essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

368 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––dialectical process between insiders and outsiders beyond the immediate research team. Theworking group may raise questions or request clarifications, thereby helping the co-researchteam refine its analysis and report.Outcomes from co-researchThere are three main outcomes from co-research. First, there is the production of reports andacademic papers which, we suggest, are strengthened through this co-productionmethodology, because the richness and complexity of organizational processes can be shown.Second, the commitment to the research partnership means that the knowledge andunderstanding has a practical benefit to participating organizations. The research team offersworkshops and seminars to the case organizations, in order to explore and elaborate issuesarising from the research. This is not always taken up, but the opportunity is appreciated bythe organization. An advantage of co-research is that it can build practitioner commitmentto the research and thereby contribute to knowledge not only being generated but also beingapplied.Third, practitioners value co-research as providing personal and organizational developmentbenefits. It is an opportunity to research and learn in conjunction with academics. It alsocontributes to a ‘magpie effect’. The co-interviewer may notice examples of good practicein the case study organization and may take ideas back to their own organization. Workinglinks between the different organizations may also be established. For example, in the researchon leadership, a mentoring relationship was established. Co-researchers report that they valuethese opportunities to learn from another organization as well as from the research.STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE CO-RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ––––––––––––––––––––––––––Co-research can be highly productive and, under certain circumstances, has a number ofadvantages over traditional, ‘academic as expert’ research. First, interviewees are aware thatboth academics and practitioners are undertaking the research and some are reassured that theirown culture and terms of reference are understood. In some cases, we have gained fuller, moretextured responses. For example, in the research on the corporate core, an interview with adirector of education about corporate financing of projects was aided by a co-interviewer whounderstood the nuances of local government finance. Technical language and jargon can beunderstood without interrupting the flow of the interview. We have also found it useful forinterviewing elite actors, such as senior councillors or chief executives, where an insider’sknowledge is appreciated by the interviewee. On the other hand, care has to be taken inmatching co-researcher to interviewee. Although the research team is introduced as primarilyworking for the university, acknowledgement is given to their other, ‘home organization’, role.For example, in the case study of Knowsley, ‘Martin’ was a senior councillor working as a cointerviewerand it was considered inappropriate that he interview middle managers and juniorstaff, who might be overawed by such status. Instead, he interviewed senior staff andcouncillors, where a political analysis was particularly beneficial.Second, practitioner knowledge aids the interpretation of data, especially where thefinancial, legal or organizational context is important or where informal processes underpinthe issue under study (compare Brown and Duguid, 1991 on non-canonical processes in