Shadowing and Consensus Building: a golden bridge

Abstract

Purpose

Much of what the author want to say in this paper had to do with “control” “exactness,” “precision” and their declination in both: shadowing and Consensus Building Approach. The purpose of this paper is to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper upholds two things: first, that shadowing is a field technique particularly attuned to action research as defined by Chris Argyris: “I would summarize [action-research and action-science] by saying that Kurt Lewin did three things: he was committed to understanding reality as the participants understood it, he used a combination of so-called ‘normal’ science with a narrative-integrative approach, and he tested his ideas by trying to change the things that he was studying.”

Findings

Second, that the results of such a research are best understood by the organization's management when the interpretation and decision process follow an approach based on active listening and an inclusive participatory methodology such as Consensus Building.

Originality/value

When this does not happen, the shadowing methodology allows a very rich research experience with no real impact on the organization's life.

Citation

Sclavi, M. (2014), "Shadowing and Consensus Building: a golden bridge", Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 66-68. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-02-2014-1199