Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A major challenge faced in research seeking to investigate the underlying dynamics of problematic interactions is that, when asked about the rationale underpinning what they said and did – their ‘theory of action in-use’ (Argyris and Schön, 1974, 1978, 1996) – participants are often unaware of what prompts their behaviour – or decide to hide it – so instead produce their ‘espoused theory of action’, the rationale they think ought to have been underpinning what they said and did.

Using the left-right case protocol (Argyris and Schön, 1974), researchers investigating problematic interactions, especially interactions open to different cultural interpretations, are able to identify points of dilemma in these moments when participants report thinking X, then self-censoring and actually saying Y. The question ‘What prevented you from saying X?’ allows the opening up of participants’ theory of action in-use – where they thought they were, what they thought was happening, and what they thought their options were. This access to their theory of action in-use could then be opened up and examined with the participants. This paper will present the attributes of the protocol and its rationale, and give examples of its effectiveness in the study of Chinese-Australian problematic social interactions at work.

Keywords

Australian Chinese left-right column protocol problematic social interaction theory of action

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Argyris

Schön

(1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris

Schön

(1978) Organizational Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris

Schön

(1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Argyris

Putnam

Smith

(1985) Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bokeno

(2003) The work of Chris Argyris as critical organization practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management 16(6): 633–49.

Halliday

MAK

(1978) Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Halliday

MAK

(1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London, Baltimore, MD: E. Arnold.

Halliday

MAK

(1991) The notion of ‘context’ in language education. In Le

McCausland

(eds) Language Development: Interaction and Development. Launceston: University of Tasmania.

Holmes

(2003) Talk at work and ‘fitting in’: a socio-pragmatic perspective on workplace culture. In: Wigglesworth

(ed) Marking Our Difference: Languages in Australia and New Zealand Universities. Proceedings of Conference on Language Education in Australian and New Zealand Universities. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

10.

Holmes

(2005) Socio-pragmatic aspects of workplace talk. In: Kawaguchi

Zaima

Takagaki

Shibano

Usami

(eds) Linguistic Informatics - State of the Art and the Future: The First International Conference on Linguistic Informatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

11.

Holmes

Riddiford

(2009) Talk at work: interactional challenges for immigrants. In: Bhatia

Cheng

Du-Babcock

Lung

(eds) Language for Professional Communication: Research, Practice and Training. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong, Asia-Pacific LSP and Professional Communication Association, and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

12.

Hou

(2010) Language and culture difficulties: how five Chinese overseas students manage interaction in Australia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

13.

Instep.net.nz (2013) Model I – Model II framework / critically analysing data / using inquiry approaches / conducting inquiry / INSTEP - INSTEP [online]. Available at: http://instep.net.nz/Conducting-inquiry/Using-inquiry-approaches/Critically-analysing-data/Model-I-Model-II-framework

14.

(2007) We and they: cultural clashes between Australian teachers and mainland Chinese postgraduates. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

15.

Mitchell

(2011) Using a case study to learn the mutual learning model. Benjamin Mitchell’s Blog. Available at: http://blog.benjaminm.net/2011/02/16/argyriscasestudylearningmodelii/

16.

Orton

(2000) Keys to Successful Intercultural Communication between Partners in Australia-Chinese Joint Ventures. Melbourne: The Australia China Business Council (Vic. Branch).

17.

Orton

(2001) What can be learned in a month? In: Hu

(ed.) Selected Papers from China’s 3rd Symposium on Intercultural Communication. Beijing: Foreign Languages Research Press, 410–35.

18.

Orton

(1990) Educating the reflective practitioner in China. PhD Thesis, La Trobe University, Australia.

19.

Putnam

(1991) Recipes and reflective learning: what would prevent you from saying it that way? In: Schön

(ed.) The Reflective Turn. New York: Teachers College Press.

20.

Putnam

(1999) Transforming social practice: an action science perspective. Management Learning 30(2): 177–87.

21.

Putnam

(2008) Action science. In: Richard

Holt

(eds) The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

22.

Senge

(1990) The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

23.

Tomazin

(2009) Beyond them and us. The Age. 15 June.

24.

Zhou

Windsor

Coyer

Theobald

(2010) Ambivalence and the experience of China-educated nurses working in Australia. Nursing Inquiry 17(3): 186–96.

Getting to the Source: An Instrument for Examining the Dynamics of Problematic Interactions

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References