In Concepts and Transformation 3:1-2, 1998. 113-127 © John Benjamins Publishing Co.

The New Task of Swedish Universities Knowledge Formation in Interactive Cooperation with Practitioners

Goran Brulin

Abstract: In 1997 the law governing higher education and research in Sweden added a third task to the work to be done by the Swedish Universities: they were now no longer expected just to educate and to do research but also to relate to and collaborate with their local environment. The present article argues that this third task implies a new form of knowledge, viz., knowledge generated in interactive cooperation with practitioners. The change in the law has encountered resistance from the research establishment. However, there are good reasons, for the universities to change from a position of noble seclusion towards continuous interaction with their environment. Three arguments are proposed that articulate the need to actively involve the world of practice in the research process. The National Institute for Working Life received an assignment from the government to promote the implementation of the universities’ third task. A program was started by approaching and involving primarily the 20 university colleges in networking and development activities. It seems that action oriented, practice-based research can more easily find a _.foothold in these institutions. It cannot be denied that the third task has started to put new, challenging demands on the typical academic role.

Key words: Dream of High science, Swedish universities’ third task, practical relevance of research, knowledge formation in interaction with practitioners, action research, networks, development coalitions.

114    GORAN BRULIN

Introduction

Regardless of their political orientations, the aim of Swedish governments’ research policies during the 1990s has been to spread research and higher education to new regional university colleges and to increase the practical relevance of research conducted at both the traditional universities and the new ones. The non-Socialist government set up special research foundations to support research carried out in close cooperation with business. The Social Democratic government added a third task to the law covering higher education and research in Sweden: to relate to and collaborate with the local environment of the university. This task is additional to the tasks of educating and doing research (Regeringens proposition 1996/97: 5).

              Very little is said, however, about how each university has to fulfill the third task. As has been noted by Uhlin (1996: 456)

“there is a severe lack of a convenient language, i.e. within the law on higher education and research and within the frames of the research policy, to express the desires for high qualified knowledge formation and development through knowledge-in-action.”

In this paper it is argued that the third task implies a new form of knowledge formation i.e. knowledge formation in interactive cooperation with practitioners close to the universities. It is not simply a matter of abandoning the position of noble seclusion and making research more practically relevant. Research also has to be developed in interaction with men and women outside the universities if the third task is to be fulfilled.

              Knowledge formation in interaction with practitioners might seem rather obvious since universities, like all social systems, are after all open systems, characterized by being in a continuous interaction with their environment (Emery and Trist, 1973). However, the proposed new research policy, which supports active involvement, diffusion and practical relevance, has encountered heavy resistance from the Swedish research establishment. Swedish higher education and research have been very much identified with the ideal of the Humboldt university. Neither the US tradition of pragmatism nor consultancy-based research or applied research in close cooperation with businesses have played any major role in Swedish scientific society. Lately, great advances have been made in the creation of science parks around the Swedish universities. Yet these achievements have not been regarded as successful (Uhlin et al. 1992). From an international point of view, applied

THE NEW TASK OF SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES    115

and practice-based research are very much regarded as being second class in a nation with, without doubt, probably the greatest Nobel prize complex.

              Nevertheless, in spite of all this, action-oriented, practice-based research, has gained a foothold, not least at the 20 new university colleges (Brulin 1998). Quite a few of these are orienting themselves towards generating `practical knowledge’. The change of the law on higher education and research is not a change imposed from above. On the contrary, the university colleges of Halmstad and Karlskrona/Ronneby, for instance, have been involved for more than a decade in different forms of interactive cooperation with organizations and enterprises. At these university colleges knowledge formation in interactive cooperation with practitioners is already established.

              In the creation of a university college in Malmo the dialogue with practitioners is regarded as a main assignment of this new university college. This has also influenced the neighboring old university of Lund which nowadays views itself as “both a member of the international scientific community and a regional player”. At the university college of Gavle/ Sandviken the third task has meant that they want to fuse research and development into one entity, making it a key area for the whole university college. What this seems to indicate is that the third task should be regarded as the politicians’ answer to development processes mainly among the new university colleges. Furthermore, it is an answer to a change in the relationships between the universities and the practitioners outside the universities. The practitioners are increasingly asking for interactive cooperation and dialogue with researchers and lecturers at the universities.

High science from a position of noble seclusion

Why has the change of research policy been interpreted by a great part of the established research society as parsimonious demands for utility? Sheldon Rothblatt (1997: 1), in The Modern University and its Discontents, emphasizes that what characterizes the idea of a university is approximately 800 years of looking for the idea of a university:

“Yet what is significant about the history of the idea of a university is the search for one, the striving after an ideal that must satisfy two conditions: it must he pure, like a platonic ideal, and it must he lasting, superior to all apparent transformations.

116        GORAN BRULIN

As Rothblatt indicates, it has not been an unbiased search for an idea. Rather, the search itself has been part and parcel of the emphasis on the noble seclusion of the universities.

              The ‘everlasting’ search for the idea of a university made it possible for science to dissociate itself from practice. In countries influenced by German philosophy, like Sweden,

“universities were regarded as the home of the highest and best form of scholarship and science, so rare and even spiritual that they required vigilant protection from the commercial and vulgar tendencies of modern culture” (ibid. 1997: 22).

These Humboldtian ideals are tightly knitted to the dream of High Science.

The dream of High Science

Toulmin (1990) has pointed out that the Cartesian philosophical program swept aside the reasonable uncertainties and hesitations of the 16th century skeptics, in favor of new, mathematical kinds of rational certainty and proof. In this process, philosophy in particular led to a dead end:

“But for the time being, that change of attitude - the devaluation of the oral, the particular. the local, the timely, and the concrete - appeared a small price to pay for a formally `rational’ theory grounded on abstract, universal, timeless concept” (Toulmin 1990: 74).

Nowadays, the striving for rational certainty and proof is less a matter of sweeping away reasonable uncertainties and hesitations than a search for a position of noble seclusion, a secluded sphere in society that defines the truth (see Bourdieu 1996). The `foundation’ for this position of noble seclusion is the so called `dream of High Science’ which inhibits the formation of knowledge in interactive cooperation with practitioners. This dream has been summarized by Toulmin (1996: 205) in the following way:

1.           The aim of scientific inquiries is to extend our theoretical knowledge of Physical Nature, or of Human Mind and Society;

2.           The results of scientific inquiries are universal statements of theory, which describe the Order of Nature (or Humanity) in general, timeless, abstract terms, and are ideally related together in axiomatic systems;

3.           The empirical bases of scientific theory comprise, either, carefully [begin 117] designed experiments - not random, unanalyzed experiences - or detached observations - unaffected by the observer’s own interventions;

4.           Experiments or observational reports can he stated in historical terms, but the universal principles of a theory must be a-temporal;

5.           Practical disciplines comprise applications of theoretical knowledge.

The dream of High Science follow the thoughts of Plato. It limits ‘rationality’ to theoretical arguments that achieve a quasi-geometrical certainty or necessity. Thanks to the dream of High Science the researchers have succeeded in turning university departments into areas sheltered from the influences of practice; they have become departments that the public ironically labels ‘ivory towers’. Or, as Schon (1983: viii) puts it:

“... universities are not devoted to the production and distribution of fundamental knowledge in general. They are institutions committed, for the most part, to a particular epistemology, a view of knowledge that fosters selective inattention to practical competence and professional artistry.”

As Toulmin notes, research, as a result of the dream of High Science, has reinterpreted the very notion of `reason’ and ‘rationality’ and lost any connection to the multitude of approaches that made it possible to generate knowledge through both practice and theory:

“To Aristotle, both Theory and Practice were open to rational analysis, in ways that differed from one field of study to another. He recognized that the kinds of argument relevant to different issues depend on the nature of those issues, and differ in degrees of formality or certainty: what is ‘reasonable’ in clinical medicine is judged in different terms from what is ‘logical’ in geometrical theory. Instead of pursuing a concern with ‘reasonable’ procedures of all kinds, Descartes and his successors hoped eventually to bring all subjects into the ambit of some formal theory: as a result, being impressed only by formally valid demonstrations, they ended by changing the very language of Reason - notably. key words like ‘reason’. ‘rational’, and ‘rationality’ - in subtle but influential ways” (Toulmin 1990: 20).

Reasons for involvement in practice

This hierarchical positioning of science is now challenged by the change of

118        GORAN BRULIN

research policy in Sweden and, as a consequence the establishment of new university colleges with their new orientation, the so-called third task has encountered adverse reactions from the old establishment. To put the positions vis a vis High Science in the right perspective I wish to present Three arguments articulating the need to actively involve the environment (the world of practice) in the research process (see Brulin and Ekman 1998). I will do so from three points of view: (a) theory of knowledge; (b) the practice of research; and (c) the fact that in our society we have to work within a democratic tradition. My discussion will focus on the social sciences.

Theory of knowledge

From the point of view of `theory’ of knowledge I wish to draw attention to two critical aspects of social science: (1) what are the conditions necessary to produce valid knowledge about social organizations, and (2) how should the research process be organized?

              The basic position underlying my arguments is reflected in the fact that in the social sciences the relationship between method and object of study is not separate and independent. One recognizes the empirical object as subject. Hence the relationship between researcher and `researched’ is recognized as an inter-subjective, interactive, linguistic relationship characterized by joint action, joint involvement and shared responsibility (van Beinum et al. 1996). This is an old point and has been discussed for decades and has already been put into the context of organization theory and practice by Fred Emery in the 1960's as open system theory and his application of the notion of directive correlation. It has been further developed by Merrelyn Emery (1998) in the notion of search conferences.

              Social science research is inevitably ‘action or practice’ oriented research and multipurpose. In the orientation put forward here I focus on producing valid knowledge through practical development in real life situations. Such social science also aims at constructing better work practice that can stand up to practical tests of good work, efficiency etc. through cooperation between researchers and practitioners. Thereby the role of research is expanded from being a basically descriptive task to encompass participation in the reconstruction of good work practices and organizations. In action oriented research, theory and practice have such an intimate relationship.

THE NEW TASK OF SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES    119

              Action oriented research within the social sciences goes back to the early field experiments in organizational development that Kurt Lewin launched in the USA during the 1940s and the work of the Tavistock Group during the War (van Beinum et al. 1996). Since then the tradition has developed along somewhat different lines in Scandinavia, Europe and the USA, with different emphases, such as the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Programme with its application of socio-technical system thinking (Emery and Thorsrud, 1976), analytical or process oriented approaches based on psychological or democratic theory, expert driven or participative processes, projects with explicitly experimental or political aims, etc. Regardless of the direction of different approaches and their various underlying assumptions, these types of action oriented research have been and still are controversial phenomena (van Eijnatten, 1993). As Bjorn Gustavsen (1996) puts it, action research is criticized both for being not scientific enough because it is not objective and value neutral (the traditional way of thinking) or because it is too `scientific’, i.e. based on an overestimated belief in science and that way it can contribute solutions to basic political problems such as work alienation. Obviously, action oriented research as a research approach has started a great number of discussions within the scientific community about the concept of theory and what type of theory is needed in research which is involved in concrete restructuring of human practice.

              The Swedish scene also reflects this diversity, in its own particular cultural context. Action research with regard to working life development has enjoyed 30 years of sustained experience in Scandinavia (Gustavsen 1992). Some characteristic features of the Swedish and the Norwegian approach are: broad participation by all concerned, focus on democratic structures, involvement of the social partners, recognition of the role of networks for support and diffusion, cooperation between companies, socio-technical oriented and dialoguebased action research as the main constructive tool in the change process.

              Action oriented research is a research activity within a practical knowledge oriented research tradition. This type of research seeks to understand a practice in which it is itself involved. The research is organized in such a way that the researcher participates in the problem solving process, together with women and men in practical settings. Collaboration with others and active participation with regard to practical issues constitute a learning and a research situation for the researcher as well as for the participating party. The task for the researcher is to shape and articulate a situation together with

120        GORAN BRULIN

participants from the practical field where, in a joint venture, they conceptualize and develop theories based on practical experience of the situation. The researcher has to learn to work and be part of a process of knowledge generation in interaction with a large number of actors. The research and the development work proceed through a process in which experiences become apparent through a collective work of meaning constructions. These process

es produce, as Max Elden (1983) formulated it, local theories and locally grounded knowledge. In the interactions between different actors, as a part of a developmental context, new understanding emerges from the reflected experiences of the ongoing dialogues. This is what Donald Schon (1983) framed as reflected communities.

              The result of action research is not legitimated by or based on previously existing theories. Instead, precedence is given to theoretical issues that arise out of the practice itself (Toulmin 1996). Within a pragmatic research position this formative approach implies that it is not possible to predict solutions of identified problems without a collective inquiry, a process in which problems are identified and re-identified. These types of knowledge generating processes, creating new meanings of practice and work life, arc built on a joint understanding of a situation or of an action. It requires interaction between actors, which means that researchers have to be part of a shared process of meaning construction. The researcher thus becomes a partner, a co-player, which puts pressure on his/her ability to link up with contexts outside universities and be able to take part in unfolding developmental activities (van Beinum 1998).

New practice - development efforts in working life

The current situation in the field of organizational development is characterized by a variety of strategies. Rather than trying to attempt to list, classify and analyze them, I would like to present my position straight away which, in short, is focused on creating the conditions for innovative and participative development processes rather than forms of social engineering in which the design of the organization and its socio-technical system characteristics have been decided by `experts’ beforehand.

              At the university college of Halmstad, for example, researchers have been innovative in networking with small and medium sized enterprises thereby creating knowledge in interactive cooperation with these practitio-

THE NEW TASK OF SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES    121

ners. It is not the grand theory building but the day-to-day learning that has been the focus in the networks between the researchers and the people in the companies:

“The first thing that struck us was the `significance of small things’: the importance in the discussion among the managers of relatively small but practical issues. Most questions came from within the daily practice of management and the internal functioning of companies. They formed the glue of the meetings and thus of the network: together they created the necessary common ground, a critical mass. There was no `drama’, no earth shattering insights or breakthroughs. The managers recognized and acknowledged each other’s daily worlds, they connected and engaged in what might he called a joint search: exchanging and comparing experiences and exploring alternative ways of’ looking at them. In the end most managers were able to address the questions they initially brought to the meetings in a new and often more effective manner” (Lundberg and Tell 1997: 8).

The university colleges and research institutes, if they choose to participate in developmental processes in real life settings as the researchers above, instead of imitating the logic of the university (the dream of High Science and noble seclusion), can play an important role as a public arena and a forum for critical discussions about societal and work life development. This concern can be development in enterprises or in regions, and will focus on weaknesses and strengths in coping with developmental needs (Gustavsen et al. 1996). If these types of development coalitions are established they will become a force for different actors to mobilize and develop themselves and thus be better able to work in practice oriented research. Hopefully, the process of reorganizing research will proceed in parallel with a growing understanding of the third task now imposed on Swedish universities.

A democratic argument

In my opinion, abandoning the position of noble seclusion and the dream of High Science is a matter of morality. People who are `exposed’ to research should not be treated as objects in the research process, rather they should have not only the possibility but the right to act as subjects. The democratization of the research process itself, the furthering of a symmetric relationship between researchers and practitioners, the dialogical relationship between theory and practice, have been further emphasized through the

122        GORAN BRULIN

discourse in the theory of knowledge. It has been formulated as a criticism of the power to control by concepts and language, as a criticism of the objectification of concepts, theories and language (Molander 1993). This position represents a democratic research position. To be part of a process of meaning construction implies that the knowledge of the researchers is not seen as more relevant nor of a higher status than that of other knowledge

contributors. To have a democratic aim in the research itself supports the self-organizing processes in which all participants take the role as acting subjects and qualified citizens (Gustavsen and Sorensen 1995). On the basis of these arguments for a practice based knowledge formation and for a development oriented research approach, I give below an account of a research and development program.

How to increase the involvement of research in practice

The National Institute for Working Life (NIWL) was one of the state authorities and research institutions that received an assignment from the government to promote the implementation of the universities’ third task. The Program for Higher Education and Research at NIWL decided to start this project by approaching and involving 20 university colleges in Sweden, as they seemed to have a greater interest in developing research and development activities in collaboration with their immediate environment than the bigger and more traditional universities. The strategy chosen to enhance cooperation and involvement of those university colleges in the regional economy and working life has been the organization of networks and development coalitions. Two types of networks and development coalitions have been formed: (1) networks of regional universities in the same region, (2) development coalitions consisting of the business community, public sector organizations and/or intermediaries such as regional development centers and university colleges.

Networks between the university colleges

The NIWL decided to ask each of the 20 new university colleges to write down what it called a creative inventory (Brulin 1998). They were asked to map out ongoing development activities and cooperative activities between

THE NEW TASK OF SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES    123

the university college and its environment. Furthermore they were asked to plan for new activities with different actors to sustain and increase the development capacity of the regional economy and working life projects. They were also asked to become a participant in a network of university colleges in their region to tell each other about knowledge formation in interactive cooperation with practitioners.

              The establishment of new research foundations meant that it was possible to make considerable financial support available. This means that many of the university colleges have received sufficient resources for their activities in this area. The creative inventory at each university college has been further supported by NIWL with a small amount (100 000 SEK). All of the 20 university colleges accepted the offer to carry out this exercise. The paradox is that the financial support for concrete third-task activities is greater than can be used (in view of the level of manning and the shortage of people trained for such activities, including research, at the university colleges), whereas the financial support for training and development of the competence needed to conduct such activities is less than required.

              The aim of the Program for Higher Education and Research at NIWL has primarily been to support the formation of networks between the university colleges and thus to create an arena for dialogue about knowledge formation in interactive cooperation with practitioners. The main issue discussed in the networks of university colleges has been how to facilitate their involvement in regional development. Although the NIWL program as such cannot answer this question, NIWL has become a dialogue partner that is in great demand with regard to the question of third-task activities. The NIWL, together with the different university colleges in a region, can work out an approach to developing the third task in its local context. Furthermore, the program provides a linkage between the different networks. It has also, in cooperation with other actors, organized national conferences about these questions.

The Learning Network Program - an example of a regional development coalition

An additional strategy for accomplishing the third task is to begin work with and through different regional actors such as companies, unions, public sector organizations etc. and/or intermediaries who interact regularly with

124        GORAN BRULIN

small companies and possess considerable knowledge and information of small companies. By cooperating with intermediaries in the region such as local advisory agencies     the universities can, despite limited resources,

have extensive contacts with many companies especially with many small companies.

              The Learning Network Program at Gnosjo IUD (Industrial Development Dexter) is an illustrative case of a regional development coalition (Brulin and Halvarsson 1997). The Learning Networking Program is a development coalition between the university colleges of Jonkoping and Vaxjo, the regional development center, the local business community and the Metalworkers’ Union. Gnosjo is the heart in the Gnosjo region, which has about 80000 inhabitants and is viewed as the only real ‘industrial district’ in Sweden (in the Italian sense: see Asheim 1996). The manufacturing industry in the Gnosjo region has been dominated by labor-intensive companies. These companies have been quite successful when compared to companies in the same sector in Sweden as a whole. However, it could be argued that a transformation of these companies towards more knowledge-intensive production has to take place if the region wants to maintain its performance. New forms of work organization have to be introduced (Brulin and Nilsson 1997). This transformation has begun. However, to speed up this process the traditional development processes must be expanded. New actors have to be involved, education must be provided and research and development institutions should be connected to this development (Gustavsen and Hofmaier 1997).

              In that connection, the NIWL program has brought new universities close to Gnosjo into the Gnosjo program. The universities were invited to participate in the program right from the start, and were thus able to contribute to the design of the program. A project group was created, manned with local people and researchers from the nearby universities. The purpose was to work the program up into a comprehensive development strategy for the region. A `hands on’ result of the preliminary work has been a 50-page document that outlines a detailed plan for financing and implementing the program. The program is managed by people at the Gnosjo IUD, which gives it a high degree of legitimacy among the companies in the region. At the same time the contacts with the researchers have meant that the people at the Gnosjo IUD have identified the `social capital’ they have in their different networks that could probably be turned into competence development. To be able to launch the method they get dialogical and theoretical support from outsiders,

THE NEW TASK OF SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES    125

researchers and institutions. Their strategy was, in the beginning, more in line with traditional labor market training. Each company was to be offered the opportunity to buy training, at traditional training centers. The formation of a development coalition with actors from outside the region has meant that the Gnosjo IUD has gained self-confidence and dares to rely on the local culture of networking in its aim to upgrade the companies and the region.

Concluding remarks

The implications of the third task for the universities have been widely discussed in the Swedish academic scene. In the discussion about which role the universities should play in a regional context, the opinions seem to range from an obligation to merely spread information about the university’s two traditional tasks (education and research) to an obligation to be an active driving force in regional development. The established research society interprets the third task as an obligation to propagate popular science information, thereby hoping to save the High Science dream and the position of noble seclusion. However, more and more researchers, lecturers and students in Sweden have started to discuss how universities can generate knowledge in interactive cooperation with practitioners, without reducing the quality of their two traditional tasks. In other words, how can the universities carry out the three different tasks to the best of their abilities? This is at present an ongoing debate which does not produce simple answers. In spite of the different opinions, the implementation of the third task is in full swing.

              One cannot deny that the third task has already started to put new demands on the typical academic roles of teacher and researcher. The traditional role of teacher and expert in social research seems to have played out its so-called pedagogical role. Instead, different forms of tutoring and of developing collaborative relationships are coming more and more to the fore. To legitimate this new role one has to move towards a practical way of being a social scientist and towards the artistry of pedagogics, rather than adopting the traditional academic stance.

It is typical of the problems universities and traditional research face today that Dennis Wrong, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at New York University, in a recent review of five publications in the Times Literary

126        GORAN BRULIN

Supplement (January 23, 1998), all expressing ‘Critiques of the American University’, ends his comprehensive discussion with: “But who knows, the changes might lead to the re-emergence of a true intellectual community outside the university and free from the constraints of academic career making.”

References

Asheim, Bjdrn T. 1996. “Industrial Districts as `Learning Regions’: A condition for prosperity”. European Planning Studies, 4(4).

van Beinum, Hans, Faucheux, Claude and van der Vlist, Rene. 1996. “Reflections on the Epigenetic Significance of Action Research”. In Stephen Toulmin and Bjorn Gustavsen (eds) Beyond Theory: Changing Organization through Participation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

van Beinum, Hans. 1998. “Engaging in action research”. In Ben Boog, Harry Coenen, Lou Keune and Rob Lammers (eds) The Complexity of Relationships in Action Research. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1996. HomoAcademicus. Stockholm/Stehag: Brutus Ostlings Bokforlag. Brulin, Goran. 1998. Den tredje uppgiften: Hdgskola och omgivning i samverkan (The third task: Collaboration between universities and their environments). Stockholm: SNS forlag.
Brulin, Goran and Ekman Philips, Marianne. 1998. “Arbetslivsforskningens nya mojligheter”.Arhetsmarknad och Arhetsliv, 4(1): 67-72.

Brulin, Goran and Halvarsson, Dan. 1997. “A Learning Network Programme for Regional Development in the Gnosjo Region in Sweden and the Role of Regional Universities”. EUREG European Journal of Regional Development No. 6.

Brulin, Goran and Nilsson, Tommy. 1997. “Productivity and work development”. In Dag Brune et al. (eds) The Workplace. Volume 1: Fundamentals of Health, Safety and Welfare. Geneva: CIS and ILO. Oslo: Scandinavian Science Publisher as.

van Eijnatten, Frans M. 1993. The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Elden, Max. 1983. “Democratization and Participative Research in Developing Local Theory”. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 4: 21-33.

Emery, Fred. 1972. “The next thirty years: concepts, methods and anticipations”. In Fred

Emery and Eric Trist Towards A Social Ecology. London: Plenum Press.

Emery. Fred and Trist, Eric. 1973. Towards a Social Ecology: London: Plenum Press. Emery. Fred and Thorsrud, Eric. 1976. Democracy at Work. Leiden: Nijhoff.

THE NEW TASK OF SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES              127

Emery, Merrelyn. 1999. Searching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Forthcoming.

Gustavsen, Bjorn. 1992. Dialogue and Development. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Gustavsen, Bjorn. 1996. “Development and the Social Sciences”. In Stephen Toulmin and Bjorn Gustavsen (eds), Beyond Theory. Changing Organization Through Participation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gustavsen, Bjorn and Sorensen, Bjorg Aase. 1995. “Aksjonsforskning”. In O. Eikeland and H. Finsrud (eds), Research in Action. Forskning och handling. Sokelys ph aksjonsforskning. Oslo: The Work Research Institute.

Gustavsen, Bjorn and Hofmaier, Bernd. 1997. Organisationsutveckling i ndtverk (Networks as an organization development strategy). Stockholm: SNS forlag.

Gustavsen, Bjorn, Hofmaier, Bernd, Ekman Philips, Marianne, and Wikman, Anders. 1996. Concept-Driven Development and the Organization of the Process of Change. An Evaluation of the Swedish Working Life Fund. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lundberg, Max and Tell, Joakim. 1997. “From Practice to Practice. On the Development of a Network of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises”. Concepts and Transformation, 1(1). Molander, Bengt. 1993. Kunskap i handling. Goteborg: Daidalos Regeringens proposition. 1996/97: 5. “Forskning och samhalle”.

Rothblatt, Sheldon. 1997. The Modern University and its Discontents. The fate of Newmans legacies in Britain and America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schon, Donald A. 1983. The Reflective Practioner How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

Toulmin, Stephen. 1990. “Cosmopolis”. The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. New York: The Free Press.

Toulmin, Stephen. 1996. “Concluding Methodological Reflections: Elitism and democracy among the sciences”. In Stephen Toulmin and Bjorn Gustavsen (eds) Beyond Theory: Changing Organization through Participation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Toulmin, Stephen and Gustavsen, Bjorn (eds). 1996. Beyond Theory:: Changing Organization through Participation. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Uhlin, Ake. 1996. Kunskapens manga sprak. Om offentliga strategier for ldrande i sma och mellanstora foretag. Oslo: Forskningsstiftelsen Fafo.

Uhlin, A.,Philips, A., and Sundberg, L. 1992. Drivkrafter for utveckling och tillvaxt i sma universitetsrelaterade foretag. ERU rapport 76.

Wrong, Dennis. 1998. “Drill-hall or Platonic Academy? Critiques of the American University”. Times Literary Supplement, 23 January.

Note: