specialized category of intellectuals’ (Gramsci, 1971: 7), such as political parties’ and social movements’ internal theorists and writers. Gramsci’s argument that each social group can produce its own intellectuals allows him to posit a fundamental distinction between traditional and organic intellectuals. He argues that traditional intellectuals are those that present themselves ‘as autonomous and independent of the dominant social group’ (1971: 7) but effectively function as an intellectual for the dominant social group (Mackinnon, 2009), as with the example of Anthony Giddens’ public interventions in support of the Third Way and the New Labour ideological project (Burawoy, 2005; Callinicos, 1999). Conversely, organic intellectuals are rooted in, and bound to, a specific social group. This is created through an interrelationship between the perceived effectiveness of the intellectual’s ideas, in giving voice to the agents, and their active affiliation to the social group (see Connolly, 2010; Darlington, 2009). Significantly for Gramsci, the relationship is deepened through the intellectual’s direct involvement in visible struggle on the side of agents against the ruling ideological common sense, such as during protest campaigns and industrial action. This in turn nurtures the emergence of other organic intellectuals from within and encourages traditional intellectuals, such as sympathetic academic scholars, to also seek organic relationships with the subaltern group. The organic intellectual relates to subaltern groups not as an autonomous tribune but as the intellectual manifestation of their collective voice in counter-hegemonic struggle. Thus, the organic intellectual’s role can be that of strategist, leader, spokesperson and educator, working side-by-side with and within the subaltern group (MacKinnon, 2009). It is a relationship where organically forged ideas and political struggle are ‘caught up in a constant dialogue in which intellectual practice, rather than belonging to the exclusive domain of cultural production, is,
oriented on creating organisational/social change with agents rather than for them (Denis and Lehoux, 2009). This is done by seeking ‘to create participative communities of inquiry’… [through]… a practice of participation, engaging those who might otherwise be subjects of research or recipients of interventions to a greater or lesser extent as co-researchers’ (Reason and Bradbury, 2008: 1). Given this orientation on participation, active agents and social change, it is surprising that action research has had modest take-up in industrial relations and sociology of work (Huzzard and Björkman, 2012), despite both containing vibrant labour-oriented traditions (Heery, 2012; Thompson, 2010). Huzzard and Björkman (2012) argue that action research with unions and workplace actors in general should comprise a deeper form of collaborative research (see Denis and Lehoux, 2009) with a ‘much stronger emphasis on both action and collaboration’ (p. 163). Significantly, this enhanced emphasis corresponds with the principles of the organic intellectual (Mackinnon, 2009), as researching with agents means research in action, rather than being about action. This involves ‘a collaborative democratic partnership’ with agents at every stage of the research process, ensuring that knowledge outcomes are co-produced (Huzzard and Björkman, 2012: 163-164). While we support Huzzard’s and Björkman’s (2012) understanding of action research, they omit its widely-held emancipatory principle. As Reason and Bradbury (2008: 5) explain, action research ‘without its liberating and emancipatory dimension is a shadow of its full possibility and will be in danger of being co-opted by the status quo’. Those working within the action research umbrella tradition (see Reason and Bradbury, 2008: 7-8) wanting to emphasise its emancipatory dimension have in response developed Participatory Action Research (PAR) (Kemmis, 2006). PAR is a critical approach that focuses on ‘democratizing the research