This article presents a design-based research study on the reporting of intellectual capital in firms. It combines the designing of an organization development (OD) intervention with the testing of the intervention using an action research methodology. A growing gap between theory-based research and practice has been identified in the literature as one of the reasons for a lack of renewal in the field of OD. Design-based research (DBR) has been proposed as a methodology that can help bridge the gap between theory-based research and practice. The purpose of this article is to illustrate what a comprehensive methodology for design-based research might look like and to demonstrate the type of OD knowledge this research can produce. The DBR approach is used to design and test a tool for the reporting of intellectual capital within firms as an OD intervention aimed toward influencing the individual and collective sensemaking of managers.
Andriessen, D. G. (2004). Making sense of intellectual capital. Boston: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.
2.
Astley, W. G. (1984). Subjectivity, sophistry and symbolism in management science. Journal of Management Studies, 21, 259-272.
3.
Bontis, N. (1999). Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: Framing and advancing the state of the field. International Journal of Technology Management, 18, 433-462.
4.
Bradford, D. L., & Burke, W. W. (2004). Introduction. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 369-373.
5.
Bunker, B. B., Alban, B. T., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). Ideas in currency and OD practice. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 403-422.
6.
Bushe, G. R., & Kassam, A. F. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 161-181.
7.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 15-42.
8.
Cook, T. D. (1983). Quasi-experimentation: Its ontology. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research (pp. 74-94). London: Sage.
9.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1, 129-169.
10.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1-28). London: Sage.
11.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 5-8.
12.
Edvinsson, L. (2002). Corporate longitude. London: Pearson Education.
13.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital: The proven way to establish your company’s real value by measuring its hidden brainpower. London: HarperBusiness.
14.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.
15.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122.
16.
Greiner, L. E., & Cummings, T. G. (2004). Wanted: OD more alive than dead! The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 374-391.
17.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
18.
Heracleous, L., & DeVoge, S. (1998). Bridging the gap of relevance: Strategic management and organizational development. Long Range Planning, 31, 742-754.
19.
Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design. Educational Researcher, 32, 3-4.
20.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163-188). London: Sage.
21.
Manning, M. R., & Binzagr, G. F. (1996). Methods, values, and assumptions underlying large group interventions intended to change whole systems. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4, 268-284.
22.
McCanliss, B., Kalchman, M., & Bryant, P. (2002). Design experiments and laboratory approaches to learning: Steps toward collaborative exchange. Educational Researcher, 32, 14-16.
23.
Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H. T., & Bukh, P. N. (2001). Valuing the future: Intellectual capital supplements at Skandia. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 14, 399-422.
24.
Oost, H. (1999). De kwaliteit van probleemstellingen in dissertaties [The quality of research problems in dissertations]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
25.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: John Wiley.
26.
Pike, S., & Roos, G. (2000). Intellectual capital measurement and holistic value approach (HVA). Works Institute Journal, 42, 1-15.
27.
Porras, J. I., & Bradford, D. L. (2004). A historical view of the future of OD. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 392-402.
28.
Reilly, R., & Schweihs, R. (1999). Valuing intangible asets. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Romme, A. G. (2003). Making a difference: Organization as design. Organization Science, 14, 558-573.
30.
Romme, A. G. L., & Damen, I. C. M. (2007). Towards science-based design in organization development: Codifying the process. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 108-121.
31.
Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Town, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32, 25-28.
32.
Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582-603.
33.
Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing and measuring knowledge-based assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
34.
Van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 219-246.
35.
Van Aken, J. E. (2005). Management research as a design science: Articulating the research products of Mode 2 knowledge production in management. British Journal of Management, 16, 19-36.
36.
Van Aken, J. E., & Romme, A. G. L. (2005, May). Reinventing the future: Design science research in the field of organization studies. Paper presented at EURAM 2005 in Munich, Germany.
37.
Wirtenberg, J., Abrams, L., & Ott, C. (2004). Assessing the field of organization development. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 465-479.
38.
Worren, N., Moore, K., & Elliot, R. (2002). When theories become tools: Toward a framework for pragmatic validity. Human Relations, 55, 1227-1250.
39.
Yin, R. K. (2000). Rival explanations as an alternative to reforms as “experiments.” In L. Bickman (Ed.), Validity and social experiments (pp. 239-266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
