CIAR Projects – Key Learning Points from Past Projects

In order to try to answer the concern raised above, I have reviewed 22 CIAR projects from across the world (USA; Australia; Chile; Greece; UK, France; Bulgaria, Bahrain, Korea, Netherlands). Nine of these projects were carried out in the USA. The CIAR projects were discussed during a workshop called “Action-Research in the Workplace: Learning from the Past, Planning the Future”, which was held in the USA in April, 2006 (Action Learning in the workplace, 2006). I have also sourced additional material through academic papers which were published subsequent to the CIAR conference (Kornberger, Carter & Ross–Smith, 2010; Bailyn, 2011; Charlesworth, & Baird, 2007).

The projects presented during the workshop on ‘Action-Research in the Workplace’ (2006) provide interesting insights about the CIAR approach. All studies reviewed, followed the CIAR method of surfacing and challenging gendered assumptions in organisations with the aim of increasing gender equity. Overall, these CIAR and Dual Agenda interventions highlight the complexities and the difficulties that can arise in projects which deal with gendered perceptions that are ingrained in people’s minds. Commenting on an unrealised CIAR project in South Korea, the researchers describe the Dual Agenda as a “very political process” which raises many issues and is likely to meet with a lot of resistance from those in power (Kim, Koo, Park, Park & Kang, 2006, p.4). Resistance can take various forms and can be “passive, overt, and covert” (Baird & Charlesworth 2006, p.5). Passive resistance can arise when the participants do not feel there is a real problem to solve. For example,

51

Lewis, Rapoport, Brennan & Smithson, (2006, p.6) note that ‘not having a clear identified problem’ may instil the feeling that the researchers are trying to fix something which does not appear to be problematic – at least on the surface. More overt resistance was met by Bourke and Russell (2006, p.5) who conducted a CIAR project in a Sydney Law Firm who remarked that, “even with the most comprehensive data, key stakeholders still resisted change and questioned research findings which did not comply with their world view.”

Other suggestions are brought forward for this resistance. For example researchers who conducted an Action Research project in a network of mental health and family service programmes in the USA (Broznick, Silverman, Goldenhar & Mahrer Kaplan, 2006b, p.4) claim that in general, those in power “are not inclined to change their own system or change their own behaviours.” They add that people in management are “consumed with their own survival” and are “besieged by competing demands” that leaves them little energy or motivation to engage in this type of protracted projects (Broznick, Silverman, Goldenhar & Mahrer Kaplan, 2006b, p.4). In organisations that are more renowned, like for example multinational firms, resistance may rise from concerns that the research will produce negative results about the company practices (Ross-Smith, Kornberger & Stilin, 2006). In their original work on CIAR projects, Rapoport et al., (2002, p.109) also encountered resistance and warn that in such projects - it is to be anticipated. This is because the Dual Agenda logic “challenges the most staunchly defended boundary in organizational life” - that which maintains the separation of the private and public life. However, rather than shying away from it, they claim that resistance

52

plays a constructive role in CIAR projects, and instead of dismissing concerns that arise during the process, one should ‘honour’ resistance by dealing and addressing the issues raised (Rapoport et al., 2002, p.109).

Engaging with senior management from the outset is essential in order to overcome some of the challenges that are likely to emerge in CIAR projects (Abarca, 2006a, 2006b; Bookman & Harrington, 2006, Lewis et al., 2006; Kim et. al., 2006; Blake-Beard et al., 2006). Whilst some claim that having “one determined change agent” can make a difference (Fletcher & Holvino, 2006), others suggest that for CIAR projects to succeed “full organizational backing is essential” (Bookman & Harrington, p.6). Apart from the issue of resistance, CIAR and Dual Agenda projects raise other concerns because they are time consuming and may prove to be more challenging to implement in specific sectors For example researchers who were involved in two projects in Greece describe the CIAR process as being fussy, experimental and longitudinal (Karassavidou & Chatziioannidou, 2006). When CIAR projects are implemented in public entities, more time may be needed because of additional bureaucracy in such organisations (Montgomery, Panagopoulou & Lemonis, 2006). Specific sectors like the health care sector may also present additional challenges, because workers providing 24/7 care normally have little time on their hands to “engage in the kind of intensive collaboration called for in CIAR projects” (Bookman & Harrington, 2006; p.6).

Since CIAR projects cannot provide quick fix solutions (Lewis et al., 2006) and do not come with an upfront guarantee on tangible outcomes (Bourke &

53

Russell, 2006) employers may block these projects from the outset. In order to resolve the problem of intangible outcomes, some claim that “it is crucial to set numerical goals and then develop creative strategies to achieve those goals” (Bronznick, Berg, Cohen, Goldenhar, Israel & Kelner, 2006b, p.4). However in setting specific goals, there is a risk that researchers may promise more than they can deliver (Montgomery et al., 2006). Furthermore, goal setting diverges from the iterative research approach suggested by Rapoport et.al. (2002). In action research projects like CIAR, it is generally difficult, if not impossible to anticipate the findings - although in some cases these “can stimulate change beyond the initial project plan” (Bourke & Russell, 2006, p.5). Adding to all these challenges several researchers also bring up the issue of the financial and human resources required to implement such projects and to see them through (Blake-Beard et al., Fletcher & Holvino, 2006; Bronznick et. al., 2006a, Bronznick et al., 2006b; Lewis et al., 2006).

Last but not least, CIAR and Dual Agenda projects are closely linked to gender issues. Gender equality issues can raise different reactions and these are not always positive. For example, Ross Smith et al., (2006) when carrying out a CIAR project in a professional services company in Australia, were specifically asked to drop the word gender from the project. Hence, if gender equality is not high on the company’s agenda such projects are unlikely to be supported (Bookman & Harrington, 2006). The link between gender and Dual Agenda projects is discussed in more detail in the next section. Here I will take an in depth look at ten CIAR projects on which there are more details. These originated in Chile, Australia and the USA (Action Learning in the Workplace,

54

2006) and will ask what was achieved through these projects. Did these projects manage to challenge and change the underlying ideal worker assumptions and bring about systemic change to gendered values? And how did these CIAR projects impact on men?