the role of action research in the development of learning networks for entrepreneurs

This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 19 November 2014, At: 07:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action Learning: Research and PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/calr20

The role of action research in thedevelopment of learning networks forentrepreneursValerie Brett a , Martina Mullally a , Bill O'Gorman a & Nerys Fuller-Love ba Centre for Enterprise Development & Regional Economy(CEDRE), School of Business , Waterford Institute of Technology ,West Campus, Carrignore Co, Waterford , Irelandb School of Management and Business , Aberystwyth University ,Cledwyn Building, Aberystwyth , SY23 3DD , UKPublished online: 18 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Valerie Brett , Martina Mullally , Bill O'Gorman & Nerys Fuller-Love (2012)The role of action research in the development of learning networks for entrepreneurs, ActionLearning: Research and Practice, 9:2, 125-143, DOI: 10.1080/14767333.2012.685699

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2012.685699

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/calr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14767333.2012.685699

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2012.685699

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The role of action research in the development of learningnetworks for entrepreneurs

Valerie Bretta∗, Martina Mullallya, Bill O’Gormana and Nerys Fuller-Loveb

aCentre for Enterprise Development & Regional Economy (CEDRE), School ofBusiness, Waterford Institute of Technology, West Campus, Carrignore, Co.Waterford, Ireland; bSchool of Management and Business, Aberystwyth University,Cledwyn Building, Aberystwyth, SY23 3DD, UK

(Received 17 November 2011; final version received 12 April 2012)

Developing sustainable learning networks for entrepreneurs is the coreobjective of the Sustainable Learning Networks in Ireland and Wales(SLNIW) project. One research team drawn from the Centre for EnterpriseDevelopment and Regional Economy at Waterford Institute of Technologyand the School of Management and Business from Aberystwyth Universityhas contributed to the understanding of how to create sustainable businesslearning networks for entrepreneurs. The research findings are attributed toaction research by the conduction of two separate cycles in the forum ofresearch projects. The first cycle, called Female Entrepreneurs in Irelandand Wales, produced findings that were reflected on and investigatedfurther by the research team through the establishment of the secondcycle named SLNIW. This paper discusses the two action research cyclesthrough the action sets of planning, action, observing and reflecting andthe contribution of the development of understanding and practice ofnetworking for entrepreneurs through the production of guidelines forestablishing sustainable learning networks.

Keywords: entrepreneurs; networking; action research; peer-to-peerlearning; regional development

Introduction

The principle aim of the Sustainable Learning Networks in Ireland and Wales(SLNIW) project was to enhance the economic development of South EastIreland and West Wales though the establishment of six entrepreneurial learn-ing networks. The SLNIW project is a longitudinal study conducted over a3-year period observing six separate networks of entrepreneurs. At the estab-lishment of the networks, there were a total of 105 entrepreneurs, of which55 participants were located in West Wales and 50 participants located in

ISSN 1476-7333 print/ISSN 1476-7341 online# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2012.685699

http://www.tandfonline.com

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Action Learning: Research and PracticeVol. 9, No. 2, July 2012, 125–143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

South East Ireland. Of the six learning networks established, three were locatedin Ireland and three were located in Wales with each region consisting of onefemale, one male and one mixed-gender group. The objective of the networksis to provide a forum where entrepreneurs can come together to address theirown business learning and enhance their skills and capabilities thoughincreased competitiveness, efficiency, creative capacity and innovation pro-cesses of their respective enterprises. The SLNIW project created the networksof small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) owner/managers in order to con-tribute to understanding on what makes networks sustainable, how gender canaffect the networking process and if there are any cultural differences in theapproach to networking. The characterisation of sustainable learning networksreflects the objective of providing business learning networks that are sustain-able and thus provide lasting benefits to the network participants and theregional economies in which they locate.

The importance of networking for entrepreneurs

The importance of networking for entrepreneurs has long been recognised byacademics and practitioners alike, as a key component in assisting businessinnovation and development (Donckels and Lambrecht 1997). Often describedas a connection of individuals who may or may not know each other (O’Donnellet al. 2001), networking is a voluntary arrangement between individuals whowork together and share a common goal (de Wit and Meyer 1998). The environ-ment in which the SME owner/managers or entrepreneurs operate and competeis quite different from that of larger organisations and thus they face differentchallenges and therefore different requirements in the context of learning andproblem solving. In investigating barriers to learning, Stewart and Birchall(2005) argued that learning from experience is a preferred approach as eachSME owner/manager or entrepreneur has built up a range of knowledge andunderstanding from experience in business. Therefore, the primary focus isthe day-to-day running of the actual business, and strategic issues may notalways be on the forefront of the agenda (Stewart and Alexander 2006) dueto physical time constraints. Stewart (2009) argued that SME owner/managersconsidered context-specific work and real-time problem solving to be effectivefor learning and for business operations. Other barriers include isolation (Inglis1994) as the business owner may be the only individual concerned with policyor strategic issues and has no appropriate other to discuss such issues with. Fur-thermore, while entrepreneurs and SMEs have considerable company knowl-edge, they may have limited knowledge and/or experiences of broadermanagement competences (Bolden 2003).

Engaging in business-focused networking for entrepreneurs and SMEs canhelp to alleviate some of the barriers that they face to learning in business devel-opment. Research contends that businesses engaging in networking activitiesreport higher levels of success in achieving both their business goals and

126 V. Brett et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

greater gross sales than those who do not engage in business networking (Millerand Besser 2005). Business networking or inter-organisational collaborationcan allow shared access to a repository of best practices drawn from the collec-tive experience and knowledge of the group/network. The network can encou-rage knowledge flows through the establishment of new connections. Thenetwork of new connections can help stimulate ideas and interest in newtopics and provide access to the expertise needed to solve problems andhence provide a quicker response rate to the customers and changes in themarketplace.

Networks and networking are often cited as effective forums for problemsolving (Huxham 1996) and a means to remain informed regarding industry devel-opments (O’Donnell and Cummins 1999). Specifically, developed business net-works provide an environment which fosters shared entrepreneurial learning,benefiting not only the individuals involved but also their organisations (Mollerand Svahn 2004). Networking can be a cost-effective mode for improving perform-ance and efficiencies (Fuller-Love and Thomas 2004) and limiting the liability ofnewness or smallness of firms. Empirical research has demonstrated that there is anassociation between networking and growth (Chell and Baines 2000; Jarillo 1989;Lechner and Dowling 2003) and that an entrepreneur’s personal networks andexternal relations are a critical resource (Lechner and Dowling 2003) in overcom-ing barriers associated with growth and development. External relationships alsosupport greater network communication and co-competition, thus helping toreduce barriers to entry (Cooke 2002) by providing a platform for firms todevelop and grow without having to incur the associated costs to do so.

There has been increased recognition of the importance of networks as ameans of developing competitive strength and competitive advantage bothfor entrepreneurs and for firms (Morris, Bessant, and Barnes 2006). Gunasekara(2004) in citing DeBresson and Amesse (1991) argued that no firm regardless ofits size can survive or innovate without a network and entrepreneurs andbusiness owners must interact and engage with other firms in proximity inorder to secure access to self-learning and knowledge acquisition. SMEowner/managers and entrepreneurs are attracted to networks and the processof networking due to the derived advantages of information sharing, the devel-opment of new contacts and business (Cromie 1994) and peer feedback forproduct and service innovations (Hansen 1995). Hence, networks are regularlyassociated with positive individual and organisational benefits but, more impor-tantly, as a means to create a sustainable competitive advantage for small firms,resulting in the advancement of regional economic growth (Ferlie and Pettigrew1996; Moller and Svahn 2004).

Action research and action learning

Action research is derived primarily from the work of Lewin and adopts a sys-tematic approach to the study of organisational and social issues. Avison et al.

Action Learning: Research and Practice 127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(1999) described action research as a process where ‘researchers and prac-titioners act together in a particular cycle of activities, including problem diagno-sis, action intervention, and reflective learning’. The essence of action research isto identify a problem and attempt to rectify or resolve that problem through inter-ventions, actions and reflections. Action research is learning by doing and theprocess of action research falls into a cycle of planning, action, observing andreflecting (Lewin 1946) which creates a process that allows the resolution of aproblem or issues through a cylindrical process (Kemmis and McTaggart1988). Learning from the action taken is the key as Gibson (2006) argued thatthe experience gained from action is largely embedded in emotions, which canbe an important catalyst for learning (Brown 2000).

The terms action research and action learning are often used interchangeably(Zuber-Skerritt 2001). Action learning infers ‘learning from action or concreteexperience, as well as taking action as a result of this learning’ and actionresearch is a ‘cyclical iterative process of action and reflection’ (Zuber-Skerritt2001). There can be no learning without action and action research focuses onknowledge in action (Coughlan and Coghlan 2002). Action researchers arefacilitators of action and reflection within an organisation, community, groupor network. There are various approaches to action learning and action research,but the core concept is associated with individuals resolving and taking actionon real problems and learning is achieved through a process of questioning andreflection (Marguardt and Waddill 2004) as the group environment caters forreviewing beliefs, assumptions and preconceptions from the variety of differentperspectives present (Argyris and Schon 1974). The following section intro-duces the SLNIW project team and the action research conducted by theproject team.

Concept of the SLNIW project

Waterford Institute of Technology and Aberystwyth University have been col-laborating on INTERREG-funded projects since February 2005. The teamsources external funding to support research in areas associated with entrepre-neurship and regional development. The international research team acts as onecomplete team divided into two separate regions with each region consisting ofa project director and a cohort of researchers supported by project co-ordinatorsand administrators. My role in the project was to recruit and establish the net-works, observe the networks and collect and disseminate the research.

The establishment of the SLNIW project is based on the research findingsattributed to the Female Entrepreneurs in Ireland and Wales (FEIW) projectwhich was funded by the INTERREG 11A Ireland and Wales Programmeand operated from 2005 to 2008. Research conducted through the FEIWproject suggested that traditional networking arrangements for entrepreneurswere not as effective as they should be in terms of learning and impartingknowledge. One of the most noticeable findings from the FEIW project was

128 V. Brett et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the value derived from the interaction between the female entrepreneurs (Tynanet al. 2009), and through their discussion, questioning and reflection, theyappeared to learn as much if not more from each other in comparison withthe workshops delivered by professional practitioners. The findings of theFEIW project in conjunction with the recognised value of entrepreneurialtacit knowledge (Cong and Pandy 2003) and the difficulty in accessing thisresource has led the research team through the SLNIW project to further inves-tigate the means and value of greater accessibility, transferability and sustain-ability of this resource for both individual firm development and regionaleconomic development.

The objective of the SLNIW networks is based on the ethos of learning net-works as learning networks offer the potential for the entrepreneur to learn howto solve problems through communication, listening and learning from otherentrepreneurs’ experiences. The following section addresses the applicationof action research through the sets of planning, action, observing and reflectingthrough both the FEIW and SLNIW projects.

Action research through the FEIW and SLNIW projects

This section addresses the understanding and knowledge gained in entrepre-neurial networking through two action research cycles. The first cycle, whichis the FEIW cycle, provided the findings that led to further investigation inthe SLNIW cycle.

The first cycle: FEIW

Action research cycles consist of a number of key stages: first, the determinationof the problem or challenge, the suggested solution, the act or direction to thesolution followed by an evaluation of the outcomes of the action and, finally,the suggested modifications (Whitehead 1985). An action research cycle asdevised by Lewin (1946) displayed in Figure 1 consists of the stages of plan-ning, action, observing and reflecting, revising, planning, action, observingand reflecting (Altrichter et al. 2002). The model incorporates the process ofresearch and development, intellectual inquiry, practical application and reflec-tion followed by further action (Altrichter et al. 2002).

As discussed earlier, the first iteration of the action research cycle was con-ducted through the FIEW project as displayed in Figure 1. The aim of the pro-gramme was to facilitate the growth and development of women-ownedbusinesses in South East Ireland and West Wales.

FEIW planning

A detailed survey was conducted of female business owners in both regions alongwith a comprehensive review of existing research and evidence relating to best


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

practice in training and development. Furthermore, through the planning andresearch phase, there was an objective to identify the level of women-ownedbusinesses in both regions, the type of businesses set up by women and the chal-lenges that they face and if they had any specific training requirements.

FEIW action

This stage consisted of a marketing campaign to attract women-ownedbusinesses. Selection was done through an interview process where emphasiswas placed on the applicants’ involvement in strategic decision making, a com-mitment to growth and an ability to articulate a future vision of their business.

FEIW observing

The programme was structured in a module form consisting of mentors addres-sing 10 key business topics over a 10-month period. Observation consisted ofparticipant reflections, monthly evaluations and pre- and post-programmemonitoring of the female entrepreneurs.

FEIW reflecting

The reflecting process was conducted through the collection, analysis and dis-semination of the research. A key finding was that the informal networkscreated by the group proved more beneficial than the actual training elementof the course. The network of women created through the group boosted

Figure 1. Action-learning cycle.Source: Adapted from Altrichter et al. (2002, 130).

130 V. Brett et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

confidence, limited feelings of isolation and helped to generate ideas as timespent together helped enhance and deepen the relationships formed (Tynanet al. 2009). The findings indicated that networking should not be a by-product of bringing entrepreneurs together but a purposeful designed andaddressed activity that facilitates the development of networks and relationshipsfor learning and business development.

The learning from the FEIW project was that networking founded on strongrelationships and trust had a considerable benefit. The literature on entrepre-neurial networking often discuses the different approaches to networking andthat networks often have a lifespan and eventually disband. If networksbased on learning could become sustainable, they could provide lastingbenefits. Therefore, understanding what makes learning networks work andhow and why networks can fail could enhance the practice of entrepreneurialnetworking. A key obstruction to sustainability is participant disengagement,which can occur if the participants are not allowed to directly pursue theirown interests and thus the importance of self-directed networks for entrepre-neurs (Davey et al. 2002). Network participants should be granted autonomyover their own networks and learning and thus the rationale for the autonomygiven to the SLNIW networks. The following section addresses each elementof the cycle in the context of the SLNIW project.

The second cycle: SLNIW

SLNIW revised planning

The first 3 months of the project involved an in-depth study of both seminaland contemporary literatures, with a particular emphasis on business andlearning networks. The review was necessary in order to build a rigoroustheoretical platform to assist in the establishment and development of thenetworks and to help identify good practice both nationally and internation-ally. There was a strong emphasis on the study of entrepreneurial learningand how to create an environment conducive to learning and knowledgeexchange.

The SLNIW team conducted further primary research by issuing an onlinesurvey along with a limited amount of postal surveys. The survey targeted indi-genous SMEs and micro-enterprise owner/managers in Ireland and Wales. Theobjective of the survey was to gain an insight into the owner/managers’ percep-tions of networks and networking and provide an overview of current networkoperations in Ireland and Wales. Of approximately 5000 surveys, a total of 305or just over 6% of the surveys administrated resulted in usable responses.Slightly more males (53%) than females (48%) responded to the survey asdid slightly more Irish (52%) than the Welsh (48%) participants. The majorityof the respondents (61%) were owner/managers, with 56% of the businessesbeing limited companies. The final stage of primary research included aseries of interviews with key experts in networking. In total, 20 network


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

managers were interviewed (9 in Ireland and 11 in Wales) and included man-agers of local, regional, national and international networks.

The following criteria were used for potential network applications based onliterature research, re-occurring themes derived from the survey and interviewsalong with practical considerations in the establishment of the six networks.Therefore, the selection of network participants for the SLNIW project had toadhere to the following criteria:

1. All businesses must be trading for at least 3 years and therefore havereached a sufficient stage of their business cycle in order to take thetime to think strategically about their own business development andto have sufficient experience to help others in the network.

2. Network participants must be the owner/manager or a senior decision-maker in the business as it would ensure that all the participants wouldhave autonomy to implement any actions brought about through theirlearning in the network.

3. Network participants must have at least one employee (other than them-selves), which would enable the owner/manager to take time out of thebusiness to attend and commit to the network.

4. All potential participants must display a serious intent to grow theirbusiness so that they can derive benefits from engaging in the networks.

The conduction of the primary research and the development of informed cri-teria facilitated the accession to the action stage of the research project.

SLNIW action

The action stage consisted of a recruitment campaign and extensive interview-ing with potential applicants and the configuration of networks into three gendergroups, consisting of two male, two female and two mixed-gender networks. Atthe establishment of the networks, there were a total of 105 entrepreneurs, ofwhich 55 participants were located in Wales (of which the female networkhad 17, male one had 18 and mixed one had 20 participants) and 50 participantswere located in Ireland (of which the female network had 13, mixed one had 18and male one had 19 participants).

The SLNIW networking process consisted of two key stages, facilitated andself-facilitated. The facilitated stage consisted of a number of skill-building ses-sions designed to provide the networks with the skills to become self-facilitating.The facilitated sessions were sessions 1–5 and were facilitated by the SLNIWteam members and incorporated the following schedule: (1) innovation and crea-tivity, (2) team building and group dynamics, (3) communication and conflictmanagement, (4) managing change within and outside the network and (5) sus-tainability of the networks (suggested procedures and processes for sustainabil-ity). The objective and outline of the facilitated session is illustrated in Figure 2.

132 V. Brett et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The self-facilitated stage included sessions 6–18, and at this stage of theprocess, each network had complete autonomy over its own network and exclu-sive freedom to decide the content and arrangement of its meetings. During thisstage of network development, each network was observed by two SLNIWresearchers and thus it provided a significant proportion of the research con-ducted into understanding how networks work and become sustainable.

SLNIW observing

During the course of the longitudinal study, each network was prescribed tomeet once a month for a 3-h network meeting, providing 324 h of observations.Each network meeting was observed by two SLNIW team researchers. The

Figure 2. Facilitated skill-building sessions.Source: Sustainable Learning Networks in Ireland and Wales (2011).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

observation of each of the six networks by the SLNIW researchers allowed forthe team to watch and observe the process and progress of all networks. Obser-vation as a method enables researchers to engage in systematic and detailedobservation of behaviour and interaction and to watch and record whatpeople say and what people do (Mays and Pope 1995) while also providing adescriptive picture noting the social context and environment (Hemmink,Hutter, and Bailey 2011) of the participants being observed.

After the self-facilitated stage of the networking process, the SLNIW teamfinished its observations of the networks and withdrew its support from theprocess. This was the most precarious stage of the network process as whilethe network participants had to direct and facilitate the networks themselves,they now had to sustain the networks into the future. Furthermore, after aninitial period of disengagement, the networks were visited in order to gatheran update on their development and stage of their sustainability.

SLNIW reflecting

The process of reflection for informing the next stage of the cycle (i.e. a revisedplan for establishing sustainable learning networks) is facilitated by the amalga-mation of the research accomplished throughout the study and the deliverable ofa guide of practice for the establishment of sustainable learning networks. Atthis stage, the guide of practice and learning gained from the SLNIW projectcomes into its own. Networks can vary and the individuals or interestedparties wishing to establish a network must determine what is relevant fortheir own objectives. At this stage of the action learning cycle, the revised plan-ning is based on the determination of the individual who or organisation thatwishes to establish a learning network and the guide of practice provides adetailed but concise review of the suggested approaches to the developmentof sustainable learning networks. The next section discusses a series ofexamples for the development of sustainable learning networks drawn fromthe guidelines produced from the research.

The research team of the SLNIW project employed a mixed-methodapproach to observe the development of progression of the six learning net-works for entrepreneurs. The observation of each of the six networks was theprimary methodology; however, complementary data collected included reflec-tions from the participants in the form of focus-group sessions and a series ofsemi-structured interviews conducted towards the close of the project. Theresults were complied into an informative guide to establish sustainable learn-ing networks (Sustainable Learning Networks in Ireland and Wales 2011), illus-trate what procedures worked and what failed in the SLNIW networks andimpart guidance for the future development of sustainable learning networks.

The observation of the networks provided the individual members of theresearch team with in-depth knowledge and understanding of each networkand their progress and development as a learning network. The knowledge

134 V. Brett et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

that the research team had derived from close observation helped to focus thesemi-structured interviews conducted with the network participants. The con-duction of the research for the SLNIW project was completed by a team ofresearchers and team data collection and correlation can be difficult in termsof the procedures for joint data collection (Barley 1996). However, researchteams can improve the quality of research by adding depth to the analysis(Argyris, Putnam, and Smith 1985) while also providing support for eachother over a long data collection period. For the research team, reflective prac-tice and group reflection (Handler 1989) were the key as each researcher’sexperience and perception of observation of the networks were discussed inthe team meetings. The research team’s group reflection on observationsbrought forward multiple perspectives (O’Connor et al. 2003), which providedgreater diversity and a more balanced reflection of the research team’s under-standing of how each network developed over the course of the study andthe differing approaches to networking adopted by the networks. The nextstage applied the research team’s understanding and reflection of the obser-vations to the construction of a series of semi-structured interviews to gatherthe individual network participants’ perception and opinion on the networksand the development and behaviour of the networks and to provide insightinto the conditions required for long-term network sustainability. The semi-structured interviews’ primary focus was on what worked and what did notwork and covered the participants’ reflections on the main stages of thestudy, that is, facilitated phase, self-facilitated phase and sustainability phase.The interview transcripts led to the emergence of data, which were formulatedinto the practice guidelines (Sustainable Learning Networks in Ireland andWales 2011) and were segmented into the following sections of participantrecruitment guidelines, terms of engagement, facilitation guidelines andprocess and structure guidelines which reflect the different stages of theSLNIW process. The following section discusses a selection of the findingsas a full review is too extensive for the current discussion.

Developing guidance for establishing sustainable learning networks

The following are six examples of the findings derived from the investigationon the sustainability of learning networks for entrepreneurs.

Achievement orientated

Maintaining interest and commitment of the entrepreneurs in networks isnecessary for network sustainability. Networks that are goal- or achievement-orientated for either the entire group’s as well as an individual participant’sgoals are valuable. Furthermore, the measurement of these goals must be trans-parent for the SME owner/managers or entrepreneurs to justify their time spentengaging in a network. The participants should be encouraged to see their


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

networks as executive boards, those that can advise them on business matterswithout an invoice.

Contract of engagement

For network sustainability, it is important that the SME owner/managers andentrepreneurs be committed to the process and a suggested approach to ensurethat the network participants understand the ethos of the learning network andthe commitment involved is the implementation of a contract. Thus, it is impera-tive to enforce a contract that must be signed prior to the network formation.Therefore, the individual participant is able to visualise the ethos in writing,understanding the time that he or she must commit and also realise the valueof the opportunity that he or she is being given (in the case of funded networkprogrammes where there is no financial cost to the entrepreneur).

Process for entry and exit of participants

A decline in participation is a natural occurrence in any group, but maintainingsome level of critical mass is necessary for the network to function effectively.A natural conclusion is to recruit new members; however, induction can incurcomplications such as the arrival of a business competitor and issues concedingto the building of trust with new members. Advice on the recruitment of newmembers would be necessary to ensure that every participant is comfortableand accepting of the new company profile before a new member is invited tojoin the company and that the new members are introduced into the groupsingularly, thus allowing them to comply with the established group norms.Members who wish to leave the network should formally communicate thisto the group either verbally or in writing.

Networking experience and network size

The most effective size for a learning network is between 10 and 20 partici-pants; any more than this and the opportunity for relationship forming anddevelopment of accountability within the group is minimised. Any less than10 and the network can lack the momentum to sustain itself. With the intentionfor the network to become self-facilitating, a consideration in recruitment is forthe participants to have a mixture of those experienced in networking and thosenew to networking. This aids the development of structure for the network withexperienced participants utilising their understanding from previous groups.

Facilitated skills to enable transition to a self-facilitated stage

The induction phase of the network is the key to ensuring its sustained success.During the initial stages of the network, it is important that the participants beequipped with the skills to become self-directed networkers. In reflection, the

136 V. Brett et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

participants found the skill-building sessions to be long and incurred a loss ofmomentum, which led to disengagement for certain participants. Therefore, theskill-building sessions should be interspersed throughout the process in theform of practice-based presentations intertwined with networking so thatthe entrepreneurs are able to engage in the networking process quicker andapply part of the skill-building sessions as a reflection of the progress of theirown networking capability and to understand where improvements can bemade. Thus, action research as a method for learning and problem solvingcould have a more functional role in the networks.

Accountability

Within learning networks, it is important to foster the right environment forlearning to take place. With small group numbers, the environment can beone of trust and openness and with that comes accountability. The participantsbecome accountable to each other for implementing changes that come about asa result of discussions that occur in the networks. The participants should beencouraged to adopt accountability as part of the ethos of the network andmust report the result of changes or developments implemented. Furthermore,accountability also requires the participants to discuss why they have notimplemented changes they committed to making.

Discussion

A fundamental aspect of action research is that the learning must have occurredas a result of some action implemented. One international research team locatedin two regions had through two research projects (FEIW and SLNIW), as actionresearch cycles, delivered findings on the practice of networking for SMEowner/managers and entrepreneurs. The findings of the FEIW project led toan extensive investigation of entrepreneurial networking and the means toprovide sustainable learning networks that can provide lasting benefits to theentrepreneurs and the local economy in which they locate. This was achievedthough the actual implementation of six business learning networks into acycle to determine how networks can work best and to deliver a guide of prac-tice for learning network sustainability. The research team applied learningfrom the FEIW project in the implementation of the actual networks in theSLNIW project.

The concept of the SLNIW networks is that each and every entrepreneur hasbuilt up a level of tacit knowledge, which is a highly valuable resource, whichoften lacks physical accessibility. Often, the individual who has the knowledgeis not aware of its value and the individual who needs it is not aware that theperson has this knowledge in the first place. SLNIW participants havebecome advocates of the learning network approach because actually physicallygoing through the process has created deep belief and understanding that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

learning networks can have a considerable business and personal impact. Theparticipants have been exposed to a self-directed, self-learning networkingapproach which requires trust, autonomy, confidentiality and the building ofrelationships which allow for honest and progressive discussion and feedbackof business problems. The following reflective quotes outline the ethos andvalue of the learning networks:

To get honest feedback on my business and the issues [we] may have. [It’s like]having a friend that is outside of your business that is able to listen to you and giveyou advice

You get to know the people and their businesses and you realise that we all haveand face the same problems like cash flow, getting paid [and] personal issues.Despite the fact [that] we come from different businesses I was surprised [that]we had very similar problems and business issues. I was amazed about howopen people were and honest about their business and their business figures.Seeing people being so honest encouraged me to be honest and forthcomingwith information

What happens in a lot of networks [is that] people come and go and you makenew contacts. But in general you might not necessarily keep in contact. This isa smallish group and it is much closer and also you have a monthly three hourget together and you always have an in-depth discussion. In this [type of]network because you have to divulge so much and it was all built around buildingup trust. You would build up a much closer relationship

It has been found that autonomy and the power of self-direction are the key fornetwork survival to ensure sustainability, that is, that a network can last andprovide lasting benefits. The adult learner must be self-directing, which is anecessary dynamic for adult learning (Knowles 1970, 1984). It is important inthe construction and ethos of the networks and for successful sustainabilitythat the networks be self-directed, in that they decide what learning is ofvalue to them and the group. Quite often, networks are directed by anotherforce, and while the network can influence it, it does not have autonomy overits own learning. A fundamental component of the SLNIW networks is thatthey should be self-directed so that if a network did disband, it is due to the net-work’s decisions and choices, and likewise if a network becomes sustainable,that success is due to the network’s choices and not due to any influencesexerted by the research team. Understanding the network’s own successes, fail-ures and mistakes can help inform and provide guidance for developing sustain-able networks. Therefore, the SLNIW project could not enforce action learningas a mechanism for learning within the networks. However, during the facili-tated stage of the networks, the participants were encouraged to adopt question-ing, reflection and discussion, and the guidelines have highlighted that actionimplementation and accountability are the necessary characteristics of sustain-able learning networks.

138 V. Brett et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Of the six networks, one particular network did take this practice onboardand implemented accountability as part of its learning, in that each participantat the end of each meeting had to state one thing that he or she learned and onething he or she intended to do or change in his or her business that month andhad to report back to the group indicating progress or why there had been failureto act. This action of accountability inadvertently created a board of director-type scenarios for each entrepreneur and his or her business. In observationof this network, in comparison with the other five networks, an emphasis ofaccountability in the guidelines for developing sustainable networks was found.

The most recent contact made with the networks was in early 2012, and thethree Irish networks had merged into one learning network and were stillmeeting on a monthly basis. All the six networks had participants leave the net-works and the Irish participants saw the merger as a means to increase networknumbers and extend the networking potential. The three Welsh networks arestill meeting, but are in discussions about a potential network merger becauseall Welsh networks have experienced a drop in numbers and they are awarethat the Irish networks have merged to address this problem. However, themajority of the Welsh female network participants are resisting the merger ofthe three networks.

Conclusion

This paper illustrated how one international research team produced a guide fordeveloping sustainable learning networks for entrepreneurs through theimplementation of two cycles of action research conducted in the FIEW andSLNIW projects. The action research engaged by the research team has contrib-uted to the value of learning networks as a means of networking and self-problem solving for entrepreneurs. The contribution of a guide to developingsustainable networking provides insight into how to approach the establishmentand sustainability of business learning networks.

AcknowledgementsThe SLNIW project is partly funded by the European Regional DevelopmentFund (ERDF) through the Ireland Wales Programme (INTERREG 4A). We thankthe reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments during the revisions of thepaper.

Notes on contributorsValerie Brett, Post Doc Researcher on the SLNIW Project. Valerie is a graduate fromthe University of Plymouth with a degree in Maritime Business and Maritime Law andhas a Masters in International Shipping. Valerie was awarded a scholarship from theMarine Institute and National Development Plan to undertake a PhD at the NationalCollege of Ireland investigating the industrial clustering of the maritime sectorwithin the Greater Dublin Region. Valerie has published research in academic journals


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and international peer-reviewed conferences. Valerie has worked for the Irish MaritimeDevelopment Office (IMDO), which is a government body dedicated to the develop-ment and promotion of the maritime transport sector within Ireland and also collabo-rated with UNCTAD and Dublin Port on the Training for Trade programme in 2008.Current research interests include areas of international trade, creation and diffusionof industrial knowledge, economic and regional clustering of industries, and businessnetworks.

Martina Mullally – SLNIW Project Co-Ordinator Ireland. Martina holds a B.A. (Hons)in International Business and French from Institute of Technology Carlow and aMasters in Business Studies specialising in Management from Waterford Institute ofTechnology. She is Project Coordinator on the Sustainable Learning Networks inIreland and Wales (SLNIW) research project. She has extensive experience havingworked in a diverse range of roles such as team leader, team player, tutor, researcherand in an administrative role. She has also worked in France and Australia over atwo-year period and has gained vast experience in an organisational administrativecapacity. Her main research interests and activities are related to Learning Networks,Knowledge Management and Tacit Knowledge.

Bill O’Gorman, PhD, MSC, B. Tech, MIITD, NCGE Fellowship. Professor BillO’Gorman is Director for Research in the Centre Enterprise Development andRegional Economy (CEDRE), and lecturer in entrepreneurship in Waterford Instituteof Technology. As well as performing his own research and supervising others in thefields of entrepreneurial regions, regional development and entrepreneurshipresearch, he also lecturers in entrepreneurship, organisation development (OD), andchange management at undergraduate, post graduate and executive levels. Bill is amentor to a number of new and developing indigenous organisations. Prior tojoining academia in 1999, Bill was Managing Director of his own electronics sub-contract business for nine years. Prior to that he amassed over 20 years experienceworking in various multinational organisations at senior management and executivelevel. The areas of research he is engaged with include: defining and developingentrepreneurial regions, analysing the direct impact of MNEs on the creation ofnew ventures in their host regions, creating a framework for the growth of entrepre-neurship, and examining the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurialactivity. Bill was also the Project Leader for the successful EU Regions of Knowledgefunded project CRIPREDE. One of the sustainable legacies from the CRIPREDEproject was the creation and development of the Spirit of Enterprise Forum inSouth East Ireland, a forum involving all of the region’s key stakeholders in entrepre-neurship and innovation.

Nerys Fuller-Love – SLNIW Project Director Wales. Nerys is a lecturer in Manage-ment, Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship at the School of Managementand Business, Aberystwyth University. Nerys Fuller-Love’s main research interests arein the area of management and entrepreneurship. She has written articles on a widevariety of management issues such as management, small businesses, female entrepre-neurship, networks, strategy and IT. Nerys is on the editorial board of the InternationalJournal of Gender and Entrepreneurship and she has also edited special issues of theInternational Entrepreneurship and Management Journal on Female and MinorityEntrepreneurship and the International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovationon Networks, Learning and Entrepreneurship.

140 V. Brett et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References

Altrichter, H., S. Kemmis, R. McTaggart, and S.Z. Ortrun. 2002. The concept of actionresearch. The Learning Organisation 9, no. 3: 125–31.

Argyris, C., R. Putnam, and D. Smith. 1985. Action science: Concepts, methods, andskills for research intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., and D. Schon. 1974. Theory in practice: Increasing professional effective-ness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Avison, D., F. Lau, M. Myers, and A.P. Nielsen. 1999. Action research.Communication of the ACM 42, no. 1: 94–7.

Barley, S. 1996. Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing workinto organisational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly 41, no. 3: 404–41.

Bolden, R. 2003. Leadership development in small and medium sized enterprises:Developing a customised solution. Exeter: Centre for Leadership Studies,University of Exeter.

Brown, B.R. 2000. Contemplating the emotional component of learning: The emotionsand feelings involved when undertaking MBA. Management Learning 31, no. 3:275–93.

Chell, E., and S. Baines. 2000. Networking, entrepreneurship and microbusiness be-haviour. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 12, no. 3: 195–215.

Cong, X., and V.K. Pandy. 2003. Issues of knowledge management on the publicsector. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 1, no. 2: 25–33.

Cooke, P. 2002. Knowledge economies: Clusters, learning and co-operative advan-tage. London: Routledge, Studies in International Business and the WorldEconomy.

Coughlan, P., and D. Coghlan. 2002. Action research for operations management.International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22, no. 2: 220–40.

Cromie, S. 1994. Entrepreneurship: The role of the individual in small business devel-opment. IBAR 15: 62–75.

Davey, C.L., J.A. Powell, J.E. Powell, and I. Cooper. 2002. Action learning in amedium-sized construction company. Building Research and Information 30, no.1: 5–15.

DeBresson, C., and F. Amesse. 1991. Networks of innovators: A review and introduc-tion to the issue. Research Policy 20, no. 5: 362–97.

Donckels, R., and J. Lambrecht. 1997. The network position of small businesses: Anexploratory model. Journal of Small Business Management 35, no. 2: 13–25.

Ferlie, E., and A. Pettigrew. 1996. Managing through networks: Some issues and impli-cations for NHS. British Journal of Management 7: 81–99.

Fuller-Love, N., and E. Thomas. 2004. Networks in small manufacturing firms. Journalof Small Business and Enterprise Development 11, no. 2: 244–53.

Gibson, D.E. 2006. Emotional episodes at work: An experiential exercise in feeling andexpressing emotions. Journal of Management Education 30, no. 3: 477–500.

Gunasekara, C. 2004. The regional role of Universities in technology transfer andeconomic development. British Academy of Management Conference, August30th–September 1st, St Andrews, Scotland.

Handler, C.W. 1989. Methodological issues and consideration in studying familybusiness. Family Business Review 2, no. 3: 257–76.

Hansen, E.L. 1995. Entrepreneurial networks and new organisation growth.Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 19, no. 4: 7–20.

Hemmink, M., I. Hutter, and A. Bailey. 2011. Qualitative research methods. London:Sage Publications.

Huxham, C. 1996. Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage Publications.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Inglis, S. 1994. Making the most of action learning. Aldershot: Gower.Jarillo, C.J. 1989. Entrepreneurship and growth: The strategic use of external sources.

Journal of Business Venturing 4, no. 2: 33–147.Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart. 1988. The action research planner. 3rd ed. Geelong,

Victoria: Deakin University Press.Knowles, M.S. 1970. The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy vs. peda-

gogy. New York: Association Press.Knowles, M.S. 1984. Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Lechner, L., and M. Dowling. 2003. Firm networks: External relationships as sources

for growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship andRegional Development 15, no. 1: 1–26.

Lewin, K. 1946. Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2,no. 4: 34–46.

Marguardt, M., and D. Waddill. 2004. The power of learning in action learning: A con-ceptual analysis of how the five schools of adult learning theories are incorporatedwithin the practice of action learning. Action Learning and Practice 1, no. 2:185–202.

Mays, N., and C. Pope. 1995. Qualitative research: Observational methods in healthcare settings. British Medical Journal 311, no. 6998: 182–4.

Miller, N.J., and L.T. Besser. 2005. Exploring decisions strategies and evaluations ofperformances by networked and non networked small US businesses. Journal ofDevelopmental Entrepreneurship 10, no. 2: 167–86.

Moller, K., and S. Svahn. 2004. Crossing East-West boundaries: Knowledge sharing inintercultural business networks. Industrial Marketing Management 33, no. 3:219–28.

Morris, M., J. Bessant, and J. Barnes. 2006. Using learning networks to enable indus-trial development: Case studies from South Africa. International Journal ofOperations & Production Management 26, no. 5: 532–57.

O’Connor, C., G. Rice, P.M. Peters, and L.W.R. Veryzer. 2003. Managing interdisci-plinary, longitudinal research teams: Extending grounded theory-building method-ologies. Organization Science 14, no. 4: 353–73.

O’Donnell, A., and D. Cummins. 1999. The use of qualitative methods to research net-working in SMEs. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 2, no. 9:82–91.

O’Donnell, A., A. Gilmore, D. Cummins, and D. Carson. 2001. The network con-struct in entrepreneurship research: A review and critique. ManagementDecision 39, no. 9: 749–60.

Stewart, A.J. 2009. Evaluation of an action learning programme for leadership developmentof SME leaders in the UK. Action Learning: Research and Practice 6, no. 2: 131–48.

Stewart, J.A., and G. Alexander. 2006. Virtual action learning: Engaging SMEs. ActionLearning: Research and Practice 5, no. 2: 141–59.

Stewart, J.A., and D. Birchall. 2005. Leadership development for SMEs. Researchreport. DTI/CITB. Henley-on-Thames, UK: Henley Management College.

Sustainable Learning Networks in Ireland and Wales. 2011. Learning by linking:Establishing sustainable business learning networks. Cork: Oak Tree Press.

Tynan, M., D. Thomas, M. Durand, B. O’Gorman, and N. Fuller-Love. 2009. Trainingfemale entrepreneurs: Lessons learned from FIEW. International Journal of Genderand Entrepreneurship 1, no. 3: 253–60.

Whitehead, J. 1985. An analysis of an individual’s educational development: The basisfor personally oriented action research. In Educational research: Principles, pol-icies and practices, ed. M. Shipman, 97–108. Lewes: Falmer.

142 V. Brett et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

de Wit, B., and R. Meyer. 1998. Strategy process, content, context. London:International Thomson Business Press.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. 2001. Action learning and action research: Paradigm, praxis andprograms. In Effective change management through action research and actionlearning: Concepts, perspectives, processes and applications, ed. S. Sankara,B. Dick and R. Passfield, 1–20. Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross UniversityPress.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:26

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the role of action research in the development of learning networks for entrepreneurs

Documents