Plunging into the process: methodological reflections on a process-oriented study of stakeholders’ relating dynamics

ABSTRACT Process-oriented approaches increasingly gain attention within policy and administrative studies. A process orientation emphasizes the ongoing, dynamic character of policy phenomena, i.e. their becoming. This article reflects upon the methodological particularities and challenges that come with doing process-oriented research. To do so, it draws on experiences with a concrete process study on stakeholders’ relating dynamics within a collaborative policymaking process. This article identifies three methodological particularities: (1) the ongoing amplification of realities, (2) the shifting of positionalities of both researchers and participants, through time and across contexts, and (3) the emergence of historical-aware reflexivity. While each of these are common issues in qualitative-interpretive research, we argue how the longitudinal and poly-contextual orientation of a process study amplifies their impact on the research process and poses specific challenges. We conclude that to effectively deal with these particularities and challenges a process researcher benefits from developing and establishing good field relations, as well as from the courage to come to ‘temporary’ closure(s), against the background of the continuously becoming of the phenomenon under study.

[1]  J. Grunebaum.  Multidirected partiality and the "parental imperative." , 1987 .

[2]  K. England.  Getting Personal: Reflexivity, Positionality, and Feminist Research∗ , 1994 .

[3]  J. Voss,et al.  Reflexive governance for sustainable development , 2006 .

[4]  Reflections on using life history to investigate women teachers’ aspirations and career decisions , 2012 .

[5]  P. Dawson.  In at the deep end: Conducting processual research on organisational change , 1997 .

[6]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Process studies of change in organization and management : unveiling temporality, activity, and flow , 2013 .

[7]  C. Hay.  INTERPRETING INTERPRETIVISM INTERPRETING INTERPRETATIONS: THE NEW HERMENEUTICS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION , 2011 .

[8]  Lorenzo Bizzi,et al.  Studying processes in and around networks , 2012 .

[9]  K. Gergen.  Qualitative Inquiry: Tensions And Transformations , 2000 .

[10]  H. Wagenaar,et al.  Meaning in action : interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis , 2011 .

[11]  William E. Connolly,et al.  A World of Becoming , 2011, International Dialogue.

[12]  A. D. Ritchie.  The Creative Mind , 1946, Nature.

[13]  A. Russo,et al.  Getting Personal : Reflexivity , Positionality , and Feminist Research , 2022 .

[14]  Richard F. Fenno.  Observation, Context, and Sequence in the Study of Politics , 1986, American Political Science Review.

[15]  J. Holland,et al.  Hindsight, foresight and insight: The challenges of longitudinal qualitative research , 2003 .

[16]  L. Finlay.  Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice , 2002 .

[17]  A. Bagnoli.  Beyond the standard interview: the use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods , 2009 .

[18]  Roni Berger.  Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research , 2015 .

[19]  Peter John,et al.  Agendas and Instability in American Politics , 2013 .

[20]  Dvora Yanow,et al.  Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes , 2011 .

[21]  J. Wittmayer,et al.  Symposium introduction: usable knowledge in practice. What action research has to offer to critical policy studies , 2014 .

[22]  D. Yanow.  Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research , 2006 .

[23]  Dragan Stanisevski,et al.  The inheritance of a promise of democracy-to-come: of resistance and tolerance , 2011 .

[24]  J. Fuhse,et al.  Tackling connections, structure, and meaning in networks: quantitative and qualitative methods in sociological network research , 2011 .

[25]  Margaret Stout,et al.  The Ontology of Process Philosophy in Follett's Administrative Theory , 2011 .

[26]  H. Tsoukas,et al.  Introduction: Process Thinking, Process Theorizing and Process Researching , 2016 .

[27]  Jude Jones,et al.  Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy , 1997 .

[28]  S. Duck.  Meaningful relationships : talking, sense, and relating , 1994 .

[29]  B. Neale,et al.  Time, texture and childhood: The contours of longitudinal qualitative research , 2003 .

[30]  Mabelle L. Andison,et al.  The creative mind , 1946 .

[31]  A. Pettigrew,et al.  Studying Organizational Change and Development: Challenges for Future Research , 2001 .

[32]  Wouter Spekkink.  Industrial Symbiosis as a Social Process : Developing theory and methods for the longitudinal investigation of social dynamicsin the emergence and development of industrial symbiosis , 2017 .

[33]  H. Ojha.  Counteracting hegemonic powers in the policy process: critical action research on Nepal’s forest governance , 2013 .

[34]  J. Lewis.  Analysing Qualitative Longitudinal Research in Evaluations , 2007, Social Policy and Society.

[35]  A. Langley.  Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data , 1999 .

[36]  Thomas J. Catlaw,et al.  Public Administration and “The Lives of Others” , 2009 .

[37]  Robert Chia,et al.  On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[38]  A. Pettigrew.  The Character and Significance of Strategy Process Research , 1992 .

[39]  Dina Pinsky.  The sustained snapshot: Incidental ethnographic encounters in qualitative interview studies , 2015 .

[40]  J. Mesman,et al.  Disturbing Observations as a Basis for Collaborative Research , 2007 .

[41]  G. Russell,et al.  Research as Interacting Dialogic Processes: Implications for Reflexivity , 2002 .

[42]  Liz Sharp,et al.  Developing adaptive capacity through reflexivity: lessons from collaborative research with a UK water utility , 2014 .

[43]  Patti Lather.  FERTILE OBSESSION: Validity After Poststructuralism , 1993 .

[44]  J. Voss.  Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development – Incorporating feedback in social problem solving , 2005 .

[45]  Kathleen Riach.  Exploring Participant-centred Reflexivity in the Research Interview , 2009 .

[46]  John W. Kingdon.  Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .

[47]  J. Brown,et al.  Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing , 1999, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[48]  Lasse Lychnell,et al.  Mangling the process: a meta-theoretical account of process theorizing , 2015 .

[49]  Margaret Stout.  Competing Ontologies: A Primer for Public Administration , 2012 .

[50]  M. Alvesson.  Beyond Neopositivists, Romantics, and Localists: A Reflexive Approach to Interviews in Organizational Research , 2003 .

[51]  C. Lewis,et al.  Swapping Stories: Comparing Plots: Triangulating Individual Narratives within Families , 2007 .

[52]  P. Sabatier,et al.  Policy Change And Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach , 1993 .

[53]  R. McMurray.  Tracing experiences of NHS change in England: a process philosophy perspective. , 2010, Public administration.

[54]  Robert Cheng Huat Chia.  A 'Rhizomic' Model of Organizational Change and Transformation: Perspective from a Metaphysics of Change , 1999 .

[55]  Emma Uprichard,et al.  Representing Complex Places: A Narrative Approach , 2006 .

[56]  R. Josselson,et al.  The Ethical Attitude in Narrative Research: Principles and Practicalities. , 2007 .

[57]  A. Pettigrew.  Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice , 1990 .