**3. Methodology of the study: action research in joint industry-academia research projects**

Sub-Section 3.1. summarizes the return from experience done in [5] to justify the choice of action research to conduct joint industry-academia research projects aiming at creating knowledge. Sub-Section 3.2. presents different action research approaches stressing differences and commonality.

### **3.1 The importance of dialogue and co-construction in joint industry-academia to create knowledge**

As mentioned before, knowledge creation, although a key aspect of joint industry-academia research projects, is not always a "common" objective nor a common proof of success. In general, academic partners are knowledge-creation oriented. They are often "charged with generating and sourcing scientific knowledge, translating this knowledge into commercial potential, and/or contributing to their community of knowledge" [7]. Sometimes companies are more focused on

### *The Dynamic of Knowledge Creation in Joint Industry-Academia Research Projects… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101985*

the immediate transfer and use of available knowledge to obtain, in action, quick results. In such case, explicit knowledge creation with academics is often out of their scope. Conversely, academics, who look for knowledge creation and expect partitioners to share their knowledge, do not always consider the need to provide a counterpart for action. Unless they have experience of interactive knowledge creation, both partners often have a narrow view of what knowledge is (or can be), of the added value of an interactive work on and about knowledge, and of what can be its "value" both from a practical point of view and an academic point of view.

As mentioned before, the in-depth analysis of our experience of knowledge creation in joint industry-academia research projects in logistics and SCM [5] points out "the importance of industry-academia interactions, especially dialogue and coconstruction, at each stage of a research project to create valuable logistics and SCM knowledge, both from a managerial and an academic point of view".

With reference to the KM literature reviewed in Section 2, some points can be raised that call for specific research choices to deepen the study of the dynamic of knowledge creation in such projects.

Our previous study revealed the *variety* of logistics and SCM knowledge creation (in terms of result). Every project combines knowledge expected since the beginning of the project (and deliberately researched) and "surprises" emerging from knowledge *generation*.

The analysis of the projects that produced the most valuable knowledge from both points of view (academia and industry), highlights the importance of *dialogue* and *co-construction*. In launching new project, attention should therefore be paid to the willingness of the partner(s) to dialogue, and to the project context. As mentioned in [5] "despite the positive image projected by those who promote collaboration between scholars and practitioners with the aim of creating knowledge, collaborating with industry is not so easy and many academics experience difficulties related to the conflicting logics behind this type of collaboration".

The crucial role of industry-academia *interactions* suggests adopting research method and agenda that give more space to in-depth conversations, not only dedicated to coordination in the project management but, more importantly, to *share* knowledge, have time to confront viewpoints at each stage of the research project and work together to co-construct. It is therefore important to take care of the "*Ba*" [12] during the project.

Even if the analysis of our previous projects [5] did not deepen knowledge processes dynamics, objectives (*ex-ante*) for industry and research, and *outputs* for practice and academia, reveal a mix of *knowledge* (viewed a resource, an object) and *knowing* as part of action, with (from our perspective) a twofold level of "action". Action refers to: 1) logistics and SC management and 2) collaborative research project management; both being of value for partners. Further projects should therefore *explicitly* ambition to develop both knowledges *about* and *for* both levels of action.

This is even more so important that at each stage of any project, there are from both partners demands for knowledge *transfer* and moments when there is intensive knowledge *sharing*. Their relationships with knowledge generation and creation being difficult to track back. To better understand the dynamic between knowledge processes further research projects should *keep traces* of exchanges and productions of knowledge.

These results suggest adopting the guidelines presented in [5] and deepening the study adopting *in vivo* research to better understand the dynamic of knowledge processes in joint industry-academia research projects aiming at creating knowledge. When launching new joint industry-academia research projects from the early 2018, we chose action research as the main research approach.

### **3.2 Action research to conduct joint industry-academia research projects**

"Action research is an orientation to knowledge creation that arises in a context of practice and requires researchers to work *with* practitioners" [21]. Action research aims at contributing *both* to practical concerns *and* creating scientifically acceptable knowledge through the development of mutually productive forms of collaboration between research and practice.

### *3.2.1 Different action research approaches*

Under the umbrella of action research there are many ways of conducting research projects, of organizing interactions between scholars and practitioners, and of defining their respective roles. Different approaches are promoted such as collaborative management research, interactive research, action learning research, participatory action research, or action research for transformation (ART).

In management sciences, action research approaches emphasize knowledge creation through some form of *co-operation* between researchers and practitioners where research is conducted *jointly* by the researchers and the practitioners during the entire research process, from formulation of the initial problem to dissemination of results [21, 22]. In action research, knowledge is assessed by its practical consequences and not only by its explanatory power.

*Interactive research* [23–26] explicitly includes an educative ambition, called "the third task" in [23]. Interactive research "focusses on creating opportunities for researchers and practitioners to engage in joint learning and knowledge creation" [25]. It is therefore about research, development, and learning. The educational task aims at enhancing the competences of the parties (partitioners, scholars, and students) involved in the research project through dialogue, co-working, and learning. In interactive research, knowledge creation results from the interactions of two cyclical systems [23–26]: the research system and the practice system. These two activity systems may be seen as two interlocked, collective, and interactive *learning cycles* that produce successive versions of *common conceptualizations* of the research object and *common understanding* of the ongoing change process that could be viewed as significant both from the perspective of practice and from the perspective of research [23, 25]. Interactive research insists on the distinction between "on-stage-performance" at the workplace and "back-stage-reflections" [23, 25].

*Action learning research* [27] focuses on knowledge *in action* and considers that there is no learning without action and no action without learning. "It does not impose expert knowledge but, rather, creates collaborative environments where research experts and local stakeholders share and work with different kinds of knowledge and share the resulting intellectual property". Therefore, action learning research insists on the *direct experience* of solving problems and demands *reflective* practice. In action learning research, researchers and managers are connected to the "real" world and problems, immersed in the setting, are actor and agent of change and create knowledge through *cycles of action and reflection*. Action learning research "involves the theoretical positioning and analysis of the action, using appropriate theoretical perspectives and frames with a view to identifying emergent theory and contributing to actionable knowledge" [27]. "Participants are in a group and committed to action and learning and to the generation of actionable knowledge. They are facilitated in meeting *on equal terms* to discuss and report on progress. Integral to this method is an awareness of self, of one's companions and of the external world" [27].

*Participatory action research* [22] and *action research for transformation* (ART) [28] aim at solving complex societal problems including the people. They broaden *The Dynamic of Knowledge Creation in Joint Industry-Academia Research Projects… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101985*

repertoires of learning to produce more *inclusive knowledge forms* and works with people in a way that they become active. They help stakeholders to learn while addressing the challenges they care about. ART is critically engaged "with the production of knowledge for sustainability through more action-oriented transformations research": co-producing a better world for all. It privileges *experiential learning* with reflection on action for desired futures. Thus, by engaging and empowering people, ART "can direct the inexhaustible resource of human creativity at all levels – individuals to society – toward addressing our global problems" [28]. For the researchers, "transformational work requires intimate engagement and selfawareness, which brings the whole person to the work; it is not just about changing something 'out there', but it is also about both changing ourselves and our mental models, and our relationships between the out there and the in here" [28].

The above types of action research show different stakeholders involved in the projects as well as varying degrees of engagement and of willingness to empower them and to transform organizations and society. Even if "action research *with* partitioners *always includes* partitioners as partners in the work of knowledge creation", every project is happening along a spectrum [21]. On one end there is "as minimum as necessary" consultations between partners, on the other end partners are "coresearchers" who co-design the work and may take it in new directions [21, 22]. The spectrum not only concerns generating knowledge but also educating people, empowering stakeholders, and transforming organizations and society.

### *3.2.2 Action research commonality*

Despite the variety of research forms within the class of action research approaches, some common features can be highlighted: action research privileges *praxis* and pragmatism, includes experiential learning, calls for reflection on action, brings "intelligent collaboration directly into knowledge creation processes" [28]. It leads academic researchers to dialogue with practitioners (and even people) and, to a certain extent, to co-produce action *and* research, knowledge creation being *a mean and an end*.

Because "the scientific value of action and collaborative research is still a matter of debate within the social science research community" [23], the quality of action research is a hot topic. For [27], quality in action learning research relies in 1) Action learning research engagement with real-life issues, 2) The collaborative nature of action learning research, 3) The reflective character of action learning research, 4) Workable outcomes and actionable knowledge. More generally, in [21], quality in action research 1) proceeds from a *praxis* of participation, 2) is guided by practitioners' concerns for practicality, 3) is inclusive of stakeholders' ways of knowing, 4) and helps to build capacity for ongoing change efforts. Seven criteria can be used to assess quality of an action research project/paper [21]: articulation of objectives, partnership and participation, contribution to action research theory/ practice, methods, and process, actionability, reflexivity, significance.

Action research is challenging, and many academics experience difficulties related to the conflicting logics behind this type of collaborating research. Some faciliatory points are frequently mentioned. Early dialogue and negotiation between the parties involved in the research process is useful to express the different expectations on the planned research process. In the joint definition phase, a written initial agreement can help clarifying partners roles and ambitions vis-à-vis research, practice, and society. It seems necessary to respect and preserve the differences between the "spheres" of research and practice [23]. The quality of the "relational space" is important [28] and it is necessary to use research tactics and methods creating an interplay between research-oriented and practice-oriented activities

over time [22], (e.g., join seminars [23]). It is also necessary to make distinction and alternate between performing "on-stage" and engaging in critical analysis and reflection "back-stage" [23, 25]. To facilitate this learning loop, it is importance to produce intermediary documents to share and disseminate knowledge [28]. To favor reflexivity, the disciplined use of field notes, journal keeping, and formal documentation are critical for capturing the dynamics of the reflective process [27]. To make it possible to build common understanding and take intelligent action, the "conceptual space" is critical [28]. Importantly, there is no valuable knowledge creation from a scientific point of view without robust research methods [21].

From this respect, action research is an approach toward designing the whole research process consistent with the use of different types of research methods [25]. Bradbury et al. [21, 25, 27] list many possible qualitative and quantitative methods that can be included and combined in an action research design.

This synthesis of action research clearly shows that this approach seeks knowledge creation thanks to a dialogue between theory and practice and favors industryacademia interactions and co-construction. It is therefore a relevant approach to foster industry-academia knowledge processes in joint research projects and to deepen the study of knowledge transfer, sharing and generation and of their interactions. However, despite the clear focus of action research on knowledge creation, very few studies are focused of the knowledge processes dynamic in such research projects. Our research intents to fill this gap.
