Page 126 - Crossing Cultural Boundaries - Cees den Teuling

dissemination of new knowledge, participating in reflective and critical circles of AR open to alternatives of the research outcomes should be emphasized and welcomed.
The overall aim of this study is to research the processes of KT in trans- boundary circumstances and positions. With the active participation and involvement of participants (practitioners and researchers) alike, the focus is on the improvement of the studied processes and on the development of alternatives for consulting and coaching models, the modification and improvement of the instruments implemented and inserted until today. For underlying study the “spiral of AR cycle” displayed earlier was used as a framework for the implementation of the research process. Specifically, (i) locating and defining (planning) research area; (ii) investigating the available “body of knowledge”, formulating the research question(s), defining and locating sample population, composing digital questionnaires and scripts for pilot-interviews and focus groups (acting); (iii) implementing pilot interviews, online survey and focus group sessions (observation); (iv) analysing the outcomes of the questioning in mathematical and methodological order, formulating conclusions and recommendations for practical implementation and further research (reflection); (v) Assurance of the validity by the collaboration of all involved partners.
In conclusion it can be argued that AR validity requires that both the participants and researchers are open-minded and welcome a re-orientation of their approach to reality and reconsider their role in the research process. AR ensures more deepened and engraved understanding of the organisation by the researcher, if he/she participates from inside and promote, achieving and facilitating a SVC and a change into an orientation towards improvement, benefitting the organisation, at large. Surveys and focus group sessions partly targeted to reveal the outcomes (results) of the KT implemented for the level of SVC obtained and absorbed by the organisation.
As argued by Kock (2004, p. 267) “An investigation of the AR literature suggests the existence of AR threats”. Special attention is required for development and improvement of methodological AR tools leading to successful research outcomes in the organisational and managerial fields (Avison, Baskerville & Myers, 2001; McTaggart, 1991). The threats mentioned are uncontrollability, contingency and subjectivity. The emergence of these threats seems to be associated with the nature of a number of AR studies, in which a theoretical model, emerging from the data obtained as a result of a research, is not a priori defined and confronted with the retrieved data (Kock, 2004).
124