This article describes the basic elements of an intensive action research process. The process started from an educational programme offered to professional groups interested in the problems in developing the public sector as a forum that would transcend the boundaries separating different work organisations. The introduction of the programme coincided with a radical socioeconomic change that affected very basically the role of public services in Finland. The researcher/practitioner co-operation continued in different forms for several years. The article interprets the setting and processes of the programme through the concept of space, paying special attention to the dynamics between different aspects (physical, mental and social) of space.
CastellsMHimanenP (2001) Suomen tietoyhteiskuntamalli, Vantaa: WSOY.
2.
Czarniawska-JoergesB (1995) Public management contra public administration: A change of accounting rules in the Swedish public sector. Working Paper Series 1995/5. Institute of Economic Research. School of Economics and Management, Lund: Lund University.
3.
FilanderK (2000) Kehittämistyö murroksessa, Tampere: Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 777.
4.
GaltungJ (1990) ‘Theory formation in social research: A plea for pluralism’, in OyenE. (ed) Comparative Methodology: Theory and practice in international social research, Trowbridge: Sage, pp 96–112.
5.
GoughI (1991) ‘The United Kingdom’, in PfallerAGoughITherbornG (eds) Can the Welfare State Compete? A Comparative Study of Five Advanced Capitalist Countries, Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, pp 101–51.
6.
GustavsenB (1991) ‘The LOM programme: A network-based strategy for organization development in Sweden’, Research inOrganizational Change and Development, vol 5, pp 285–315.
7.
GustavsenB (1998) ‘From experiments to network building: Trends in the use of research for reconstructing working life’, Human Relations, vol 51(3), pp 431–48.
8.
GustavsenB (2001) ‘Theory and practice: The mediating discourse’, in ReasonPBradburyH (eds) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage, pp 17–26.
9.
HellerF (1993) ‘Another look at action research’, Human Relations, vol 46(10), pp 1235–42.
10.
HernesT (2004a) The Spatial Construction of Organization, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
11.
HemesT (2004b) ‘Studying composite boundaries: A framework of analysis’, Human Relations, vol 57(1), pp 9–29.
JulkunenR (2001) Suunnanmuutos. 1990-luvun sosiaalipoliittinen reformi Suomessa, Tampere: Vastapaino.
14.
KalliolaSNakariR (1999) ‘Introduction’, in KalliolaS.NakariR. (eds) Resources for Renewal: A Participatory Approach to the Modernization of Municipal Organizations in Finland, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp 1–6.
15.
KirjonenJ (1996) ‘Aikomuksista tekoihin – johtamisesta itseohjaukseen’, in KirjonenJ, Tila ajattelulle. Asiantuntijatyön kehykset julkisella sektorilla, Jyväskylä: Kasvatustieteiden tutkimuslaitos, Jyväskylän yliopisto, pp. 74–89.
16.
KirjonenJHeiskanenTFilanderKHämäläinenA (1996) Tila ajattelulle. Asiantuntijatyön kehykset julkisella sektorilla. Jyväskylä: Kasvatustieteiden tutkimuslaitos, Jyväskylän yliopisto, pp. 74–89.
17.
KosonenP (1993) ‘The Finnish model and the welfare state crisis’, in KosonenP (ed) The Nordic Welfare State as an Idea and as Reality, Helsinki: Renvall Institute, University of Helsinki, pp 45–66.
18.
LefebvreH (1998) The Production of Space, Oxford AND Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
19.
MishraR (1990) The Welfare State in Capitalist Society: Policies of Retrenchment and Maintenance in Europe, North America and Australia, New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo and Singapore: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
20.
NascholdF (1995) The Modernization of the Public Sector in Europe: A Comparative Perspective on the Scandinavian Experience, Helsinki: Ministry of Labour.
21.
NowotnyH (2003) ‘Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge’, Science and Public Policy, vol 30(3), pp 151–6.
22.
TherbornG (1991) ‘Sweden’, in A Pfaller, I Gough and G Therborn, Can the Welfare State Compete? A Comparative Study of Five Advanced Capitalist Countries, Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, pp 229–69.
23.
van BeinumH (1993) ‘The kaleidoscope of workplace reform’, in NascholdFColeRvan BeinumH, Constructing the New Industrial Era, Assen: van Gorcum, pp 169–202.
24.
van BeinumH (1998) ‘On the practice of action research’, Concepts and Transformation, vol 3(1/2), pp 1–29.
