Smidt ud og brændt af:to historier om sammenbrudsdrevet arbejdslivsforskning

Several methods in work life research imply that the researcher gets access to the empirical field and engages in relationships with the people, things and places of study. Once in a while, however, access to the field is interrupted or radically changed. When kicked out or let down out, should the researcher insist, change direction or give up? What methodological considerations and insights might be gained from being rejected? Our point here is that a collapse can be a unique opportunity to challenge preferred interpretations. We propose to consider this approach to research collapse-driven. Collapses can serve as pivotal points for reflective practice that not only offer new perspectives on the empirical field, but also new perspectives on the theo- retical field and thus possible new theoretical contributions.Mange metoder i arbejdslivsforskning indebærer at man som forsker får adgang til det empiriske felt og kommer tæt på de mennesker, ting og steder man studerer. Men hvad stiller man op når kontakten til feltet bliver afbrudt, ændret radikalt eller når man slet ikke kan komme i gang som planlagt? Når man som forsker bliver smidt ud eller brændt af? Artiklens pointe er at manglende adgang til feltet kan forstås som sammenbrud. Men sammenbrud er ikke nødvendigvis fejl der skal rettes og forlades hurtigst muligt for at genoprette en sammenhængende og 'pæn' forskningsproces. Sammenbruddet giver en unik mulighed for at udfordre forskerens forforståelser og teoretiske frameworks. Når sammenbrud fungerer som udgangspunkt for refleksiv praksis åbnes for nye perspektiver på det empiriske felt, men også for nye teoretiske perspektiver og dermed mulighed for teoriudvikling

Kicked Out and Let Down:Breakdown-driven Organizational Research

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a model and some practical considerations for breakdown-driven organizational research. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based on a two-case narrative from two studies of innovation in public welfare organizations. Inspired by Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy, the paper abductively builds a model for reflective practice when research plans break down. Findings – A breakdown-driven approach to organizational research can open up to new insights about both the empirical field and organizational research methodology. In the present paper, breakdowns serve as pivotal points for reflective practice that not only offer new perspectives on innovation, but also the paper makes use of innovation theory to inform research methodology. Originality/value – This paper advocates more narrative self-reflecting research that reveals processes of confusion and uncertainty. These narratives are worth sharing as research in its own right as they hold the power to intensify the researcher’s perceptual and reflective skills. </jats:sec

Towards a relational ethics of learning circles

In this paper we scrutinize the concept of learning circles as a potential method for participatory research. We ask: 1) what knowledge is being co-produced in learning circles, 2) what is the play of power in learning circles, and 3) which relational ethics do learning circles call for? Our backdrop for this line of inquiry is our enmeshment in the preliminary phase of a qualitative research project aimed at engaging elderly care professionals in learning circles to co-create more attractive and inclusive work communities and career paths as a response to the increasing recruitment challenges. In the project learning circles are applied not only as a method to evoke co-creation of learning among circles participants, but also as a method to co-create scientific knowledge among practitioners and researchers involved in joint qualitative inquiry. In the Nordic countries, learning circles have been developed as a model for adult non-formal education (Aakjær and Wegener 2022; Lahdenperä and Marquard 2019). Within this view, the learning circle is a formalised model for co-creation of learning across various divides, e.g. across professions, across workplaces and/or across different forms of expertise (Aakjær and Wegener 2022; Lahdenperä 2014). Critique has been that the model neglects the ’role of power’ and romanticize learning as a collaborative and power neutral process or encounter. As an example, Phillips et al. (2021) point to the tensions in the “with” in “research with, not on, people” and the “co” in “co-creating knowledge. Such critical, reflexive analysis illuminates the processes of co-creating knowledge through the tensional, power-infused co-constitution of knowledge and subjectivities (Ibid.). Applying the model of learning circles as both a tool to facilitate learning among practitioners as well as a ‘gateway’ to participatory research – i.e. as a joint venture between practitioners and researchers - pay heed to the inherent yoke between power and knowledge. Our aim in this paper is to develop a more critical and reflexive awareness of how knowledge and power relations are co-created in learning circles among researchers and practitioners as co-researchers (Phillips et al, 2021)