Insider Research and Reflective Practice: Getting Published: Extending an experiment
in critical friendship
Authors:
Corresponding author: Dr Aileen Lawless: Liverpool John Moores University,
Liverpool Business School, Redmonds Building, Liverpool, L3 5UG –
a.lawless@ljmu.ac.uk
Dr Valerie Anderson, Portsmouth University; Professor Philip Vickerman, Liverpool
John Moores University; Professor Sally Sambook, Bangor University; Dr Mike Rowe,
Liverpool University; Dr Lisa Anderson, Liverpool University
Abstract
Purpose:
This aim of this working paper is to connect a community of scholarly practitioners who are
passionate about insider researcher and who are willing to support each other in doing,
writing and publishing this form of research.
Approach:
The paper is grounded in a conceptualization of knowledge creation as socially interactive,
contingent and multi-faceted acknowledging that researchers and practitioners ‘frame’
research questions and findings in the light of their previous experience and tacit knowledge
Research and practice implications:
To develop a plan for action to include: seeking sources of funding, collaborative publication
and dissemination in order to release the potential of insider research and in doing contribute
to a CHRD agenda.
Originality/value:
In presenting this paper we extend the potential of a ‘critical friend’ approach in order to
connect and support insider researchers who wish to explore and progress the potential
contribution of ‘actionable’ knowledge in both practice and scholarly domains.
Keywords: Insider research, setting a research agenda, critical friendship, Critical HRD,
ethics, politics, reflective space
Introduction
The aim of this working paper is to share and extend the conversations which emerged at a
workshop on: Insider Research and Reflective Practice – getting published. The workshop
was organised on behalf of the UFHRD research committee and was hosted by Liverpool
John Moores University in October 2014; over 70 delegates, academics and Doctoral
students, contributed to the conversations. This resulted in two follow up seminars hosted by
Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool University. The first seminar focused on
writing insider research from an auto-ethnographic perspective and the second seminar
focused on the role of ethics and insider research. The presentation of this working paper
will extend these conversations and further connect the scholarly practitioner community who
are passionate about doing, writing and publishing this form of research. In doing so this
paper and conference presentation will:
1. Situate insider research within the context of the debates regarding the social
relevance of knowledge, drawing attention to education as a site of CHRD practice.
2. Explore the ‘critical friendship’ approach as an opportunity to address the challenges
facing insider research and CHRD.
3. Contribute to the CHRD and rigour-relevance agendas by developing a plan for action
to include: seeking sources of funding, collaborative publication and dissemination.
Insider Research and the social relevance of knowledge
It is increasingly common for academics and students in HRD and other applied disciplines
such as education and health to select their own organizational setting as a site for their
research. This insider research is a key feature of many taught postgraduate and Doctoral
programmes and forms an important component of bridging the perceived divide between
practice and research. This bridging is fundamentally important for an applied discipline such
as HRD. A defining feature of insider research is that it is conducted by: ‘complete members
of organizational systems and communities in and on their own organisations’: (Brannick &
Coghlan, 2007:59).
Insider research brings challenges and tensions; in particular the need to reconcile an identity
as ‘researcher’ while retaining the choice of remaining a member of the organisation with a
desired career path when the research is complete (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010). However,
Alvesson (2009, 2003) in discussing ‘at-home ethnography’ argues that a distinctive, and
potentially appealing, feature of this approach to research is that the researcher utilizes their
position in an organization to: ‘draw attention to one’s own cultural context, what goes on
around oneself’ (Alvesson, 2003:175). Potentially there is nothing inherently unusual or
unethical about utilizing one’s position to research ‘others’. Indeed, quite a number of insider
research projects have been conducted by lecturers who have utilized their position to gain
access to their research participants (for example: Watson, 1996; Lawless et al 2012; Tietze
2012). These authors (amongst others) draw attention to the dilemmas faced by the insider
researcher and the challenges involved in doing, writing and publishing this form of research.
However, despite the rise in popularity and the insights into both theory and practice that
insider research can offer, it receives scant attention in the published research literature.
Brannick and Coghlan (2007) postulate that this is because academic research is primarily
focused on theory development and not necessarily concerned about actions or practice.
Insider ‘stories’ compete within the context of an increasingly competitive Higher Education
(HE) ‘market’. In this ‘market’ HE Institutions prioritise ‘top tier’ discipline-specific
published research outputs, utilising these as a central measure of individuals’ and
institutions’ research quality (Bartunek and Ryles, 2014). This serves to privilege a rational-
linear understanding of knowledge generation dominated by career academics (Nutley et al.
2007). We argue that this focus inhibits and marginalizes those who wish to extend the
potential contribution of ‘actionable’ knowledge in both practice and scholarly domains
through participation in insider research processes. This paper and our presentation at the
UFHRD conference seeks to address this issue.
Insider Research: challenges and opportunities
Researching one’s own organization has both challenges and opportunties. The insider
researcher is in a somewhat unique situation whereby the topics of inquiry are known,
understood and also experienced by both the researcher and the research participants.
Supporters of insider research (Alvesson, 2009; Brannick & Coghlan, 2007; Trowler, 2012)
argue that the ‘insider’ is, potentially, better positioned to reveal ‘the true story’ which is
more meaningful to the actors, than the stranger-ethnographer who will normally experience
some access problems, particularly on the level of depth access, i.e. stories on sensitive
matters. It is also argued that insider research offers good research economy as it is cheaper,
easier and more practically achievable than a traditional ethnography which requires
prolonged periods of time away from one’s main job role. These advantages appeal to ‘busy’
researchers; part time students and academics with heavy teaching and or managerial loads.
However, the challenges involved are considerable as insiders remain in the field and want to
remain employed and employable during and after the research ‘journey’. However, taking
the opportunity to research one’s colleagues/ fellow employees brings with it unique
challenges in the sense that it brings into sharp relief certain ethical and political issues that
all, but especially insider researchers, inevitably face.
Ethical issues
While research ethics is an important consideration for all types of research there are
particular issues that are brought to the foreground when the researcher is as an ‘insider’. To
what extent can institutional and personal anonymity be guaranteed? To what extent can
reference information from commissioned reports be cited? Trowler (2012) asserts that
insider research foregrounds the problem of institutional and personal anonymity. He
suggests steps which might assist including: creating pseudonyms, obscuring identifying
details and laying false trails in descriptions; changing small, but unique, details of history,
geography and characteristics in a way which does not alter details of the research.
Alternatively the researcher can obscure their institutional location but the reader must
always be aware of this and acknowledge that attempts to ensure anonymity may compromise
the principle of ‘transparency’ in methodology or ‘transparency’ about and reflection on
yourself and your position as a researcher (Ezzy, 2002). However, the steps above will have
limited value when the reader knows that you are a member of the institution being
researched, as is the case when organizational members read insider research reports.
Therefore, it is normally best to assume that the reader will be able to identify your
institution, should they wish to. Therefore, in the ethical approval clearance process and in
information to respondents institutional anonymity cannot be guaranteed (Brannick &
Coghlan, 2007; Trowler, 2012). This can be problematic and needs discussion and open
dialogue with university research ethics committees.
In addition, senior managers and others will want assurance that the research will not damage
the reputation of their organization. Research participants will also need assurance that
neither they nor their job role will be traceable, if their organization is identified. Fine and
Shulman (2009) claim ethnographers are sometimes motivated to ‘give voice’ to groups or
individuals in organizations as a form of social justice advocacy, yet in doing so may expose
information that is harmful to the organization and informants themselves. It is not unusual
for research participants to ask the researcher to ‘keep quiet’ about particular ‘off stage’
comments which have the potential to be damaging to themselves or the employing
organization. Problems can arise when the insider researcher is too forthcoming in revealing
sensitive information about the institution, this can be very serious for those in vulnerable
positions. It needs to be remembered that not all respondents have equal latitude in respect of
what they say and how they say it Scott (1991). Alvesson (2009:166) argues that respect for
the feelings and interests of those being studied must guide the research and that: ‘their
acceptance of the study must at some point be attained for it to be published or widely
distributed’. This highlights the notion of ‘rolling consent’, the need to obtain ‘informed
consent’ for each new phase of the research and renew this consent again and again. Trowler
(2012) suggests that offering participant’s sight of drafts of all outputs can contribute to
ensuring ‘informed consent’ and engaging an independent reader can contribute to protecting
anonymity. However, this can be problematic, Tietze (2012: 65) provides an insightful tale of
a paper which was never made publically available and having to work hard to appease
colleagues in order to: ‘..alleviate their fears, while feeling at the same time misunderstood
and hard done by’.
In summary, ethical concerns are foregrounded when researchers undertake research in their
own institutions. Halse and Honey (2007) argue that it is insufficient to undertake the
routinized ethical processes required by research ethics committees, researchers need to think
critically about their potential impact on the research itself. We suggest that the principle of
reciprocity is particularly pertinent for insider researchers who need to remain in the field.
This highlights that researchers at all times manage the researcher/research participant
relationship as an open and honest: ‘mutually beneficial exchange involving participative or
collaborative working arrangements based on mutual respect’ (Ferdinand, et al. 2007:520).
Political issues
It has been acknowledged that insider research is in certain ways more politically complex
than is common and: ‘a risky business from an intellectual point of view’, (Alvesson,
2009:166). Indeed, Brannick and Coghlan (2007:14) argue that for the insider researcher
politics is more explicit and they must be prepared to work the political system: ‘balancing
the organization’s formal justification of what it wants in the project with their own tacit
personal justification for political activity’. Indeed, the researcher could be at a stage in his or
her career when an insider research project may be ill advised. For example, a newcomer
having to learn the local culture may make the research task intellectually easier, but
politically risky and possibly emotionally more stressful (Alvesson, 2003). However, an oldtimer may be less able to liberate oneself from certain take-for- granted ideas or to view
things in an open-minded way. A key problem for much ethnographic research is the struggle
between closeness and closure. This can be particularly problematic when researching one’s
own practice. Alvesson (2003:188) acknowledges that: ‘cultural belongingness means a high
degree of closure to the rich variety of potential ways of interpreting one’s organization’ and
cautions that the self-ethnographer must make strong efforts to avoid ‘staying native’.
Nielson & Repstad (1993) discuss the dilemma of writing a report of what they found and
dealing with the aftermath of superiors and colleagues, or doctoring the report to keep their
job. Insider researchers need to ‘sell’ their proposals to superiors, produce a ‘professional’
report which be valued by them and meet academic criteria for ‘good’ research. Indeed,
Alvesson (2003) highlights that insider research makes the politics of research more
complicated if one avoids painting a rosy picture of those being studied. He cautions that this
type of research cannot be held at arm’s length as is perhaps common in studies of ‘other
kinds of people’ and advises that ‘careful reflections’ are crucial in doing insider research.
This is a challenge for the insider researcher who needs to make strong efforts to avoid
staying native. It is insufficient that the researcher native avoids excessive idiosyncrasies and
gets approval of other natives for a particular version of the world; inevitably tensions and
differences between the researcher-runaway and the researcher- inmates may merge
regarding how a lived social reality is best made sense of (Alvesson, 2009; Tietze, 2012).
In summary, negotiating the political aspects of any research project are complex, potentially
precarious and a particular challenge for insider researchers. Insiders will be required to
demonstrate greater judgement in communicating their findings than outsiders who have the
advantage of disappearing from view on completion of their research, potentially escaping
any adverse impact. Trowler (2012) highlights that the choices one makes in designing an
insider research project is infused with political judgements and has consequences for the
researched and the researcher. Therefore, it is hard to hide behind techniques and procedures
for controlling ‘subjectivity’ and even harder, indeed we would argue undesirable, to claim
an objective ‘truth’.
Critical Friendship – extending the CHRD community
The promise of insider research is that shared researcher-participant knowledge of
organizational culture can lead to increased disclosure of sensitive issues which, in theory,
should result in ‘actionable-knowledge’. An increased potential to tackle root causes of, for
example, indirect discrimination and/or organisational-specific issues where they are
highlighted. A ‘good’ insider tale, like any good ethnography has the ability to: ‘convince
readers … that what they are reading is an authentic tale written by someone personally
knowledgeable …’ :(Van-Maanen, 2011:232). Consensus is not the goal but varying
viewpoints, opinions and interpretations are considered and worked through. However,
writing conventions typically prevent a text from appearing too contradictory and confusing
to the reader; the presentation of material pointing in different directions is acceptable but
only to a certain degree, and: ‘the author is supposed to get it all together at one level or
another at some point’ .(Alvesson, 2003:173). Where the author remains an employee of the
organization under study, the decision about the published version is inevitably an ethical and
a political one. Situating our knowing within an ethical and political context is a central
concern for CHRD scholarly practitioners.
This working paper explores the potential of the ‘critical friend’ approach to advance the
possibilities for collaborative knowledge co-creation processes undertaken by those involved
in ‘insider research’ and reflective practice in a variety of contexts. The paper is grounded in
a conceptualization of knowledge creation as socially interactive, contingent and multifaceted acknowledging that researchers and practitioners ‘frame’ research questions and
findings in the light of their previous experience and tacit knowledge (Bartunek & Rynes,
2014; Nutley et al., 2007; Albaek, 1995).
In presenting this working paper we will share our initial sense making of the conversations
which have emerged and ask others to contribute. In doing so our paper and our presentation
of it are inspired by the ideas of a ‘critical friend’ as articulated by VIDA, the Critical
Management Studies Women’s Association. They describe a ‘critical friend’ as http://www.vidascholars.org/critical-friend-scheme:
a trusted peer who asks provocative questions, provides alternative lenses through
which to examine data or experiences, and offers critiques of your work, issues or
problems. …Finally, critical friendship is more than a technical exercise predicated on
a context-free, asocial or ahistorical environment; rather, it is a process of
argumentation that emerges from dialogue, interpretation, experience and active
attempts to both subvert and navigate through prevailing power structures.
While recognising the foundations of the movement in Feminist and Women Studies we have
extended our ‘critical friendship’ experiment to include men and women who recognise the
need to: ‘subvert and navigate through prevailing power structures’. In doing so we situate
this paper within Critical HRD viewed as: ‘a potentially emancipatory project’ (Stewart et al.
2014). We also acknowledge the role of higher education (HE) as a site of employment as
well as a site of CHRD practice. Therefore, in the spirit of critical friendship we would ask
our friends to read the paper prior to attending the presentation. This written paper provides a
context for the problematic while our presentation will focuses on addressing the challenges
facing insider researchers and CHRD. In doing so we aim to contribute to the CHRD and
rigour-relevance agendas by developing a plan for action to include: seeking sources of
funding, collaborative publication and dissemination.
Indicative References:
Alvesson, M. (2003) Methodology for close up studies -struggling with closeness and
closure. Higher Education, 46: 167-193.
Alvesson, M. (2009) At-home Ethnography: Struggling with Closeness and Closure. In S.
Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational Ethnography: Studying
the Complexities of Everyday Life: 156-174. London: Sage.
Albaek, E. (1995). Between knowledge and power: utilisation of social science in public
policy making, Policy Sciences, 28:79-100.
Bartunek, J. M. & Rynes, S. L. (2014) Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The
paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships, Journal of Management, 40(5): 1181-1201.
Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D. (2007) In Defence of Being “Native”: The Case for Insider
Academic Research. Organizational Research Methods 10(1): 59-74.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2010) Doing Action Research in your own Organisation.
London: Sage.
Ezzy, D. (2002) Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation. London: Routledge.
Ferdinand, J., Pearson, G., Rowe, M., & Worthington, F. (2007) A different kind of ethics.
Ethnography, 8(4): 519-543.
Fine G.A. & Shulman D. (2009) Lies from the field: Ethical issues in organizational
ethnography. In Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexity of Everyday Life
edited by Ybema S.; Yanow D.; Wels H.; Kamsteeg F.H. 176- 195
Halse, C. and Honey, A. (2007) Rethinking Ethics Review as Institutional Discourse.
Qualitative Inquiry, 13 (3), 336-352.
Nutley, S. M, Walter, I. & Davies, H. T. O. (2007) Using Evidence: How research can inform
public services, Bristol: Policy Press.
Lawless, A., Sambrook, S. and Stewart, J. (2012) Critical HRD: enabling alternative subject
positions within an MA HRD ‘community’. Human Resource Development International,
15(3) 31-336
Stewart J.; Callahan J.; Rigg C.; Sambrook S. & Trehan, K. (2014) Realizing the critical in
CHRD: strategies for research and practice, Human Resource Development International,
17:4, 379-383
Van-Maanen, J. (2011) Ethnography as Work: some rules of engagement. Journal of
Management Studies, 48(1): 218-234.
VIDA (n.d.) Critical friend scheme. Retrieved from http://www.vidascholars.org/criticalfriend-scheme
Watson, T.J. (1996) Motivation: That's Maslow, isn't it? Management Learning, 27 (4), 447464.
Watson, T. J. (2011) Ethnography, reality and truth: the vital need for students of 'how things
work' in organisations and management. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1): 202-217.
Tietze, S. (2012) Researching Your Own Organization. In Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (2012)
Qualitative Organizational Research: core methods and current challenges. 53-71. London,
Sage.