Translated from the French by Mary Sweeney Over the past thirty years a number of European researchers have questioned the epistemological status of their respective scientific disciplines. Works like J. Piaget edited essays in the Encyclopedia de la Pleiade dated 1967, or A. C. Martinet's Epistemologies of Management can be considered landmarks, together with the symposium Constructivism and Management Science held in Lille, France, October 1997. New references, introduced by the constructivist paradigm in particular, have led to the reconsideration of research methods, and to the study of the role and place of researchers in this type of setting. idea of researchers as neutral and objective observers is being more and more contested. On the one hand, their values, beliefs, and other goals and plans are likely to influence the representations which they construct from the phenomenon under inquiry. On the other hand, their mere presence in the field can influence the evolution of this phenomenon. The interaction between observer and observed is an inescapable problem-but rather than viewing this as an obstacle to knowledge, it should be considered the opposite, as a means of knowledge and perhaps the only means, wrote M. Berry in this regard.' Publications appearing in the past ten years, preceded by the pioneering works of K. Lewin2, the Tavistock Institute of the 1950s, B. Glaser and A. L. Strauss3, and E. Thorsud4 demonstrate the interest that has arisen in management science about the problem of knowledge production for and by organizations. Whether called clinical research5, action research methods,6 intervention research,7 or engineering research, these transformative fieldwork methods (as opposed to contemplative methods) tend to develop, after having demonstrated their potential fertility for the researcher as well as for the practitioner. All seem to have the same intention, an intention Lewin8 calls dual, which consists in succeeding in an intentionally change-inducing project and, in doing so, advancing fundamental knowledge in the human sciences. In thinking about a theory of researchers' intervention in a company, it is a new understanding of action which may be offered to us, explained Hatchuel.9 However, it is important to be vigilant regarding the status of knowledge produced by this type of research. Taking the 1 M. Berry, Logique de la connaissance et logique de I'action: reflexions a partir de 1'exp6rience des recherches en gestion menees a l'Ecole des Mines de Paris et a l'Ecole Polytechnique, in Audet, M. and Malouin, J. L., eds., La production des connaissances scientifiques de l'administration (Quebec: Presses Universitaires de Laval, 1986), 200. 2 K. Lewin, Field Theory in Social (New York: Harper and Row, 1951). 3 B. Glaser and A. L. Strauss, Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Chicago: Adline Publishers, 1967). 4 E. Thorsrud, Complementary Roles in Collaborative Action Research, International Conference on the Quality of Working Life, Sept. 24-29 (New York: Harriman, 1972). 5 E. H. Schein, Clinical Perspective in Fieldwork(Beverly Hills: Sage, 1987). 6 K. Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science. 7 C. Argyris, Knowledge forAction. A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993). 8 K. Lewin, Frontiers in Group Dynamics I, Human Relations 1:5 (1947): 41. 9 A. Hatchuel, Les savoirs de l'intervention en entreprise, Entreprises et Histoires 7 (1994): 74.
Read full abstract