Shadowing and Consensus Building: a golden bridge
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management
ISSN: 1746-5648
Article publication date: 4 March 2014
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.
Keywords
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
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2014, Emerald Group Publishing Limited