1st, 2nd and 3rd Person Enquiry

1
1st, 2nd and 3rd Person Enquiry
Action and Case Research in Management and
Organizational Contexts
2
Learning Objectives

• To identify and highlight the differences
  between, 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person
  inquiry
• To identify ways of evidencing 2nd person
  inquiry
• To identify ways in which 2nd person inquiry may
  be useful in the DBA .

3
First, second and third person inquiry

• First-person inquiry - It is about inquiry (and
  action), for me.
• Second-person inquiry - It is about collaborative
  inquiry/conversation, rather than competitive.
  It is inquiry (and action), for us.
• Third-person inquiry - It is about inquiry (and
  action), for them.
• Associated with Collaborative Inquiry form of AR.

Bradbury and Reason, (2001 pp . 251 - 256).
4
First, second and third person inquiry

• They are mutually supportive
• Second-person research/practice presupposes work
  to co-generate first-person research/practice
• Successful third-person research/practice is an
  action inquiry leadership practice that
  presupposes first- and second- person action
  research/practice capacity on the part of
  leadership.

Bradbury and Reason, (2001 p.256).
5
Second-person inquiry

• Second person inquiry depends on conversation,
• Speaking-and-listening-with-others is the
  quintessential second-person research/practice.
  

Bradbury and Reason, (2001 p.253).
6

• Second person inquiry conversation comes in four
  forms
•  Framing - declaring or amending a possible
  shared sense of vision/intent for the occasion as
  a whole or for some fractal of the larger
  occasion
• Advocating - setting a goal, recommending a
  strategy, or making some other abstract claim
  (e.g. youre beautiful)
• Illustrating - offering a concrete, a visual
  picture/story based on observed performance
• and/or
• Inquiring - inviting any contribution or feedback
  from others about their response to one's
  speaking and associated conduct.
• Fisher, D. and Torbert, W.R., (1995). Personal
  and Organizational Transformation the True
  Challenge of Continual Quality Improvement.
  London McGraw Hill.

7
Second-person inquiry

• Does it pass the test of giving beneficial
  results (as for all three forms of inquiry 1st
  person, 2nd person and 3rd person)
• Relationships
• Practical outcomes
• Extended ways of knowing
• Purpose
• Enduring consequences.

Bradbury and Reason (b) in Bradbury and Reason
(EDs)., (2001 p 449).
8
Second-person inquiry quality checklist

• Did it?
• Maximise participation of all those involved?
• Did the participants learn something useful?
• Did participation increase ways of knowing,
  perspectives?
• Did the research produce new knowledge/theory?
• Was the method appropriate?
• Was the work significant to the participants?
• Were the participants harmed?

Based on Bradbury and Reason (b) in Bradbury and
Reason (EDs)., (2001 pp 451-452).
9
Second-person inquiry ethical and professional
considerations

• Was the fieldwork described accurately
• Were the participants treated equally and
  honestly
• Were the conclusions drawn merited by the data
• Has triangulation taken place
• Were any theoretical claims fully justified by
  the data and were alternatives considered.

10
Relevance of 2nd person inquiry to DBA

• Inquiry on behalf of us
• Interventionist on behalf of us
• Practical results as well as academic research
• Well established method in the business world.

11
References
Bradbury and Reason (a), (2001). Introduction, in
Bradbury and Reason, (EDs)., (2001), Handbook of
Action Research. London Sage. Bradbury and
Reason (b), (2001). Issues for the improving of
action research, in Bradbury and Reason, (EDs),
(2001), Handbook of Action Research. London
Sage. Torbert, W, (2001). The practice of action
inquiry, in Bradbury and Reason, (EDs)., (2001),
Handbook of Action Research. London
Sage. Fisher, D. and Torbert, W.R., (1995).
Personal and Organizational Transformation the
True Challenge of Continual Quality Improvement.
London McGraw Hill.