Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article explores how action research can facilitate social innovation within rigid bureaucratic systems by combining puzzling, powering, and pragmatic problem-solving. Drawing on over fifteen years of practitioner experience, we introduce the Breakthrough Method - a structured, iterative approach that enables citizens and professionals to collaboratively navigate legal, financial, and organizational barriers. Through case studies on debt relief and energy renovation for homeowner associations, we illustrate how asking for small, concrete changes can reveal deeper systemic resistance, offering a unique entry point for reflexive practice and institutional learning. Our findings suggest that breakthroughs - real, lived interventions - are necessary precursors to reflection and scaling. We argue that action researchers must not only inquire and reflect but also engage strategically with institutional power to create space for change. This contribution situates action research as a methodology of both critique and construction - offering a grounded, practice-based framework for transformative collaboration in defensive public sectors.

Keywords

Action research bureaucracy puzzling powering

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Argyris

Schön

D. A.

(1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.

Bang

H. P.

Eva

(1999). The everyday maker: A new challenge to democratic governance. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 21(3), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.1999.11643381

Bartels

K. P. R.

(2017). The double bind of social innovation: Relational dynamics of change and resistance in neighbourhood governance. Urban Studies, 54(16), 3789–3805. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016682935

CBS (2016). Aantallen en kenmerken van Verenigingen van Eigenaren. Den Haag: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Downloaded on 14 december 2023 from: link.

Deloitte . (2020). De Doorbraakmethode, impactmeting 2020. Schuldenlab.nl. Den Haag.

Duiveman

R. M.

(2020). Institutionally embedded research; how academic and governmental practices enable and constrain collaborative research. Science and Public Policy, 47(6), 855–864. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa049

Elgendy

Mlecnik

Visscher

Qian

(2024). Integrated home renovation services as a means to boost energy renovations for homeowner associations: A comparative analysis of service providers’ business models. Energy and Buildings, 320, 114589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114589

Flyvbjerg

(1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice.

Forester

(1989). Planning in the face of power. University of California Press.

10.

Hajer

Wagenaar

(Eds.), (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press.

11.

Hoppe

(2010). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering and participation. Policy Press.

12.

Hoppe

(2011). Institutional constraints and practical problems in deliberative and participatory policy making. Policy & Politics, 39(2), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557310x519650

13.

Kruiter

A. J.

Jong

J. de

Niel

J. V

Hijzen

(2008). Rotonde van Hamed. Maatwerk voor mensen met meerdere problemen.Leiden University.

14.

Kruiter

Albers

Meiberg

(2023). Mag niet bestaat niet, doorbreek defensieve routines, help mensen beter. Den Haag.

15.

Moore

M. H.

(1997). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.

16.

Reardon

K. M.

(1998). Participatory action research as service learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1998(73), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.7307

17.

Schön

D. A.

(1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge.

18.

Shove

Pantzar

Watson

(2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. Sage publications.

19.

Termeer

C. J.

Dewulf

(2019). A small wins framework to overcome the evaluation paradox of governing wicked problems. Policy and Society, 38(2), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1497933

20.

Termeer

C. J. A. M.

Metze

T. A. P.

(2019). More than peanuts: Transformation towards a circular economy through a small-wins governance framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118272

21.

Wagenaar

(2019). Making sense of civic enterprise. Social innovation, participatory democracy and the administrative state. PArtecipazione e COnflitto, 12(2), 297-324.

22.

Weick

K. E.

(1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.39.1.40

23.

Westerveen

Lüschen

Kruiter

(2020). Het Grote Doorbraakboek, uit de ellende met eerste klas maatwerk. IPW.

Breaking through bureaucracy. Action research as puzzling,powering and problem-solving

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References