Being Where? Navigating the Involvement Paradox in Qualitative Research Accounts

Abstract

Researcher presence in the field (“being there”) has long been a topic of scholarly discussion in qualitative inquiry. However, the representation of field presence in research accounts merits increased methodological attention as it impacts readers’ understanding of study phenomena and theoretical contributions. We maintain that the current ambiguity around representing field involvement is rooted in our scholarly community’s “involvement paradox.” On one hand, we laud field proximity as a tenet of qualitative inquiry. On the other hand, we insist on professional distance to avoid “contamination” of findings. This leaves authors in a difficult position as they attempt to weave field involvement into written accounts. We draw on existing conceptual articles and illustrative exemplars to introduce four interrelated dimensions of representation: visibility, voice, stance, and reflexivity. These are intended to structure thinking about how authors do, and can, cast field involvement in research accounts as they navigate the involvement paradox. We encourage researcher-authors to think carefully about how they attend to their field presence as they craft research accounts, in order to enhance their legitimacy, trustworthiness, and richness.

“And Who Are You?”: A Performative Perspective on Authority in Organizations

“…Autoethnography poses, in the most acute way, the "involvement paradox"-the need to get close enough to the field to understand it, yet remain distant enough to analyze it and avoid biases. It pushes qualitative researchers to make choices in the way they represent involvement in their accounts (Langley & Klag, 2017). We believe that autoethnography need not be "evocative" (Ellis, 1997) or "political" (Denzin, 2003;Reed-Danahay, 1997); it can also be what Anderson (2006) termed "analytical."…”

Observing to Coproduce a Collective Narrative: Emplotment of Multiple Parallel Stories

“…Due to the questions and critiques associated with observation research methods, they are often abandoned (Barley & Kunda, 2001) in favor of semistructured interviews, or secondary data, for example, from archives (Banks, 2007;Leonard-Barton, 1990). When the observation method is chosen, it is generally used as part of a broader research 'design' such as a case study; research articles making this method the central topic are more unusual and in those articles, the authors focus less on the technical details of direct observation of work and situations (Journé, 2005) than on the relations with the field of study and the people observed (Anteby, 2013;Langley & Klag, 2019;Roulet et al, 2017). The technical details supplied shed more light on the question of collection strategies (Journé, 2005) than the use and organization of the data collected.…”

“…Staying close to hermeneutic approaches and placing experience at the core of the analysis, the researcher must always move forward in doubt, while creating a trusting relationship (Prasad, 2002). Langley and Klag (2019) note that academics' involvement in qualitative research must meet the contradictory aim of taking advantage of close proximity with practitioners while keeping a professional distance and retaining a researcher's stance. Emplotment and narrative-building from the data collected by dynamic observation, and the insistence on the transparency characteristic of mimesis III, lead to production of credible, confirmable narratives that are up for discussion (Gill, Gill, & Roulet, 2018).…”

In 1000 words: #TimeIsUp, Academics and Organization Studies

“…However, this presence is far from self-evident. How much I am "being there," how much I-really-want "to be there" and how much is "being reported" are endless questions (Langley & Klag, 2017). "Radically reflexive researchers do not attempt to mask, mitigate or explain away the ambiguous implications of involvement" (Langley & Klag, 2017: 16).…”