Search results

This paper aims to investigate the competencies that researchers need to develop and employ for successful collaborative research.

The authors use a reflexive approach built on participant observation of six cases of collaborative research in public procurement and logistics.

The authors identify and explain two major competencies that are required for successful collaborative research. The first is boundary-spanning competence that represents the researchers' ability to move fluidly from the academic milieu to the practitioner's environment. The second is reflexivity competence that allows the researchers to learn from each collaborative research project they participate in and further improve their boundary-spanning competence.

This study goes beyond the list of skills for collaborative research reported in the literature to describe two major competencies that researchers should develop to perform successful collaborative research. This reflection may serve as a starting point for the development of a sociological understanding of the collaborative research field.

This study sought to populate a concise set of guidelines for use of the case study research methodology and evaluate the adequacy with which the methodology has been used previously within both the positivist and interpretivist domains of architectural research.

Firstly, the study set out to establish, from the literature, the nature of the case study methodology. Thereafter, a set of guidelines for adequate use of the methodology was populated. The study, then, proceeded to examine selected architectural research papers that had used the case study methodology in order to evaluate the adequacy with which they had used the methodology. The research papers were randomly drawn from two major architectural research journals publishing scholarly work within the positivist and interpretivist paradigms.

Within the interpretivist domain of architectural research, the study found that there might exist some inadequacy in the way in which the case study methodology has been used.

Despite the popularity of the case study methodology, there have only been limited scholarly attempts at developing a set of guidelines with which to evaluate the adequacy of its usage, particularly within the context of architectural research. This lack of a concise set of guidelines might lead to inappropriate usage of the methodology. This study sought to undertake a review of the usage of the methodology within architectural research with two objectives, namely, populating a concise set of guidelines for use of the methodology and evaluating the adequacy with which the methodology has been used previously.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted organizations, bringing in unforeseen situations and highlighting the need for organizational leaders to develop a capacity for resilience, i.e. the ability to recuperate, exhibit agility and rebound. Hence, this paper aims to explore leaders’ views on what resilience capabilities are needed to manage themselves, the team and the organization.

This qualitative research study uses an in-depth interview tool and adopts a reflexive thematic analysis. The capabilities approach and resilience theory framework were applied to view resilience capabilities. The sample comprises 19 middle and senior leaders, both men and women, from the information technology Industry in India.

This study unravelled different capabilities to manage individuals, teams and organizations. The three key themes of resilience capabilities observed were as follows: self-leadership capabilities – where leaders focussed on capabilities that developed themselves; people leadership capabilities – which focussed on leading people and the team; and organisation-focussed leadership capabilities – which focussed on the macro level.

The findings of the study benefit organizations, leaders, human resource professionals, talent management strategists and academic leadership scholars to identify, train, conceive and deliver resilience capabilities.

In ethnographic research, negotiating insider–outsider perspectives is essential in order to get closer to the participants’ lives. By highlighting the importance of empathy and reflexivity, the paper attempts to trace my reflexive navigation as a novice researcher as I enter the field as an outsider. The process of co-creation between the researcher and the participant is mediated by the nuances of the researcher’s identity, thereby shaping the researcher–participant relationship.

The current study elaborates my journey as a Ph.D. scholar in an ethnographic study of persons with spinal cord injury or amputation. The different themes organised around my personal reflections discuss the various challenges I faced and how I navigated through them.

The paper reflects on how different aspects of my identity, such as being non-disabled, a female and differences in socioeconomic status shaped the researcher–participant relationship. Additionally, it highlights how I traverse through the blurred worlds of insider–outsider and explore the role of reflexivity and empathy in creating a horizontal researcher–participant relationship.

This reflexive journey offers potential insights into budding researchers who often face dilemmas whether or not it is necessary for qualitative researchers to be members of the population they are studying. The paper also contributes to an understanding around practising reflexivity while working with a sensitive population. It argues researchers to look beyond the insider–outsider debate and utilise reflexivity as a tool for a nonhierarchical researcher–participant relationship.

This paper aims to understand what reflexivity means and explores which types of reflexivity could be applied within social marketing practice as a critical approach to overcoming failures.

This paper is a critical literature review.

The study proposes a typology for a reflexive approach to social marketing practice to overcome failures. The typology is built on self and critical reflexivity, simultaneously allowing social marketers to reflect on external and internal factors that may affect the individual's role and could negatively affect social marketing practice unless otherwise considered. The types of reflexivity discussed are not prescriptive; instead, the authors intend to provoke further discussion on an under-researched but vital area of social marketing.

The proposed typology is conceptual; an empirical investigation to gain social marketer's views would further enhance the effectiveness of the applications of the typology.

Social marketers could use the proposed typology for future practice.

This is the first study that conceptualises various types of reflexivity within social marketing practice to overcome failures.

More pluralistic approaches have recently emerged in entrepreneurship, yet the discipline remains disinterested in the ideological influences underpinning its research and teaching practices. Following Louis Althusser’s work on interpellation, the process by which ideology enrols and consummates its subjects, the chapter examines the interpellation of entrepreneurship-as-practice researchers and draws attention to the powerful nature of ideology. Critical reflexivity is put forward as an exercise to explore the researchers’ beliefs and identity and to tease out their relationship with the discipline. Finally, using three autoethnographic accounts, the chapter argues that the boundaries of the entrepreneurship discipline can only be shifted if and when researchers learn to recognise themselves as ‘the person in the mirror’. The reflexive spotlight also allows researchers to spot ideological breaks and engage in acts of ‘ideological resistance’.

This study aims to investigate how Living Labs of Van Hall Larenstein UAS perform as sustainability-oriented, transdisciplinary learning environments. It shows how the sustainable development goals (SDGs) can be used as a compass and debates the sustainability impact of applied research.

A case study approach was adopted, including a literature review, scoping visits, online workshops and peer-to-peer inter-vision/learning, using the SDGs as a compass and framework for analysis.

Most Living Labs use a “silo-approach” on the SDGs and are designed from a technological-expert perspective. This results in blind spots, particularly on SDGs related to reducing socio-economic inequality and just institutions. Debating unsustainable systems, cultures and practices is avoided. To contribute to sustainability transitions, universities need to invest in developing transformative capacity. This refers to SDG-transition competences such as collaborative communication, constructively engaging with diversity and conflicts, discussing values, norms and ethics and encouraging reflexivity.

Mainly lecturer-researchers were involved in the study. COVID-19 travel restrictions hindered the research at the grassroots level in India and Indonesia.

The study revealed the importance of creating Living Labs as safe and brave inter- and transdisciplinary learning environments to practice reflexivity: encouraging students, researchers and stakeholders to look at sustainability issues from plural perspectives and questioning unsustainable practices, which combined lead to changing perceptions, practices and relations and a deeper understanding of how change happens. The SDGs as a compass method supports reflexivity among stakeholders and in redirecting strategies towards a sustainable future.

This paper argues for the need to use multiple sources and methods that respond to research challenges presented by new forms of war. There are methodological constraints and contention on the superiority given to positivist and interpretivist research designs when doing fieldwork in war situations, hence there is a need to use integrated data generation techniques. The combined effect of severe limitations of movement for both the researcher and researched fragmented data because of polarized views about the causes of the war and unpredictable events that make information hard to come by militate against systematic, organised and robust data generation. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to make fieldwork researchers understand significant research problems unique to war zones.

This research was guided by the postmodernist mode of thought which challenges standardised research traditions. Fieldwork experiences in Cabo suggest the need to use the composite strategies that rely on the theoretical foundation of integrative and creative collection of data when doing research in violent settings.

The fieldwork experiences showed that the standardised, conventional and valorised positivist and ethnographic research strategies may not sufficiently facilitate understanding of the dynamics of war. There should not be firm rules, guidelines or regulations governing the actions of the researcher in conflict. As such, doing research in violent settings require reflexivity, flexibility and creativity in research strategies that respond to rapid changes. Research experiences in Mozambique show the need to use blended methods that include even less structured methodologies.

Fieldwork experiences in Cabo challenges researchers who cling to standardised research traditions which often hamper awareness of new postmodernist mode of thought applicable to war settings. It is essential to study the nature of African armed conflicts by combining creativity and flexibility in the selection of research strategies.

This personal reflection piece relates my experience of vulnerability as a researcher when doing ethnographic fieldwork with journalists. Drawing on my empirical and emotional experience, I show the way the encounters in the field made me feel vulnerable and challenged my identity as a researcher. The chapter also introduces the way my self-disclosure in various ways as a fellow imperfect human being – a.o. regarding motherhood – was an important way to build relationships with the research participants and gain their trust. By doing so, this reflective commentary seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the articulation between researcher identity, fieldwork, and vulnerability.