Conducting Mode 2 research in HRM: A phase‐based framework

• Author: Marco Guerci,Giovanni Radaelli,Abraham B. (Rami) Shani
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21919
• Date: 01 January 2019
• Published date: 01 January 2019

HR SCIENCE FORUM

Conducting Mode 2 research in HRM: A phase-based

framework

Marco Guerci

1

| Giovanni Radaelli

2

| Abraham B. (Rami) Shani

3

1

Department of Social and Political Sciences,

Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy

2

Warwick Business School, University of

Warwick, Coventry, UK

3

Orfalea College of Business, California

Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo,

California

Correspondence

Marco Guerci, Department of Social and

Political Sciences, Università degli Studi di

Milano, Via Conservatorio 7 –20144 Milano,

Italy.

Email: guerci@mip.polimi.it

Recent studies in the field of human resource management (HRM) have highlighted that current

research is mostly performed and consumed by academics, and is driven by theoretical and dis-

ciplinary concerns rather than practical ones. This debate has invoked the need to produce more

Mode 2 research in the HRM field, that is, research driven by practical problems that integrate

collaborative efforts by academics and practitioners. Yet, guidelines on how academics and prac-

titioners may implement Mode 2 research remain disjointed and incomplete. Our study provides

a phase-based collaborative-based framework for the implementation of Mode 2 research in the

HRM field, in ways that both academic rigor and practical relevance are achieved. Our frame-

work is informed by a comprehensive review of previous Mode 2 research, within and outside

the HRM field. The proposed framework details four macro-phases: the codevelopment of

research questions with practitioners; the design of collaborative spaces and mechanisms; the

design and management of double-loop iterative research processes; and finally the academic

and practice legitimization of Mode 2 outcomes. Our framework has the objective to support

HRM researchers and practitioners, as well as relevant institutions and gatekeepers in the

design, implementation, education, and assessment of Mode 2 research.

KEYWORDS

HRM research, Mode 2 research

1|INTRODUCTION

In recent years, an increasing number of studies have advanced the

idea that human resource management (HRM) research has a “rele-

vance”problem because its knowledge is rarely adopted by practi-

tioners (Deadrick & Gibson, 2007, 2009; DeNisi, Wilson, & Biteman,

2014; Harley, 2015; Markoulli, Lee, Byington, & Felps, 2017; Yeung,

2011). One reason for this lack of relevance is that HRM research is

mostly driven by theoretical problems and keeps practitioners at arm’s

length (Fleetwood & Hesketh, 2010; Harley, 2015; Harley & Hardy,

2004). Indeed, research in the field seems guided by “reviewing the lit-

erature, identifying gaps, collecting data to test the hypotheses as a

means to fill the gap”(Harley, 2015, p. 402). Recently, several calls for

new research approaches that put more emphasis on practical prob-

lems and solutions and on the engagement of practitioners with more

integrated collaborations have been advanced (e.g., Beer, Boselie, &

Brewster, 2015; Hayton, 2015; Kaufman, 2015). HRM scholars are

already contributing to this call for change. First, HRM journals and

conferences have elicited the use of collaborative networks to link the

academic HRM community more closely to HRM practice (Keegan &

Francis, 2010; Samnani & Singh, 2013; Zhang, Levenson, & Crossley,

2015). Second, HRM scholars are promoting deep structural and cul-

tural changes, for example, incorporating practitioners in their editorial

boards (Cohen, 2007; Latham & Latham, 2003; Starkey & Tempest,

2005; Tushman, O'Reilly, Fenollosa, Kleinbaum, & McGrath, 2007).

Third, some HRM scholars are importing and adapting Mode

2 research approaches from the broader management literature

(Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985; Bartunek, 2011; Glaser & Strauss,

1967; Rousseau, 2007).

Indeed, management scholars have long lamented the “scientiza-

tion”of business schools, where “basic knowledge production has

become increasingly abstract and decoupled from practical impact”

(Shani, Tenkasi, & Alexander, 2017, p. 23). To address this, Gibbons

et al. (1994) articulated Mode 2 as a “new”frontier of research.

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21919

Hum Resour Manage. 2019;58:5–20. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 5

Academics were recommended to generate more relevant and

theory-advancing outcomes by embedding themselves in contexts

of application, developing transdisciplinary collaborations, and

involving practitioners and stakeholders throughout the research

process. These features were originally promoted in contrast with

the traditional Mode 1 approach, which emphasizes discipline-based

interests, and the separation between researchers and practitioners.

This separation has diminished over the years, as numerous com-

mentaries, special issues, conferences, and workshops have pro-

duced more cautious claims about the need for Mode 1 and Mode

2 to coexist, rather than antagonize each other (Bresnen and Burrell,

2013; Grey, 2001; Hodgkinson & Starkey, 2011; Mitev & Venters,

2009; Shani & Coghlan, 2014; Starkey & Madan, 2001; Starkey,

Hatchuel, & Tempest, 2009; Swan, Bresnen, Robertson, Newell, &

Dopson, 2010).

Mode 2 orientations can significantly improve the practical rele-

vance of HR research, once academics become firmly embedded in

contexts of application, and practitioners become strongly involved in

the research process. HRM academics have indeed shown increasing

sympathy for Mode 2 research, once they have also been reassured

about its rigor (Hayton, 2015; Zhang et al., 2015). Yet, very few HRM

studies have fully and knowingly implemented Mode 2. Cultural and

structural barriers do not fully explain the limited diffusion of Mode

2. There is another, more pragmatic explanation, that is, it is still

unclear how Mode 2 can be implemented in practice (Bartunek &

Rynes, 2014; Bazerman, 2005). Few empirical studies have described

the processes, methods, tactics, contingencies, and outcomes of their

Mode 2 research; furthermore, recommendations on Mode 2 imple-

mentation remain fragmented, dispersed, and contradictory in the

field (Amabile et al., 2001; Burgoyne & James, 2006; MacLean, MacIn-

tosh, & Grant, 2002; Marcos & Denyer, 2012; Radaelli, Guerci, Cir-

ella, & Shani, 2014; Schiele & Krummaker, 2011; Swan et al., 2010).

The lack of clarity on its implementation has reverberated with HRM

scholars’perception that Mode 2 methods are “often invented, based

on experience”(Bresnen & Burrell, 2013, p. 29) and cannot “be sub-

sumed under acknowledged research methods”(Kieser & Leiner,

2009, p. 526). Some have also argued that pursuing Mode 2 is not a

“cost-effective”choice for academics to progress their careers,

because they require a significant allocation of time and effort and

produce uncertain results (Gulati, 2007; Hodgkinson & Starkey, 2011;

Pfeffer, 2007).

The present article aims to clarify the main stages required in the

implementation of Mode 2 research to meet both scientific rigor and

relevance. To do so, we will provide a phase-based framework for the

implementation of Mode 2 in practice. This study builds on the

numerous fragments of methodological introspection that can be

found in the literature within and outside the HRM field, and

advances a unifying framework that details relevant phases and tactics

during the implementation of Mode 2 research. To “prepare the ter-

rain”for the framework, this article first reviews the key principles of

the Mode 2 research orientation and its applications in the HRM field.

It then advances and discusses a phase-based framework for the

implementation of Mode 2 in HRM research. This article concludes

with discussion of some implications for HRM research, practice, and

education.

2|MODE 2 RESEARCH: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

The term “Mode 2,”formally introduced by Gibbons et al. (1994),

incorporates at least six decades of debate on the design of relevant

knowledge-creation processes (e.g., Bartunek, 2011; Lewin, 1946;

Shani & Coghlan, 2014). This debate has become especially intense in

the last two decades, with a significant number of statements about

the increasing gap between rigor and relevance (Hessels & Van Lente,

2008; Huff, 2000; Kieser & Leiner, 2009, 2012; Learmonth, Lockett, &

Dowd, 2012). These recent debates have loosened certain rigidities as

mentioned in Gibbons et al. (1994), for example, by reducing the

emphasis on the separation of Mode 2 from Mode 1, and on the pri-

macy of Mode 2; as well as expanding creative possibilities in its

implementation and conceptualization (e.g., Marcos & Denyer, 2012;

Van de Ven, 2007).

The present article adopts the current state-of-the-art notion

of Mode 2, that is, as a confed eration of research ap proaches,

which: (a) generate res earch questions from the c ontext of applica-

tion; (b) involve practitioners and stakeholders throughout the pro-

cess of knowledge cr eation; (c) develop t ransdisciplinary

collaborations; an d (d) evaluate the “qual ity”ofitsoutcomesin

terms of their capacit y to effect change in the worl d. The core of

Mode 2 is the concept and p ractice of collaborat ion. The notion

of collaboration i n Mode 2 research is more comprehensive than

what is denoted by the u mbrella expression “collaboration

research.”Collaboration within collaborative research refers to the

engagement of practi tioners at some point in the research process.

Collaboration may be limited to specific a ctivities or be subject t o

the researchers’control. Mode 2 instead e mphasizes that:

(a) practitioners s hould be engaged from the b eginning to end of

the knowledge-crea tion process; (b) the re lationship with pract i-

tioners should not be hierarchical; and (c) the outcomes of the col-

laborations should be relevant and rigorous.

The key advantage of Mode 2 is that it makes it possible to focus

on “relevant”research questions, produce “useful”outcomes, and dis-

seminate theories more easily if practitioners are involved during the

research process (Gulati, 2007; Hodgkinson & Rousseau, 2009;

MacLean et al., 2002; Nowotny, Scott, & Gibbons, 2003; Shani &

Coghlan, 2014). Notwithstanding those benefits, practitioners’

engagement comes with three main drawbacks. First, an overempha-

sis on “problem relevance”may displace academics’concern for rigor,

independence, and quality—so that academia may lose its identity and

role in society (Bresnen & Burrell, 2013; Knights, 2008). Second, prac-

titioners’unchecked involvement in the research process negates the

principle that investigation should separate from their object of inves-

tigation to avoid observation biases (Kilduff, Mehra, & Dunn, 2011;

Walsh, Tushman, Kimberly, Starbuck, & Ashford, 2007). Third, aca-

demics and practitioners face barriers in terms of language, meaning,

and interests that may be irresolvable (Bartunek & Rynes, 2014; Kie-

ser & Leiner, 2009, 2012; Shani, Mohrman, Pasmore, Stymne, & Adler,

2008). Fully recognizing those challenges, early claims that Mode

2 should displace Mode 1 have attenuated, giving way to an increas-

ing consensus that these two knowledge-creation processes should

coexist. Studies have indeed shown not only the possibility for Mode

6GUERCI ET AL.