In this article a distinction between a pragmatic and a critical orientation of action research is made. These orientations can be considered, implicitly or explicitly, to be the main alternatives in AR today. What are the assumptions behind, and practical implications for, AR projects with different orientations? A number of themes are introduced where a tension between the two are identified and illustrated in the form of a dialogue and friendly quarrel between proponents from each side. It is argued that the two orientations suit different research contexts and cannot easily be combined. The pragmatic orientation is well suited for contexts where concerted and immediate action is needed, whereas the critical is preferable where transformative action needs to be preceded by critical thinking and reflection. In the former, power to act is a desired outcome, and in the latter, unequal and invisible power relations need to be unveiled before they can be transformed. The responsibility of the researcher, as well as the form of knowledge developed, differs between the two orientations.

Service-dominant logic (SDL) provides a conceptual understanding of and widens the view on value creation in service innovation for product-centric companies. However, empirical research linking SDL and service innovation is still limited albeit expanding. This study provides insights beyond existing discussions on product and service dimensions using the theoretical lens of the value logic perspective. More specifically, the purpose of this study is to examine how value can be understood, targeted, and created in the pursuit of service innovation by product-centric manufacturing companies. Building on a previous investigation of two multinational product-centric manufacturing companies, this paper identifies and develops a theoretical model to describe the space shift in service innovation with four different kinds of value logics, namely, product-based value logic, service-based value logic, virtual-based value logic, and systemic-based value logic. Using a digitalization-driven new service innovation, namely the My Control System, which is a web-based service delivery platform, this paper describes space shifts to enhance value through four value logics as efforts. Further, challenges associated with different value logics are described in terms of complexity traps and service gaps. The study also contributes to bridging the gap between SDL theory and practice by developing a midrange theoretical model for value creation as a specification and amendment to SDL that supports SDL-guided service innovation and servitization in practice.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to clarify the methodological logic of coproductive research approaches like action research, collaborative research, interactive research and participatory research in a way that can clarify its effectiveness and scientific qualities in high quality knowledge production, and show the way that it can be integrated with institutionalized textbook science.Design/methodology/approach: The paper clarifies the character of coproduction as research methodology concept, the logic of coproductive research approaches, and its characteristics compared to quantitative and qualitative methodology. A model for characterizing research approaches from leading textbook social science is developed to specify the character of coproductive research approaches and support integration in mainstream research methodology discussions.Findings: The paper develops a research methodology framework for coproductive logic and approaches to research, to support the integration of this type of approaches in mainstream research methodology.Research limitations/implications: The developed model of coproductive research approaches is not empirically described. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test and further develop the model in relation to cases and designs of research projects.Practical implications: The paper is helpful for guiding the design of coproductive research in practice, i.e., in research project development or in research methodology education.Social implications: The development of coproductive research approaches supports making science relevant and useful for solving pressing problems and improving social conditions. It also is enabling stakeholders to participate in research and development processes, thus the democratization of research and knowledge production.Originality/value: The paper contributes to integration of the family of coproductive approaches in mainstream research methodology discussion through the development and elaboration of a framework for organizing the description and development of coproductive research approaches. The aim is that the framework is valuable for both academics, practitioners and students in designing coproductive research projects.

Guest editorial - Author: Per Svejvig, Shankar Sankaran, Erik Lindhult

This chapter outlines the scope and potentials of an emerging landscape of systemic innovation. Systemic innovation has emerged and been predominantly used in the innovation studies and management field, with limited reference to the literature on systems thinking or systems science. Different uses of the concept in five different domains is described to understand and focus on systemic aspects of innovation in various ways; (1) innovations dependent on complementary innovations and adjustment in larger system; (2) national/regional system of innovation supporting/restricting micro level innovation initiatives, (3) transformative change and system transition e.g. in sustainability, (4) collaboration in innovation networks and ecosystems, and (5) processes enabling innovating actors to think and act systemically. In the last, least developed use systems concepts and practices can empower innovation to change thinking, boundaries, relationships, interactions, and actions by creating new synergistic solutions and transformations. The chapter proceeds by identifying opportunities to enhance the theory and practice of systemic innovation by drawing upon the literature and the range of methodologies on systems thinking, e.g. by enabling stakeholder dialogue and value-based boundary reflection. An example is given where soft systems methodology is enabling systemic innovation processes of creation of business models among stakeholders in ecosystems. Furthermore, systems thinking can help to clarify the meaning of innovating systemically; to innovate not only products and services, but also boundaries and identities, relations and interaction dynamics, whole–part organization, and perspectives and framings in processes aimed at enhanced synergistic value creation. At the same time, innovation activity can embed systems thinking into innovation as a leading change and transformation praxis today pointing to fourth wave systems thinking. Systemic innovation can help to further a praxis-oriented development of innovating boundaries, systems, relationships, and perspectives in co-creative, synergistic value-creation processes to democratically transform our interconnected world to the better.

Participatory Action Research (PAR) has a strong and lively tradition in the Scandinavian context of research into organisational and working life development. The first generation was guided by socio-technical open systems theory and methodology inspired by work at the Tavistock Institute (Emery and Thorsrud, 1976; Emery and Trist, 1972; Trist et al., 1963). Bjørn Gustavsen (1938–2018) played a leading role in the transformation of this first-generation approach, developing the Scandinavian tradition further while becoming the conceptual force behind a number of large-scale programmatic efforts for work reform ...