Search results

This chapter describes two change efforts involving participatory action research within the pharmacy operations division of Kaiser Permanente. Focus is on a parallel learning mechanism that has been used to support communications and change during two large-scale information technology interventions. It begins with basic background information on participatory action research in organizations. Since the case setting is Kaiser Permanente, the chapter provides some information on the U.S. healthcare industry context and then shifts to Kaiser’s communication forum, a learning mechanism that has been in place for 35 years. Cognitive, structural, and procedural aspects of the learning mechanism are explored, and the chapter features interviews with some of the key forum players. Both in the forum’s infancy and in its current more institutionalized state, the pharmacy organization has been in crisis. Implications for the use of parallel learning structures on a long-term basis to support long-term participatory action research are explored along with contributions to theory on insider/outsider action research.

Since 1973, the pharmacy operations division of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program (KPMCP) has used long-term action research programs as the principal method for orchestrating change. This chapter covers the evolution of action research theory within large, complex organizations, with particular attention to health care organizations. Four case examples from KPMCP are discussed in depth and mapped to the recently advanced Roth model of insider action research. This model considers external and internal business context, the perceived need to create new organizational capabilities, as well as insider action research theory and learning mechanisms used in change programs. Issues posed by the Roth model are explored, and new theory is advanced regarding the need for a long-term perspective, the advantages and difficulties posed when managers act as insider action researchers, and the quality of data gathering that takes place during insider action research change programs.

The scholarly conversation about insider and outsider positionality in observational research is long, rich, and often contentious. Debates about the benefits and challenges of studying sites where researchers share insider identities with participants, in particular, have yielded insights about power, inequality, and the uniquely relational character of observational research. In this chapter, we enter this conversation by relating our experiences with outsider-ness and insider-ness while studying social movements. We draw on two ethnographic case studies of social movement organizations within higher education settings. We identify some of the challenges faced while qualitatively studying identity-based movements embedded within institutions, specifically (1) being mindful of and negotiating the impact of researcher identity and how it relates to those of the subjects; (2) determining one's level of participation within the movement being studied; and (3) securing research approval and access to data. We offer suggestions for how researchers might think through these challenges in their own work.

We use collective learning theory to explain social movement strategic outcomes. Three movement strategies are conceptualized: insider, outsider, and generalist strategies. Generalist strategies are a combination of insider and outsider tactics. Movements learn in three main ways: retention of existing knowledge, adaptation based on past experiences, and via diffusion processes. Utilizing available data about the use of insider and outsider tactics in the state-level fight for woman suffrage, we find that state suffrage movements learned through retention of previously used strategies, adaptation in the face of major defeat, and through the diffusion of outsider tactics. Social movements exhibit structural inertia. Movement activists stick to what they know, unless they face a major defeat. Movement strategies are more complex and more flexible than suggested by the current focus in the social movement literature, suggesting the need to rethink the insider–outsider dichotomy.

This chapter addresses authentic leadership at the intersection of tradition and modernity with a focus on insider-outsider dynamics. The authors develop a typology of insider-outsider perception of authentic leadership and four leadership types – detached leadership, integrative leadership, entrenched leadership and atomised leadership – to provide a conceptual tool that advances authentic leadership research and leadership-building strategies. Investigating the intersection of tradition and modernity, Lines and Turcan illustrate that authenticity and legitimacy are tightly coupled. Leaders need to develop insider legitimacy by alignment with contextual norms, traditions and customs. Lines and Turcan encourage future research to explore the question: Is leadership more about establishing contextual legitimacy or establishing authenticity?

To explore the intersecting dynamics of gender, ethnicity, age, safety, power and sexuality in two cases of qualitative research

Reflexive analysis of community participatory action research.

Being an ‘insider’ is a nuanced and complex identity in social research leading to power flows that are not unidirectional. In addition, not only is gender not the only difference that makes a difference, but it is also important to consider the importance of difference within ‘sameness’.

In considering intersecting identities, difference and sameness this chapter adds to the assertion that research is never ‘hygienic’ and the role of self and research participants are vital considerations at all stages from design to dissemination.

This chapter addresses the common assumption that research questions are fixed at the outset of a study and should remain stable thereafter. We consider field-based organizational research and ask whether and when research questions can legitimately change. We suggest that change can, does, and indeed should occur in response to changes in the context within which the research is being conducted. Using an illustrative example, we identify refinement and reframing as two distinct types of research question development. We conclude that greater transparency over research question evolution would be a healthy development for the field.

Sensemaking is an integral element of human cognition. It is the activity whereby we find answers to questions that arise from experience. It is at the core of collaborative management research as researchers and practitioners work together to build a shared understanding of organizational phenomena and take action based on that understanding, thereby generating actionable knowledge. However, mutual understanding is a complex process which requires a great deal of effort by both researchers and practitioners. While research has described in great detail the consequences of collaborative research endeavors, the challenge of creating a shared sensemaking conducive to these results has been left partially explored. The chapter examines the nature of sensemaking in collaborative management research. A comprehensive framework is proposed and then utilized to examine a collaborative management research effort carried out with an Italian social cooperative.

Proponents of robust research design and methodology (particularly, although not exclusively, in more positivist-leaning epistemology) have often suggested that the role of the researcher should be as invisible, or distanced, as possible in the research process. Many of the case studies presented in this book take a more qualitative, interpretative approach, reflecting the often complex, situated, local and dynamic contexts in which out-of-school learning occurs. This raises particular challenges relating to the researcher role, especially when the researcher's presence materially changes the context and phenomena that are being researched. Some of the case studies describe the tensions and affordances of the researcher as insider/outsider and demonstrate how this role can develop and change as a project progresses and the implications this has for research practice, research quality and research governance.