Learning by Doing Organization Research: Inside Views from a Dutch Nephew

SUMMARY The development of organization science is not without concern when it comes to the richness, rigor and relevance of the knowledge production of the discipline. The inner critics of this discipline make frequent calls for better theory, better methods and higher usefulness of the research. This paper suggests that the key to improvement can be found in a more intensive and systematic reflection of the research work itself, and proposes an approach that is not unfamiliar within organization theory: learning by doing. The challenge is to make learning a collective process with an empirical base which goes beyond the accidental inside views and professional anecdotes. This requires the development of a process theory of doing organization research, and this paper attempts to make a step into that direction. The presented improvised framework focuses on three aspects (1) the context (relevant actors), (2) content (theoretical views on doing research), and (3) the research process (sequence of actions). The research strategies are described using six metaphors. The paper is largely grounded on the experiences gathered in the studies on innovation in firms carried out at MERIT throughout the last 15 years, and upon earlier experiences within Philips. Organization science can be expected to have reached a certain level of maturity since the days of Weber, Taylor and Fayol. Maturity is urgently needed today, because the field studied by organization scientists seems to be more dynamic than ever. Not only do they face new phenomena, but an entirely New (virtual) World is urged upon them-a New World with new challenges and new problems. Besides, an increasing number of people are relying on organization knowledge while preparing for organizing and management roles within organizations. However, the accumulation of knowledge within the organization discipline is not without problems. Three problem areas can be distinguished in the academic literature of the last decade: those connected with the quality of theory do not use euphemistic language, but strong words to expose " lazy theorizing " and " half-baked pretensions to theory " (Weick 1995, p. 385), " serious consequences of sacrificing rigor for relevance… " (Scandura & Williams, p. 1259), and " the danger of becoming isolated and irrelevant " (Daft & Lewin 1993, p. i). We leave aside whether the situation in organization science is more serious than in other fields of social inquiry, nor will we question whether the samples of research analyzed by …