2004
DOI: 10.1177/1476750304047981
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Self-referentiality as a power mechanism

Abstract: A B S T R A C TThe article is a first-and second-person inquiry into power relations between action researchers and participants based on a dialogic action research project with a group of managers at Bang & Olufsen, Denmark. It focuses on discrepancies between our espoused values of dialogue and our theories-in-use characterized by self-referentiality. This concept emerged during the process and describes a non-dialogic way of transforming the perspectives of the other into your own a priori categories and wa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
(7 reference statements)
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At this stage, when employee/trainee participants were gradually beginning to voice their opinions on conversations, I was addressed as the owner of training in the organization—a title management executives already claimed. This proves that “self-referentiality” is inevitable in insider action research (Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen, 2004). Especially, when I felt that explaining the underlying ideas and rules guiding the research to participants would help drive discussions reflexively, unwittingly, my multiple roles as trainer-instructor and researcher-interviewer was becoming more obvious.…”
Section: From Evaluation Over To Evaluation With Stakeholdersmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…At this stage, when employee/trainee participants were gradually beginning to voice their opinions on conversations, I was addressed as the owner of training in the organization—a title management executives already claimed. This proves that “self-referentiality” is inevitable in insider action research (Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen, 2004). Especially, when I felt that explaining the underlying ideas and rules guiding the research to participants would help drive discussions reflexively, unwittingly, my multiple roles as trainer-instructor and researcher-interviewer was becoming more obvious.…”
Section: From Evaluation Over To Evaluation With Stakeholdersmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…Keywords: Collaborative research, reflexivity, othering, emergence, ethics i t a t i v e R e s e a r c h i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s a n d M a n a g e m e 3 Much research in management learning contexts focuses on positive and rewarding incidents when addressing the importance of working with reflexivity in participatory learning processes (Corlett, 2012, p. 117;Cunliffe, 2002). However, within critical, reflexive approaches and in the action research community, recent discussions address how democratic ideals of participatory research can be critiqued (Arieli, Friedman, & Agbaria, 2009;Gunnarsson, 2003;Heen, 2005;Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen, 2004;. This article contributes to these discussions by addressing the ethical complexity arising in the co-production of knowledge between researchers and participants.…”
Section: Originality/valuementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dialogic action research has recently been described as a particular approach to organization development that has dialogue as both its object and its method (Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen, 2004). Kristiansen and Bloch-Poulsen explain that in their dialogical approach to AR, organizational members are trained on how to engage in dialogue that eventually leads to practical solutions.…”
Section: Examples Of Dialogic Armentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By means of a first-and second-person inquiry into the their assumptions, beliefs, values and mental models, Kristiansen and Bloch-Poulsen (2004) illustrated how unexamined and taken-for-granted perspectives came to bear on their practice as action researchers working with the Danish company Bang & Olufsen. First, the researchers noticed that during supervision conversations between project managers and their supervising managers, the supervising managers interpreted their colleagues' perspectives according to their own a priori perspectives and ways of thinking.…”
Section: Bang and Olufsen Denmarkmentioning
confidence: 99%