Building new knowing? The case of multi-agency working within
Children’s Services in England
Working paper submitted to the ‘Organisational learning in HRD in 2020’ conference
stream at 13th International Conference on Human Resource Development
Research and Practice across Europe hosted by Universidade Lusíada de
Famalicão, 23-25 May 2012
Kate Black, University of Chester, UK
k.black@chester.ac.uk
This paper is an account of work-in-progress. Please do not quote from this
paper without the authors’ permission.
Abstract
Increasing workplace complexity and exacting austerity measures are encouraging
government and private sector alike to assume a policy of alliances and
partnerships. These hybrid organisational forms present significant issues for HRD
practitioners, requiring professionals and practitioners not simply to extend their
encultured knowledge/knowing but to integrate this with that of others.
This paper examines the innovative and original methodological approach being
taken to understand the construction of new knowing-in-practice within one such
hybrid organisation: a North-west England authority’s Children’s Services. It uses
using participant-generated photo-elicitation interviews and reports an initial pilot
study. The specific case is selected because whilst its professionals have only
recently been required to work collaboratively, the disparate values and lack of
‘shared’ macro-culture characterising these groups presents significant obstacles
compared with those faced elsewhere. As the service and economic rationale for
partnerships grows, and is expected to continue to 2020 and beyond, so such
situations are likely see increasing recurrence.
Whilst this exploratory research is limited by its case-study approach, it offers a
twofold contribution to HRD. Firstly, it offers a distinctive and innovative approach to
data collection to better understand the complexities of practice-change. Secondly, it
has value for HR developers involved with facilitating multi-professional and
organisational working within the private, public and voluntary sectors.
Keywords: Organisational learning; Children’s Services, public sector, photoelicitation interviewing; professional knowledge, knowing-in-practice
1. Introduction
Increasing workplace complexity and exacting austerity measures are stimulating a
policy discourse of collaboration, alliances and partnership, across government and
the private and voluntary sectors within the UK, US and across Western Europe.
Support for these configurations is invariably economic, offering a means to realising
accountability and enhancing social capital. However adherents project their
theoretical ability to be more effective and responsive to customers/service-users;
also their capacity to encourage creativity and innovation, thus aiding in solving the
1
complex wicked problems facing the 21st century workplace (Entwistle, 2010).
These practices require professionals and practitioners not simply to extend their
encultured knowledge/knowing but to integrate this with that of others, such the
realities of practice are often very different. This presents significant problems for
HRD practitioners since, to date, there is relatively limited empirical base to aid real
understanding of what this means for those involved.
This research paper, reports the methodological approach taken, and distinctive
techniques adopted, to further understand the construction of new practice knowing
within one such hybrid organisation: a North-West England local authority’s
Children’s Services. It opens for discussion the methodological and ethical issues
that arise through the use of photo-elicitation interview (PEI) and reports a pilot
study.
The paper is structured as follows. Firstly, consideration is made of the political and
local context that underpins development of the research questions, with the purpose
of, and rationale for, the research examined. A critical review of the proposed
methodology and associated research methods is then presented, including an
overview of the case-study authority.
2. Policy and context
This research is sited within the context of policy initiatives for collaboration and
‘modernisation’ (Newman, 2001) within England’s Children’s Services (CS) where,
following the Victoria Climbié inquiry (Laming, 2003), considerable legislative
developments have extended and accelerated multi-agency working (DfES 2003,
2004; DCSF, 2007). These have placed legal obligations upon English Local
Authorities to establish a model of ‘Integrated Children’s Services’. Professionals
from across education, health, social work, criminal justice and voluntary sectors are
required to overcome traditional professional and agency boundaries, to reconfigure
their practice and develop a new multi-agency/disciplinary knowledge-base centred
upon ‘the child’.
Within the private sector these new working practices have created some problems
(for example, Newell & Swann, 2000). However this specific case is selected
because, whilst its professionals have only recently been required to work
collaboratively, it is reported to have presented far greater professional challenges
than elsewhere (for example, Abbott et al., 2005; Atkinson et al., 2005; Frost, 2005;
Anning et al., 2006; Frost & Robinson, 2007). As they enter new “figured worlds” in
which they no longer hold expertise (Holland & Lachiotte, 2007), it is putting “at risk
the loyalties and devotions that have made up the foundations of their lives” (Kegan,
2009, p.51). Although the change of UK government in 2010 has arguably side-lined
this agenda, as the service and economic rationale for partnerships grows, and is
expected to continue to 2020 and beyond, so such situations are likely see
increasing recurrence (Ennals, 2010).
This research does not intend to either dismiss or embrace the substantial bodies of
evidence identifying the challenges of integrated working within CS; these have been
well explored. However their brief consideration is necessary to underpin an
informed examination of these professionals’ lives. These might be broadly
encapsulated within the legacies of ‘professionalism’ and ‘knowledge transfer’.
2
2.1 Legacy of professionalism
To maintain legitimacy, traditional routes to professional membership have
encouraged distinctiveness and differentiation (Schön, 1983; Currie et al., 2009).
Thus, whilst these professionals might be focussed upon the same object, caring for
‘the child’, their social identities (Tajfel & Turner, 2001), “epistemic cultures” (Knorr
Cetina, 1999), the discourse and models they traditionally use, and thus the lens
through which they understand this agenda, differ. Is there therefore any degree of
epistemic similarity to enable sharing and thus new knowing to develop? With
professional knowledge conferring ‘power,’ why might they be motivated to share
when it may conceivably affect their own profession’s standing and performance?
(Carlile, 2002; Yanow, 2004). What it takes to integrate groups with differing goals
and perspectives remains under-researched both theoretically and empirically
(Oborn & Dawson, 2010, p.1837).
2.2 Legacy of knowledge transfer
The research is predicated upon assertions that professional integration requires an
explicit focus upon organisational learning (Lin & Beyerlein, 2006). In pursuing this
change policy, government is employing techno-rational ‘knowledge transfer’
principles, ascribing ‘role requirements’, artefacts and ‘best-practice’ models
supported by off-the-job individual training (for example, DfES, 2003, p.92; DfES,
2007). However an increasingly broad and diverse literature has heavily debated the
efficacy of such ‘scientification’ (Gherardi, 2006; Swart, 2011). Whilst some
individual, de-contextualised knowledge ‘acquisition’ may be necessary, alone it is
insufficient. Indeed, within CS, there is limited evidence of its benefits for practice or
on outcomes for children and families (Oliver et al., 2010), only its propensity to
disempower professionals through ignoring their existing expertise and experience.
Emulating the practice-turn in understanding learning, this research understands that
knowledge does not exist as well-defined, abstractable bodies, acquired and
transferred, unchanged between contexts. Rather, organisational learning is the cocreation of new knowing-in-practice; such ‘participatory’ workplace learning is
therefore key to these professionals’ development (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2004,
p.21). Through practice-sharing of tacit knowledge, opportunities are offered for
necessary ‘integration’ (Godemann, 2008), expansion and transformation of their
understandings. This will enable co-creation of new context-specific multi-agency
constructs and shared models (Senge, 1990; Tsoukas, 2009; Barnard, 2010),
shaped by the community’s culture and history (Lave & Wenger, 1991; also Woods
et al., 2006; Fish et al., 2008). This expansive learning is inseparable from identity
and discourse (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Brown & Duguid, 2001).
Expansive learning has been well explored through a diverse literature (for example,
Bateson, 1972; Argyris and Schön, 1978; Engeström, 1987; Mezirow, 1990; Fuller
and Unwin, 2003, 2004). It occurs when problematic situations cannot be resolved
on the basis of existing understanding. Through reflection and collaboration,
questioning of assumptions and established norms, a reframing of practice develops,
conceiving a “third form of life” (Ledwith & Springett, 2010, p.130, quoting Shotter,
2006). This however requires that these professionals are not only practicing
together, but also engaging in open dialogue and negotiation in recognition of a need
to change.
3
3. Previous research undertaken in this field
Numerous projects have adopted a broad social practice lens to explore knowledgesharing across communities. However in drawing upon numerous different concepts
and perspectives they have “left more questions open than answered” (Osterlund &
Carlile, 2005, p.91).
Much of the work undertaken in the eight years since the 2003 Green paper, to
consider how CS professionals might share knowledge, engendering mutual learning
as effective multi-agency teams, has been orientated by Engeström’s (1987) third
generation ‘activity theory’ [AT(III)] (for example, Warmington et al., 2004; Daniels
and Warmington 2007; Edwards, 2007; Edwards et al., 2010). However this lens
holds significant limitations within this context. His concept of ‘knots’ of professionals
knowledge-sharing to overcome issues is based upon only narrow empirical
foundations and assumes that these professionals possess the necessary skills and
desire to boundary span (Fenwick, 2007). The reality however may be very different,
having commitment to fundamentally different aims and goals. Significantly,
however the focus of previous research has been upon how an integrated solution
might be developed. Whilst Hulme and Cracknell (2010) have observed that in
bringing professionals together with the intention of learning, new meaning does start
to develop, little examination has been made of what this learning and new knowing
actually is. Through better understanding ‘if’ and ‘what’ this new multi-agency
knowing ‘is’ that is being co-created within these teams, so policy-makers and policyimplementers might better understand ‘how’ change might be might be brought
about more effectively within CS.
4. Purpose of the research
This exploratory research seeks to address these concerns that the complexities
surrounding the realities of professional formation and practice in the implementation
of this agenda remain inadequately conceptualised and theorised (Hartley &
Bennington, 2006; Glasby & Dickinson, 2008; Oborn & Dawson, 2010). Specifically
it aims to understand if, ‘within the multi-agency context of Children’s Services within
a North-West England Local Authority, a new multi-agency knowing has been
constructed’. Interest is therefore in understanding whether: the traditional uniprofessional knowings exist discretely alongside one another within these new
teams, with legacies of professionalism or lack of shared understandings
discouraging knowledge-sharing and integration (Figure i); has some joint meaning
developed? (Figure ii); or has a new synergistic multi-agency knowing been created
within an integrated community (Figure iii)? If so, what form does this take?;
how/why does this takes the form that it does?; what factors limit its creation?; what
is the role of dominant groups in this? Without such synergistic integration the
effectiveness of collaborative partnerships is questioned.
4
Professional
group A
Professional
group B
Figure i
Professional
group C
Figure ii
Figure iii
In examining this it seeks to question:
1. What is the knowing that is held by CS professionals within a local authority?
2. Has this knowing changed since the policy’s implementation?
3. What are the main determinants of the formation of knowing within these
teams?
4. Does a multi-agency knowing therefore exist?; such have effective
collaborative partnerships been created within CS?
This research therefore offers an empirically and contextually grounded contribution
to debates both on the nature of knowledge and knowing; also what the learning and
knowing created by these professionals is. This may offer better comprehension of
how these working configurations might be created and developed effectively at a
local level.
5. Research Methodology
The research adopts a single case-study design within a North-West England
authority’s CS, selected on the grounds of access. A case-study approach is not
without its weaknesses, notably that of bias and researcher subjectivity (see Nisbet
& Watt, 1984 for detailed review). However this will enable a “thick description”
(Geertz, 1973) of the research context, the processes and complex, ambiguous
phenomenon being enacted within it, without the encumbrance of the socioeconomic settings of different authorities (Gummesson, 2008). Whilst the plurality of
our worlds suggests that meaning is forever being negotiated (Morgan, 2010) thus all
contexts are unique, it is intended that the findings will be of value to researchers
and/or policy-makers and implementers understanding other similar situations across
the public, private and voluntary sectors.
In contrast with the dominant positivist approaches to examining learning, knowledge
and practice, an interpretivist paradigm is adopted. Employing a phenomenological
approach, language is recognised as representing the social realities of these actors,
with qualitative data being collected through the process of social exchange
(Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000; Gherardi, 2009). Entering into deep “meaningful
relationships” with these professionals, it explores their points-of-view to bring
meaning ‘into being’ of how they subjectively understand and ascribe meaning to
their ‘new’ worlds (King & Horrocks, 2010, p.130), notably in relation to:


if/how differing professional knowings come together;
which professions’ knowledge/knowing is valued;
5



whether ‘new’ knowing has been co-created, and what this is, or whether the
uni-professional knowings prevail?
tensions between agency and structure
what it means to be a multi-agency professional.
Whilst this aims to gain insights into these professionals’ motivations and actions,
Alvesson & Kärreman (2011) emphasise how complete theory-data separation is
unviable. The researcher’s personal subjectivities will therefore be made visible in
the research frame (Plummer, 2005) and used self-critically and reflexively to
stimulate re-thinking and to “open up dialogue with the empirical material” (Alvesson
& Kärreman, 2011, p.60).
5.1 Research context
The case-study local authority has an established ‘Children’s Trust’, a strategic
partnership of the organisations providing services for children and young people
(CYP): health, police, community, education and voluntary sector, along with parents
and carers. It has the purpose of ensuring the provision of an integrated childcentred front-line delivery, rather than an agency-based approach. This research
considers professionals from within the area teams. A ‘case’ view is adopted,
considering teams of professionals brought together to work on a specific case
(Ovretveit 1993, 1996). Whilst these teams share a common objective – care of ‘the
child’, they do not have one overall manager, remaining part of their ‘specialist’
function teams.
This view should therefore offer multiple perspectives, yet meaningful insights into
the nature of multi-agency knowing. Following Guest et al. (2006), consideration of
three separate teams is proposed, comprising a total of 15-25 professionals. The
relevant sample of informants will be expected to become apparent as the
relationships and positions that are significant are explored further.
5.2 Data collection Methods
This paper reports the unique approach to data collection adopted in the first stage
of this examination of knowing within multi-agency practice. Within the qualitative
paradigm, interviews predominate as a data collection tool, offering a flexible
approach and a “powerful way of helping people to articulate their tacit perceptions,
feelings and understandings” (Arksey & Knight, 1999, p.32). Enabling a deeper
comprehension of issues arising (Bryman, 2008, p.439) through offering response
follow-up, they have been proven effective for gaining understanding of the
subjective world of multi-agency professionals (for example, Anning et al., 2006;
Frost & Robinson, 2007; Collett, 2010). However, due to the complexities of their
working situations and the ‘trickiness’ of exploring knowing (Gauntlett, 2007), gaining
cognitive access to these professionals’ lives through interview alone may be
problematic. Photo-elicitation interviews (PEI) are therefore adopted with the
intention that photos/images will act as a catalyst to helping the participants’ talk
about and expand upon these difficult, perhaps abstract concepts. It is suggested
that this will elicit richer data and extended personal narratives of their multi-agency
lives and experiences.
6
Future methodological triangulation is to be sought through consideration of policy
statements on multi-agency working, the professionals measuring their own
experiences alongside these.
5.3 Developing research though photography
The development of PEI may be traced back to Morin and Rouch’s ‘Chronique d'un
été’ and to Collier’s work on mental health undertaken in the 1960s (Collier & Collier,
1986). However with the broad discipline of social research typically considered to
be ‘word-based’, visual methods have tended to play a minor role, their capacity to
reveal “the truth” often questioned (Harper, 2002, p.17). The use of visual medium
has however increased in more recent years, their increasing popularity perhaps
mirroring the rise of imagery as the dominant mode of communication in today’s
society? It has been used across various disciplines and participant-types including
education (Rasmussen, 2004), psychology (Salmon, 2001), housing (Suchar &
Rotenberg, 1994), and nursing (Riley & Manias, 2003). Harper (1997, 2002) and
Banks (2001) offer significant contributions to the field. A number of different
approaches to PEI have been developed, researchers attributing a number of
different categorical terms based upon their intended purpose and who takes the
photos. Photos/images may be created by the researcher (Collier, 1967), created by
the interviewee (for example, Clark, 1999; Samuels, 2004), or selected from existing
archival sources (Banks, 2001, pp. 87, 99).
However, compared with other qualitative methods, very little has been written about
their use and their integration into the interviewing process (Hurworth et al., 2005,
p.52). Indeed PEI has been little used by researchers of collaborative situations,
however they offer an important contribution to investigations of professional identity,
relationships, discourse and influence through acting as a medium for provoking
perceptions, concerns and social constructions in an alternative way, uninhibited by
constraints of speech alone (Johnson & Weller, 2001; Pink, 2004, 2005; Gauntlett,
2007). Offering participants opportunities to reflect upon the questions and/or the
issues they raise in advance, will help them to better understand how they think
about themselves, rather than requiring them to provide an instantaneous verbal
response (Walker & Weidel, 1985, p.143). Typically presenting aspects that might
otherwise be overlooked as inconsequential (Mizen, 2005; Twine, 2006), they “mine
deeper shafts into .… human consciousness” (Harper, 2002, p.23), exploring the
unconscious ‘voices’, assumptions and values, also the experiences and perceptions
that drive behaviours (Warren, 2002), and taken-for-granted assumptions held by
both participants and researcher (Belin, 2005). With the participant becoming the
guide and expert rather than being the subject of the interview, this tool also acts to
overturn the power dynamics involved in regular interviewing, helping bridge the gap
between the researcher and participants (Pink, 2005, p.69). As such this approach
offers a potentially invaluable tool for examining the complexities of these multiagency professionals’ worlds.
From a theoretical perspective, PEI offers richness to potentially reflect and develop
theory/knowledge in this field. Perhaps most notably the signs, symbols and
perceptions offered present multiple ways of knowing, providing multiple
perspectives and interpretations. This juxtaposes the fixed meanings offered
through the dominant approaches to examining these professionals’ practice, such
7
as those offered in government statistics and charts, and presents a basis for
inductive theorising and theoretical review of the issues arising (Harper, 2000).
This research adopts a participant-produced ‘autodriving’ approach. Participants are
requested to collect and submit 5-8 photos/images, in advance of interview, in
response to prompt questions, the focus of which is upon three broad questions,
namely: ‘what does multi-agency working mean to you?’; ‘what does being a multiagency professional/worker mean to you?’; ‘[how] have you become the multiagency professional that you are today?’. Enabling the participants to make their
own decisions over what to photo/what images to provide, their purpose is to act as
interview stimuli (Clark, 1999), to solicit comments, memory and discussion both
from the participants and also the researcher, but led by the participant. It was
anticipated that these photos/images would directly or indirectly illustrate their
working lives, their role, identity, culture, discourse and relationships; although it was
acknowledged that other abstract images might be presented.
Where photos/images are not submitted in advance of the interview, not at all, or are
of limited value in promoting effective discussion, the researcher uses the prompt
questions alone to construct understanding. Since all participants received these
prompts at the outset, it is not anticipated that this will present significant concerns.
Whilst the researcher might offer photos/images for exploration within the interview,
this approach was not adopted. Critically this would have risked imposing the
researcher’s views and perceptions upon the participants, possibly risking the depth
of reflection evoked through failing to “break the frame” of the participants’ view
(Harper, 2002, p.20). Being embedded in their social, cultural, political and cultural
contexts, offered greater opportunity for evoking and thus examining key tangibles
and intangibles in their professional lives, such as their beliefs, values, philosophies,
identities (Becker, 2002).
The interviews are recorded, with participant permission, so their accounts could be
captured, enabling the analysis of detailed verbatim transcripts.
5.4 Limitations of the proposed methods
This approach however has its shortcomings. Whilst semi-structured interviews
have been used successfully in contemporary research, they are limited by their
contrived rather than naturalistic interaction, being unable to account for gaps
between what the participants say and do. The provision of photos/images may help
to alleviate this, however Emmison and Smith (2000) note how photographs do not
overcome the critiques of spoken and written text, as they too fail to offer “a
transparent window on the world” (Mannay, 2010, p.99), but offer a selective account
of reality in terms of what is selected and how it is framed. Further, Warren (2005)
observes how the relationship between words and image remains “uneasy and
unclear”. Perhaps most importantly, PEI is based upon the assumption that these
professionals are able and willing (cognitively and physically) to impart information
that is not subjected to issues of social desirability, such that a ‘valid’ representation
of their meanings is gained (King & Horrocks, 2010, p.17).
Critics also highlight the importance of interpretation being by the participants’ for
whom they signify reality, rather than the researcher’s attempt to interpret what they
8
‘actually’ mean. They note how photos/images “often serve little more than as
illustrative devices” rather than being effectively analysed (Ball & Smith, 1992, p.12).
Cognisant of these shortcomings, this approach is proposed over pictors, developed
by Ross et al. (2005) for healthcare teams. Whilst in offering a visual representation
of how they view themselves and their social world, these might promote a greater
degree of reflection (see King & Horrocks, 2010, p.192-3), they are rejected based
upon their more time-consuming and intrusive nature, requiring participants to
commit thoughts to paper which they may be unwilling to do.
5.5 Alternative methods considered for use in this research
Alternative ethnographic techniques, notably observation of these professionals’ dayto-day work, as used extensively by the ESRC-funded MATch project (Anning et al.,
2006) and the ESRC-LIW project (Warmington et al., 2004), would potentially yield
valuable data. This ‘interactionist approach’ offering what Delbridge and Kirkpatrick
(1994) terms as ‘primary’ (direct observation), ‘secondary’ (statements made by
others of occurrences) and ‘experiential’ (researcher perceptions and feelings) data
would offer a means of “not merely observing what is happening but also feeling it”
(Gill & Johnson, 2002, p.144). This would offer an invaluable means to getting to
understand the identity of these professionals and to the root of what is actually
‘going on’ in this multi-agency setting. However, ethical issues arising due to issues
of confidentiality meant that this was not acceptable to the local authority and so is
not a feasible option, at least at present.
Analysis of workplace documents may also offer invaluable evidence of the
construction of a multi-agency knowing and an insight into the effects of changing
practice. Whilst it is acknowledged that the discourse of meetings is different to
everyday ‘social text’ (Alvesson & Kärreman 2000, p.1136), this might provide an
alternative means of observing what is ‘going on’. However, again this was not
acceptable to the authority due to issues of meeting content confidentiality.
Consideration has been made of the use of both online blogs and critical incident
diaries. This reflective approach which fosters critical thinking and transformative
learning (Brookfield, 1990), is effective in documenting feelings and perceptions as
well as ‘facts’ about events, illuminating key processes in development of multiagency practice and being through exploration of these professionals’’ experiences.
However the workloads of these professionals negated securing the longer-term
commitment required for their use. Also previous research undertaken by the
researcher has demonstrated the difficulties of recruiting and continuously motivating
participants using such techniques.
Finally, PE-informed focus-groups or joint-interviews might eliminate the potential
influences/biases of individuals’ biographies exposed through one-to-one PEI.
Stimulating interaction more akin to everyday life to enable construction of joint
understandings, they potentially offer access to tacit, codified knowledge that might
not otherwise be possible (Field, 2000; Robson, 2002). Indeed, Schwartz (1989)
notes how the value of the “polysemic” nature of photos/images, engendering
multiple understandings that trigger discussions to produce more comprehensive
responses, through accessing collective memory and counter-debates, than might
be secured through one-to-one interaction. Bryman (2008, p.487-489) reviews the
9
further benefits (and limitations) that joint-interviews or focus-groups might offer to
this research, however due to logistical issues they are not, at this stage, considered.
6. Pilot survey
To pretest this PEI method a pilot survey was set up. This had the dual purpose of
exploring the feasibility of the PEI method itself – of asking the participants to provide
photos/images to enable this “autodriven” deeper and richer examination of their
professional lives; also the length of the interview. This pilot was undertaken with a
small group of CS multi-agency professionals from within the local authority who,
due to their current roles and responsibilities, would not form a part of the main
study. It is not anticipated that the pilot sample data will be incorporated within the
final data set for analysis.
Following approval from three separate ethics panels, the Association of Directors of
Children’s Services (ADCS), the Local Authority and the researcher’s own institution,
the pilot study participants were issued with a information sheet providing details of
the purpose of the pilot study and instructions for the provision of photos/images.
They were given the opportunity to discuss the project further with the researcher
and to raise any queries or concerns that they had. The instructions requested them
to provide photos/images that: demonstrated what multi-agency team-working meant
to them; reflected their new working practices and how they felt about them. They
were asked to send these to the researcher, electronically or via mail, three days in
advance of the interview. An informal focus group was held after all the interviews
had taken place to enable discussion about the process and any issues/difficulties
that arose or concerns that they had.
The analysis of this data is currently in progress but will be presented at the
conference. This analysis will be used to inform a review of the value of this
approach as the key data collection tool, notably its success in “breaking the frame”
(Harper, 2002, p.20) to allow a new view of these participants’ social worlds. This
will also enable revision of the prompts offered to the participants at the outset as a
guide to their collection of photos/images and the questions used in guiding the
interviews. The main survey is anticipated to be conducted May-September 2012.
The relevant sample of informants will be expected to become apparent as the
relationships and positions that are significant are explored further.
7. Data analysis methods
Coupland (2007, p.284) recognises the challenges in qualitative analysis of ensuring
coherence between questions solicited and interpretation of the responses. PEI
presents a particular challenge in this, requiring the coding of both words and images
(Wagner, 1979).
In alignment with the methodological stance articulated, initial analysis of the
photos/images and transcript data is undertaken through qualitative content analysis
(Silverman, 2011), using NVivo9 as the data management tool. The intentions are to
make sense of, and create meaning from, the participants’ explanations and
interpretations of their experiences. Through an iterative process, codes will be
generated inductively from the data rather than being derived from pre-existing
theory or conceptions (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Recurring patterns of meaning
10
(‘themes’) within these codes will then be sought. As a second stage, these themes
will be compared and contrasted with themes identifiable from within the literature,
enabling further, theoretically informed, themes to be established. Full details of this
method can be found in Easterby-Smith et al. (2002, p.106-113).
8. Conclusions
Over the last decade, the use of images has witnessed growing popularity as a
research tool within the social sciences. Photo-elicitation interviews, informed by the
fields of ethnography, anthropology and sociology offer a useful means to examining
complex social phenomena outside the constraints of language.
With the
photos/images acting as a medium for provoking perceptions, concerns and social
constructions, its significance is clearly encapsulated by Becker (2002, p.11) who
states, “what can you do with pictures that you couldn’t do just as well with words?
The answer is that I can lead you to believe that the abstract tale I’ve told you has a
real flesh and blood life and is therefore to be believed …”.
It can also empower participants to take a lead in discussions, removing the barriers
that often exist between researcher and participant. This offers avenues to new
subject matter, enabling the researcher to be ‘led’ to aspects of their social world,
and to the unconscious ‘voices’, experiences and perceptions that drive behaviour.
This paper has overviewed the use of PEI a study set up to explore the development
of a new professional knowing in a multi-agency based Children’s Services. The
methodological and ethical challenges affecting its use have been considered. A
pilot study has been developed to demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach to
examining the social worlds of these professionals, illustrating dynamics and insights
that might otherwise have been left undisclosed or unrevealed, thus offering
potentially far richer data than interviews alone or other methodological approaches
might secure.
References
Abbott, D., Townsley, R. & Watson, D. (2005). Multi-agency working in services for
disabled children: what impact does it have on professionals? Health & Social Care
in the Community 13(2): 155-163.
Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organisational
research: challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioural
Science, 16, 136-158.
Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. (2011). Qualitative research and theory development.
Mystery as Method. Sage: London.
Anning, A., Cottrell, D., Frost, N., Green, J. & Robinson, M. (2006). Developing
Multiprofessional Teamwork for Integrated Children’s Services Maidenhead: OUP.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Arksey, H. & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for Social Scientists. London: Sage.
11
Atkinson, M., Doherty, P. & Kinder, K. (2005). Multi-agency working: Models,
challenges and key factors for success, Journal of Early Childhood Research 3(1), 717.
Ball, M. & Smith, G. (1992). Analysing Visual Data. London: Sage.
Banks, M. (2001). Visual methods in social research. London: Sage.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of the mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Barnard, R. (2010). Activity theory: A framework for analysing intercultural academic
activity. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 3, 25-37
Becker, H. (2002). Visual evidence: A Seventh Man, the Specified Generation and
the work of the Reader. Visual Studies, 17(1), 3-11
Belin, R. (2005). Photo-elicitation and the agricultural landscape. Visual Studies,
20(1), 56-68
Brookfield, S. (1990) Using critical incidents to explore learner’s assumptions. In J.
Merziow (Ed.) Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: a guide to transformative and
emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, J. & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organisations: A social practice
perspective. Organizational Science, 12(2), 90-111.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. (3e). London: Sage.
Carlile. P. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects
in new product development, Organization Science 13, 442-455.
Clark, C. (1999). The autodriven interview: A photographic viewfinder into children’s
experiences. Visual Sociology, 14, 39-50.
Collett, A. (2010). The Multi-agency Team: Does it really work? Centre for Education
Policy in Practice (CEPIP), Bath Spa University. Available online at
http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/schools/education/research/cepip/publications.asp
[Accessed 12/8/2011]
Collier, J. (1967). Visual anthropology: photography as a research method. New
York: Holt Rinehart.
Collier, J. & Collier, M. (1986). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research
method. Albuquerque: New Mexico Press.
Coupland, C. (2007). Identities and interviews. In A. Pullen, N. Beech & D. Sims
(Eds) Exploring Identity: Concepts and Methods. (pp.274-287) London: PalgraveMacMillan
Currie, G., Finn, R. & Martin, G. (2009). Professional Competition and Modernizing
the Clinical Workforce in the NHS. Work, Employment and Society, 23(2): 267-284
Daniels, H. & Warmington, P. (2007) Analysing third generation activity systems:
power, contradictions and personal transformation. Journal of Workplace Learning
19(6), 377–391
DCSF
(2007).
The
Children’s
Plan.
Available
online
from
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/childrensplan/downloads/The_Childrens_Plan.pd
f [Accessed 15/1/08]
12
Delbridge, R. & Kirkpatrick, I. (1994). Theory and practice of participant observation.
In V. Waas & P. Wells (Eds), Principles and practice in Business and Management
Research (pp.35-62). Aldershot: Dartmouth.
DfES (2003). Every Child Matters. Norwich: Stationery Office.
DfES (2004). Every Child Matters: The Next Steps. Norwich: Stationery Office.
DfES (2007). Safeguarding Children and Safer Recruitment in Education. Norwich:
Stationery Office.
Easterby-Smith, M.P.V., Thorpe, R. & Lowe, A. (2002). Management Research: an
Introduction. (2e). London: Sage.
Edwards, A. (2007). Relational Agency in Professional Practice: A CHAT Analysis.
Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 1, 1-17
Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner: the relational turn in
expertise. Dordrecht: Springer
Emmison, M. & Smith, P. (2001). Researching the visual. London: Sage.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit
Ennals, P. (2010). Is 'integrated working' the future for the children's workforce?
Guardian Professional, Monday 6 December 2010 08.45 GMT. Available online at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2010/dec/06/integratedworking-the-future-children-s-workforce [Accessed 27/5/2011]
Entwistle, T. (2010). Collaboration. In R. Ashworth, G. Boyle & T. Entwistle (eds)
Public Service Improvement: Theories and Evidence, (pp162-183),Oxford: OUP.
Fenwick, T. (2007). Knowledge workers in the in-between: Network identities.
Journal of Organisational Change Management, 20(4), 509-524.
Fish, S., Munro, E. & Barstow, S. (2008). Learning together to safe guard children:
developing a multi-agency systems approach for case reviews. SCIE report.
Available online at www.scie.org.uk. [Accessed 30/5/2011].
Frost, N. & Robinson, M. (2007). Joining up children's services: safeguarding
children in multi-disciplinary teams. Child Abuse Review, 16, 184-199.
Frost, N. (2005). Professionalism, Partnership & joined-up thinking: a research
review of front-line working with children & families. Dartington: Research in Practice
Fuller, A. & Unwin, L. (2003). Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK
workplace: creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation, Journal of
Education and Work, 16, 407-26.
Fuller, A. & Unwin, L. (2004). Expansive Learning Environments: Integrating
organisational and personal development. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller & A. Munro (eds)
Workplace Learning in Context. (pp.126-144) London: Routledge.
Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative exploration: New approaches to Identities and
Audiences. London: Routledge
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick descriptions: towards an interpretive theory of culture. In C.
Geertz (Ed) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
13
Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational Knowledge: The Texture of Workplace Learning.
Blackwell: Oxford.
Gherardi, S. (2009). The critical power of the ‘Practice lens’. Management Learning,
40(2), 115-128
Gill, J.& Johnson, P. (2002). Research methods for Managers. (3Ed). London: Sage.
Glasby, J. & Dickinson, H. (2008). Greater than the sum of our parts? Emerging
lessons for UK health and social care. International journal of Integrated Care, 8(7)
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Godemann, J. (2008). Knowledge integration: a key challenge for transdisciplinary
cooperation. Environmental Educational Research 14(6):625-641
Guest, G., Bunce, A & Johnson, L. (2006) How many interviews are enough? An
experimentation with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1), 59-82
Gummesson, E. (2008).
Quality, service-dominant logic and many-to-many
marketing. The TQM Journal, 20(2), 143-153
Harper, (D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo-elicitation. Visual
Studies 17(1), 13-26.
Harper, D. (1997). Visualising structures: reading surfaces of social life. Qualitative
Sociology, 20, 57-74.
Harper, D. (2001). Changing worlds: Visions of lost agricultures. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Hartley, J. & Bennington, J. (2006). Copy and Paste, or Graft and Transplant?
Knowledge Sharing through Inter-organisational Networks. Public Money and
Management, 26(2), 101-108
Hodkinson, P. & Hodkinson, H. (2004). The complexities of workplace learning:
problems and dangers in trying to measure attainment. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller & A.
Munro (eds) Workplace Learning in Context. (pp.259-275) London: Routledge.
Holland, D. & Lachiotte, W. (2007). Vygotsky, Mead and the new sociocultural
studies of identity. In H. Daniels, M. Cole & J. Wertsch (Eds). The Cambridge
Companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge: CUP
Hulme, R. & Cracknell. D. (2010). Learning across boundaries: developing transprofessional understanding through practitioner inquiry. In A. Campbell & S.
Groundwater-Smith (eds) Connecting Inquiry and Professional learning in Education:
International Perspectives and Practical Solutions (pp.53-67), Abingdon: Routledge
Hurworth, R., Clark, E., Martin, J & Thomsen, S. (2005) The use of photointerviewing: three examples from health evaluation and research. Evaluation
Journal of Australasia, 4(1), 52-62.
Johnson, J. & Weller, S. (2001). Elicitation techniques for interviewing. In J.
Gubrium & J. Holstein (eds) Handbook of interview research: context & method. (pp.
491-514). London: Sage
Kegan, R. (2009). What “form” transforms? In K. Illeris (ed) Contemporary Theories
of Learning (35-52) London: Routledge
King, N. & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: Sage
14
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge.
Harvard: Harvard University Press
Laming, H. (2003). The Victoria Climbie Enquiry. Retrieved 11 07, 2007, from
http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/website/ich/academicunits/Centreiforievidenceibasedichildih
ealth/CustomMenui02/TheiLammingireportiiVictoriaiClimbieiifulliversionii2003.pdf
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ledwith, M. & Springett, J. (2010). Participatory Practice: Community-based action
for transformative change. Bristol: Polity Press
Lin, Y. & Beyerlein, M. (2006). Communities of Practice: Critical perspective on
collaboration. In M. Beyerlein, S. Beyerlein & F. Kennedy (eds.) Advances in
Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams: Innovation through Collaboration. Oxford:
Elsevier/JAI Imprint.
Mannay, D. (2010). Making the familiar strange: can visual research methods render
the familiar setting more perceptible? Qualitative Research, 10: 91-111
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to
transformational and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Mizen, P. (2005). A little ‘light work’: Children’s images of and about their work.
Visual Studies, 20(2), 124-139
Morgan, A. (2010). Discourse Analysis: An Overview for the Neophyte Researcher.
Journal of Health and Social Care Improvement, May: 1-7
Newell, S. & Swan, J. (2000). Trust and inter-organizational networking. Human
Relations, 53(10), 1287-1328
Newman, J. (2001). Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society.
London: Sage.
Nisbet, J. & Watt, T. (1984). Case study. In J. Bell, T. bush, A. Fox, J. Goodey & S.
Goulding (Eds) Conducting small-scale investigations in Educational Management.
(pp. 79-92). London: Harper-Row
Oborn, E. & Dawson, S. (2010). Knowledge and practice in multidisciplinary teams:
Struggle, accommodation and privilege. Human Relations, 63(12), 1835-1857.
Oliver, C., Mooney, A. with Statham, J. (2010). Integrated Working: A Review of the
Evidence, Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of
London/CWDC.
Available
online
at
http://www.cwdcouncil.org.uk/assets/0001/0545/Integrated_Working_A_Review_of_t
he_Evidence_report.pdf [Accessed 15/7/2011]
Osterlund, C. & Carlile, P. (2005) Relations in practice: Sorting through practice
theories of knowledge-sharing in complex organisations. The Information Society,
21, 91-107
Ovretveit, J. (1996) Five ways to describe a multidisciplinary team, Journal of
Interprofesional Care, 10(2), 163-171.
Ovretveit, J. (1993). Co-ordinating Community Care: multi-disciplinary teams and
care management. Buckingham: OUP.
15
Pink, S. (2004). Visual methods. In C, Searle, J. Gumbrium & D. Silverman (Eds.),
Qualitative research practice (pp.391-406). London: Sage.
Pink, S. (2005). Doing Visual Ethnography. London: Sage.
Rasmussen, K. (2004). Places for children – Children’s Places. Childhood, 11(2),
155-173.
Riley, R. & Manias, E. (2003). Snap-shots of live theatre: the use of photography to
research governance in operating room nursing. Nursing Inquiry, 10, 81-90.
Ross, A., King, N. & Firth, J. (2005). Interprofessional relationships and collaborative
working: encouraging reflective practice. Online Journal of Nursing Issues, 10
(1):Article
3.
Available
online
at
http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/ANAMarketplace/ANAPeriodicals/
OJIN/TableofContents/Volume102005/No1Jan05/tpc26_316010.aspx
[Accessed
12.8.2011]
Salmon, K. (2001). Remembering and reporting by children: the influence of cues
and props. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(2), 267-300.
Samuels, J. (2004). Breaking the Ethnographer’s Frames: Reflections on the Use of
Photo Elicitation in Understanding Sri Lankan Monastic Culture. American
Behavioral Scientist 47(12), 1528-1550.
Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action.
London: Temple Smith.
Schwartz, D. (1989). Visual ethnography: Using photography in qualitative research.
Qualitative Sociology, 12(2), 119-153.
Silverman, D. (2011). Qualitative research. London: Sage.
Suchar, C. & Rotenberg, R. (1994). Judging the adequacy of a shelter: a case from
Lincoln Park. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 11(2), 149-165.
Swart, J. (2011). Why it matters: How knowing creates value. Management Learning,
42(3), 319-332.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (2001). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M. Hogg
& D. Abrams (eds) Intergroup relations Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogic approach to the creation of new knowledge in
organisations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941-957
Twine, F. (2006). Visual ethnography and racial theory. Ethnic and Racial Studies,
29(3), 487-511
Wagner, J. (1979). Avoiding error. In J. Wagner (Ed), Images of information
(pp147.159). London: Sage.
Walker, R. & Weidel, J. (1985). ‘Using photographs in a discipline of words’, In R.
Burgess (ed.) Field methods in the study of education. (pp. 191–216). London:
Falmer Press.
Warmington, P., Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Brown, S., Leadbetter, S., Martin, D. &
Middleton, D. (2004). Interagency Collaboration: a review of the literature. Available
online at http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/liw/litreview.html [Accessed 17/1/2010]
Woods, D., Patterson, E. & Cook, R. (2006). Behind human error: taming complexity
16
to improve patient safety. In P. Carayon (ed) Handbook of human factors and
ergonomics in health care and patient safety. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Yanow, D. (2004). Translating Local Knowledge at Organizational Peripheries.
British Journal of Management, 15: S9–S25.
17