group creativity Innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirst G, Van Dick R, Van Knippenberg D (2009) A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. J Organ Behav 30:963–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer J, Gemunden HG, Letll C (2008) Balancing creativity and time efficiency in multi-team R&D projects: the alignment of formal and informal network. R&D Manag 38:538–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler EE, Mohrman AM Jr, Mohrman SA, Ledford GE, Cummings TG (1985) Doing research that is useful for theory and practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean D, McIntosh R, Grant S (2002) Mode 2 management research. Br J Manag 13:189–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G (2010) Theoretical pluralism in systemic action research. Syst Pract Action Res 14:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohrman SA, Gibson CB, Mohrman AM (2001) Doing research that is useful to practice: a model and empirical exploration. Acad Manag J 44:357–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molineux J, Haslet T (2007) The use of soft systems methodology to enhance group creativity. Syst Pract Action Res 20:477–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijstad BA, Paulus PB (2003) Group creativity. Common themes and future directions. In: Paulus PB, Nijstad BA (eds) Group creativity innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H, Scott A, Gibbons M (2001) Rethinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagni L (2011) Como un declino morbido come la seta. Il lunedì de La Repubblica, Affari & finanza, February 28th, 2011, p 13

  • Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Shani AB, Mohrman SA, Adler N (2008a) The promise of collaborative management research. In: Shani AB, Mohrman S, Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Adler N (eds) Handbook of collaborative management research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasmore WA, Woodman RW, Simmons AL (2008b) Toward a more rigorous, reflective, and relevant science of collaborative management research. In: Shani AB, Mohrman S, Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Adler N (eds) Handbook of collaborative management research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus PB, Brown VR (2003) Enhancing ideational creativity in groups: lessons from research on brainstorming. In: Paulus PB, Nijstad BA (eds) Group creativity. Innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce CL, Ensley MD (2004) A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: the central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). J Organ Behav 25:259–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew AM (2004) Foreword II: some challenges of collaborative research. In: Adler N, Shani AB, Styhre A (eds) Collaborative research in organizations. Sage, London, pp xv–xviii

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew AM, Woodman RW, Cameron KS (2001) Studying organizational change and development: challenges for future research. Acad Manag J 44:607–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J (2009) Renaissance and renewal in management studies: relevance regained. Eur Manag Rev 6:141–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirola-Merlo A, Mann L (2004) The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: aggregating across people and time. J Organ Behav 25:235–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragsdell G (1998) Participatory action research and the development of critical creativity: a “natural” combination? Syst Pract Action Res 11:503–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason P (1988) Human inquiry in action: developments in new paradigm research. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Roethlisberger FJ, Dickson WJ (1939) Management and the worker. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalley CE, Perry-Smith JE (2008) The emergence of group creative cognition: the role of diverse outside ties, socio-cognitive network centrality, and group evolution. Strat Manag J 2:23–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Shani AB, Pasmore WA (1985) Organizational inquiry: towards a new model of the action research process. In: Warrick DD (ed) Contemporary organization development: current thinking and applications. Scott, Foresman and Co, Glenview

    Google Scholar 

  • Shani AB, Mohrman S, Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Adler N (eds) (2008) Handbook of collaborative management research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Starkey K, Hatchuel A, Tempest S (2009) Management research and the new logics of discovery and engagement. J Manag Stud 46:547–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens J, Barton J, Haslett T (2009) Action research: its history and relationship to scientific methodology. Syst Pract Action Res 22:463–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Styhre A, Sundgren M (2005) Managing creativity in organizations: critique and practices. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Swift TA, West MA (1998) Reflexivity and group processes: Research and practice. University of Sheffield, Sheffield

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor FW (1911) Shop management. Harper, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenkasi RV, Hay GW (2008) Following the second legacy of Aristotle: the scholar–practitioner as an epistemic technician. In: Shani AB, Mohrman S, Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Adler N (eds) Handbook of collaborative management research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Torbert WR (1999) The distinctive questions developmental action inquiry asks. Manag Learn 30:189–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torlak GN (2001) Rationalization of metaphorical exploration: improving the creativity phase of total systems intervention (TSI) on the basis of theory and practice. Syst Pract Action Res 14:451–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trist EL, Bamforth KW (1951) Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Hum Relat 4:3–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valqui Vidal RV (2004) The vision conference: facilitating creative processes. Syst Pract Action Res 17:385–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodman RW (1989) Evaluation research on organizational change: arguments for a “combined paradigm” approach. In: Woodman RW, Pasmore WA (eds) Research in organizational change and development. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 161–180

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, School of Management, Politecnico di Milano, Via Lambruschini 4/B, 20156, Milano, Italy

    Stefano Cirella, Marco Guerci & A. B. (Rami) Shani

  2. Orfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA

    A. B. (Rami) Shani

Authors
  1. Stefano Cirella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Guerci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. B. (Rami) Shani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Cirella.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cirella, S., Guerci, M. & Shani, A.B. A Process Model of Collaborative Management Research: The Study of Collective Creativity in the Luxury Industry. Syst Pract Action Res 25, 281–300 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-011-9220-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-011-9220-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation