Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros21-3The sibylline research diary

The sibylline research diary

The sibylline research diary
Alexis Laszczuk et Lionel Garreau

Texte intégral

  • 1 We have chosen this term, as it describes something related to a sibyl, i.e prophetic, to emphasize (...)

1The research diary is a tool regularly used in the social sciences for immersed research (e.g. Bourgoin and Harvey, 2018; Empson, 2013). It consists of a (physical or digital) document in which the researcher records information of all kinds: “About himself, his thoughts, his reflections, his reactions, the quality of reports during his first contact with research sites as well as the people involved. It also include notes relating to the methodological dimension” (Mucchielli, 2009: 130). The researcher’s “live memory” makes it possible to preserve the natural and spontaneous nature of the data (Reis, 1994). However, this methodological apparatus is often relegated to the rank of “accessory document” (Mucchielli, 2009: 130), with the exception of ethnographic approaches (Emerson et al., 2011; Peretz 2004; Werner 1999). In fact the research diary provides a detailed and continuous description of events as well as identifying relationships between the data collected and the formal or informal theorization that emerges from it (Baribeau, 2005). Research diaries take many forms and have numerous objectives (Green and Cluley, 2014; Mallinger, 2013; Ortlipp, 2008; Zundel et al., 2016). In this essay, building on preexisting forms, we look at a specific form – which we term the sibylline research diary – in order to address what is at stake in research that seeks to report a certain reality external to the actor from observation of the facts (David, 1999)1. Within this framework, the researcher adopts a realistic ontology, in which reality is essentially independent of the researcher and where discovery of the relationships between the entities of the phenomenon makes it possible to elaborate a model of the functioning of the system studied (David, 1999). The researcher must then limit interference with the object of study in order to move towards a position of objectivity.

2The value of immersed research has been clearly established and the position of actors within the organization being studied is indeed a key criterion for certain dominant research approaches in management (Gioia et al., 2013). However, in addition to the recognized richness and feasibility of such research with any epistemological positioning (Brannick and Coghlan, 2007), the methods must be adapted to meet the criteria of legitimacy of the knowledge produced from each of the positions.

3Research that aims at developing a theory is generally subject to the traditional criteria of internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity, stemming from a positivist orientation (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). We will therefore use these criteria here. Our paper constitutes a methodological test and proposes a concrete method for writing a research diary, to which it assigns a central place within the methodological palette available to the immersed researcher. Our aim prompts us to address the following question: What form should a research diary take if it is to satisfy the criteria of internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity in the context of research where the researcher is immersed in the field?

  • 2 While previous studies have used the term ‘tool’ to refer to the research diary, we use the term ‘a (...)

4We propose using the concept of sensemaking (Weick, 1995) to theorize the activity of the immersed researcher. Consequently, we need to generate conscious sensemaking moments, based on the discrepancy between the researcher’s expectations and the reality observed. To support this sensemaking process, we propose a form of journal which we term the sibylline research diary2, based on the predictive character of scientific reasoning as the phenomenon being studied unfolds. The predictive aspect enables us to formalize the differences between the researcher’s tacit expectations and the observed reality. Such a practice thus allows a theoretical construction method to be developed as well as a capacity for reflexivity consistent with the objective targeted.

5As a first step, the paper presents what a research diary involves so as to develop an operating model of the system studied. Then, using the sensemaking approach, we theorize the activity of the immersed researcher and consider the research diary as an artifact of importance in the process of making sense of the research. Then, drawing on an existing study, we formulate a concrete methodological proposal, the sibylline research diary. After explaining how it works, we discuss the implications of its use for the management researcher.

6This paper thus contributes to developing the methodological apparatus available to the immersed researcher. On the one hand, the methodological proposal theorizes the activity of the immersed researcher as a process of sensemaking. On the other, on this theoretical basis, it provides a research diary model that enables the construction of theory through the researcher’s sensemaking process to be understood. Finally, this proposal should allow the research diary to occupy a central place in the data collection system within the framework of immersed research.

1. Definition and objectives of the research diary for the immersed researcher

  • 3 Here again, we are aware that the epistemological outlooks of some readers will lead them to affirm (...)

7This section first discusses the immersed researcher’s position in a study aimed at developing an operating model of the system studied. In a second step, we will discuss the place and content of a research diary as an artifact3 for collecting data in the context of such research.

1.1. The immersed researcher for develop a model of operation of the studied system

8So-called “immersed” research characterizes situations in which the researcher evolves within the milieu that constitutes his object of study. Action research, intervention research (David, 2012a), ethnography (Atkinson et al., 2001; Peretz, 2004) and collaborative research (Adam-Ledunois, et al., 2019) are different current management science research strategies where the researcher is immersed. While these are more democratized in the context of constructivist or interpretivist positions, immersed research can be undertaken in accordance with any epistemological paradigm (Brannick and Coghlan, 2007). In order to overcome the epistemological tensions that have structured the discipline (and can never be wholly ignored), we here adopt the position of David (1999), Hatchuel (1994) and Martinet (Martinet, 1990, 2006), in which the management researcher analyzes the human facts, ascertains that the ontological existence of these facts is acceptable, and exercises self-control and reflexivity so as to become aware of the presuppositions, influences and other social phenomena in conjunction with which he evolves. “It is therefore legitimate for the researcher to claim to model this or that type of phenomena, that is to say, to try and discover regularities and links of cause and effect, and he is not being positivistic in thus exploring unknown aspects of reality.” (David, 1999: 15)

9Immersion seems to us to be have many advantages for collecting data in studies aiming for internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity. Indeed, it allows observation closer to the phenomenon studied, thus avoiding the distortions characteristic of other research designs where the reality is simulated (e.g. experimentation) or addressed by proxies (e.g. declarative). It assumes the possibility of triangulation with other modes of data collection such as interviews, as well as the possibility of taking into account contextual factors that may be relevant as the phenomenon being studies unfolds. The researcher's immersion in the field allows him to acquire direct and intimate knowledge as well as to collect a great deal of rich and detailed data (Becker and Geer, 1957; Emerson, 1981). However, immersion raises methodological questions of objectivity or distancing (Guba and Lincoln, 1994), which we seek partially to answer in this essay.

10Indeed, in the framework of research aiming at distancing the researcher from his object, research methods must be aligned with the postulates and the constraints of such an epistemological positioning. Transformative methods, which include action by the researcher that alters the object of study (e.g. action research), are thus incompatible with the neutrality of the researcher here sought (Avenier and Gavard-Perret, 2012; Susman and Evered, 1978). On the other hand, observation methods allow the researcher, through his investigative work, to give an account of what is happening in the field (Chanlat, 2005) without altering the system being studied, since such description does not entail any concrete changes (David, 2012b). In the context of this paper, we are therefore interested in methods of immersed research whose objective is to create a certain distance between the researcher and his object of study so that its comprehension will be as objective as possible.4

11Non-participant observation, participant observation and observant participation are three particularly relevant and suitable methods for understanding and shedding light on the day-to-day life of organizations studied from an internal standpoint (Rix-Hare and Lièvre, 2011; Vesa and Vaara, 2014). The internal position enables the researcher better to understand and account for what is really happening (Emerson, 1981), with direct experience of day-to-day occurrences constituting a reliable database (Douglas, 1976). Moreover, the researcher’s deep understanding of the field favors rich theoretical development rooted in his observations (Alvesson, 2003). Finally, a position closer to the ground allows the optimization of other methods of data collection such as interviews. The involvement of the immersed researcher with the actors concerned contributes to acceptance, credibility and trust, all of which are essential for the sharing of sensitive subjects or feelings (Cunliffe and Alcadipani, 2016)).

12These immersion approaches do, however, raise certain issues of reliability for the researcher. One problem concerns the distance of the researcher from the research field, a central issue (Alvesson 2003; Emerson 1981) insofar as the researcher needs to retain his capacity for analysis (Chanlat 2005; Journé, 2012). Too much involvement with actors in the field exposes the researcher to the risk of indigenization, that is, identification with the observed population (Chanlat, 2005). On the other hand, maintaining too great a distance runs the risk of the researcher not being accepted by the actors or not being able to detect elements that are significant for the research (Benson and Hughes, 1983; Lapassade, 2002). Another problem arises in relation to the collection and analysis of data. Given the richness and quantity of such data in the context of immersed research, the researcher is faced with issues of rigor and systematization with regard both to collecting and to analyzing the data (Becker, 1958).

13It seems that these issues can be resolved in the methodological aspects of the research. Problems of distance from the field can be partly managed through the researcher’s reflexive judgment (Brannick and Coghlan, 2007; Coghlan and Brannick, 2005). In addition, judgment regarding immersion followed by detached analysis are recommended (Emerson, 1981), as long as reliable data are available during the immersion phase. The lack of comprehensive methodological tools for immersed research is all the more surprising given the importance of data collection and analysis methods in this context (Brannick and Coghlan, 2007). The creation of a methodological system allowing complete, organized and systematic note-taking, which plays a support role in the research, seems to us both relevant and essential for resolving quality issues in immersed research.

1.2. Issues regarding the research diary

14To produce a data set that can be used for analysis, the immersion process must be combined with a data collection tool (Journé, 2012). While note-taking is a favored technical method (Lièvre and Rix, 2005), the density and volume of the notes mean that the researcher needs frequently to undertake intermediate analysis (Wacheux, 1996) in order to avoid being overwhelmed by detail.

15The research diary is a key tool in qualitative research (Miles and Huberman, 1994), and is preferred for note-taking during immersion (Wacheux, 1996). The origin of research diaries can be traced to three main sources: explorers’ and sailors’ travel journals, science notebooks, and autobiographical narratives (Baribeau, 2005). Derived from anthropological and ethnographic studies, this tool enables the researcher to report on ongoing experience and the social and psychological processes of everyday life, while at the same time acknowledging the importance of the contexts in which these processes occur (Bolger et al., 2003). Research diaries thus make it possible to “preserve the memory of research” (Mucchielli, 2009: 130). One of the main advantages of using a research diary is the natural and spontaneous nature of the data recorded. As well as recording the facts, such data provide additional information about the context (Reis, 1994), thereby allowing retrospection bias to be reduced (Bolger et al., 2003).

16The research diary is also recognized as a tool that favors the reflexive approach (Morrison 1996, Valéau and Gardody 2016), commonly used in qualitative research. Reflexivity is a solution available to the researcher for maintaining the right degree of distance from the object of study (Chanlat 2005; Johnson and Duberley 2003; Journé 2012; Wacquant 2002). The reflexive approach makes it possible to compare the theoretical frameworks used with the data collected (Fonteyn and Cahill, 1998; Hancock, 1999) and thus to carry out a first level of analysis during the data collection process. Similarly, taking a step back from the research process allows the researcher to question and, if need be, correct his practice (Journé, 2012). Despite the recognized relevance of the reflexive approach, the literature reports only a few concrete aspects of its practice (Finlay, 2002). Moreover, with reference to the work of Kahneman (2011) – though this criticism has previously been expressed by the proponents of a more positivist sociology – one can argue that the classical ethnographic translation posture (De Certau, 1980; 1999), which involves the researcher taking notes on what is happening in a simultaneous or undifferentiated manner and on-the-fly analysis, runs the risk of producing an overly rapid and intuitive analysis.

17To meet the objectives set out above, numerous and varied research diary forms and practices are suited to the research project (Bolger et al., 2003). The literature describes the many types of notes constituting the research diary (Peretz, 2004), which must allow the data collected in the field to be distinguished from the researcher’s interpretations (Miles and Huberman 1994; Valéau and Gardody 2016). Within this diversity, however, we can distinguish various categories (Emerson et al., 2001; Laperrière, 2003). On the one hand, there are descriptive notes aiming to record observations made in the field, which need to be factual and objective. On the other, particularly within a reflexive perspective, these descriptive notes need to be systematically accompanied by analytical notes that chart “the observer’s theoretical progress” (Laperrière 2003: 285). Here we might mention post-interview comment sheets (Lofland et al., 2006) that aim of leave a record of the researcher’s reactions (feelings, emotions). Taking notes on the researcher’s feelings during immersion contributes to his understanding of the situations he is studying (Douglas, 1976). While both types of notes are available for immersed research, the factual elements need to be separated from those relating to the researcher (Valéau and Gardody, 2016). The notes making up the research diary depend on their importance and purpose in the research design (Emerson et al., 2001).

18Finally, the writing of the research diary throughout the various stages of immersion addresses one of the main goals of immersed research – that of developing an operating model of the system being studied – by contributing to the transparency of the research process (Valéau et al. Gardody, 2016) and thereby allowing readers to judge the reliability of the research process.

19Keeping a research diary is acknowledged to be difficult because of its demanding and time-consuming nature (Arborio and Fournier, 1999; Baribeau, 2005). Despite the difficulties, there are very few methodological recommendations on how to write a research diary. Even studies dealing with investigation methods, such as autoethnography (Doloriert and Sambrook, 2012), which suggest using a research diary, fail to provide a method. The Chicago School of Ethnography has theorized how the detailed writing up of phenomena encountered during periods of immersion can yield better analysis. However, the way in which these documents should be written has yet to be fully addressed (Peretz, 2004). Consequently, the literature offers only a vague guide that has little to say about the structuring of the research diary itself (Weber, in Noiriel, 1990) or of the notes it contains (Marcus, 1994). The practice of note-taking may in some cases be viewed as reflecting the researcher’s convictions (Emerson et al., 2001), with the clarity of the status of the different types of notes, the rigor and the systematic aspect of note-taking, and the management of the problem of maintaining a distance, all being of major importance for the use of the research diary as a tool for data collection in an immersed study.

20The profusion of terms and approaches applied to the research diary seems to us to be driven by the fact that, with rare exceptions (e.g. Boxenbaum and Rouleau, 2011), the researcher’s work has not yet been sufficiently theorized. Consequently, every immersed researcher develops an ad hoc method that allows him to achieve his objectives. The researcher may refer to research strategies such as action research (Hatchuel and David, 2007), grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Glaser and Strauss, 1967), ethnography (Atkinson et al. 2001), modes of reasoning – abductive, deductive, inductive (David, 2012b) – or a set of tools (Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Miles et al., 2014), though without the combination of these elements being inscribed within a theoretical perspective that would allow the researcher to understand his activity from a given standpoint. We propose to theorize the activity of the researcher working in his particular field through the perspective of sensemaking. This perspective will allow us to gain a better understanding of the work of the immersed researcher, by clarifying how the research diary can be a support for this work.

2. The sensemaking approach for improving the research diary

21The process of theorizing has been conceptualized by Weick (1989, 1999) as a disciplined exercise of the imagination. In this sense, every researcher is embedded in his environment and must make sense of the phenomenon he is studying. The theoretical construction process then goes through a classic process of variation, selection and retention, which may be marked to a greater or lesser extent by empiricism, and validation (Weick, 1989). The ontology and the epistemological framework then indicate the canons according to which the researcher is able to make sense in a given scientific framework. The question we raise is that of understanding how sensemaking, as the basis of theorization by the disciplined imagination, can use an artifact such as the sibylline research diary to help the immersed researcher make sense of empirical data and move toward the quality criteria sought.

2.1. Sensemaking: a theoretical framework for understanding the activity of the immersed researcher

22Sensemaking may be defined as a social process through which individuals interpret and understand the reality in which they evolve. “[It] consists [of] extracting elements [from the environment] and linking them within a representation that by establishing order produces meaning” (Vidaillet, 2003: 42). Applied to the management researcher, the theory of sensemaking makes it possible to understand how an immersed researcher makes sense of the situation he is studying, taking into account the fact that the researcher is himself in a social process during the research he is conducting in the field. Indeed, the sensemaking approach focuses as much on the meaning that the actors give to the situation as on the social conditions in which meaning is constructed. Consequently, this approach is all the more valuable because it applies to the researcher immersed in the field, who has to make sense of the phenomenon he is studying, while taking into account the social dimension of the production of his interpretations (Gilmore and Kenny, 2015). Giroux (2006) presents the following stages as formulated by Weick (1985) in a process of theorizing by an actor in the field: awareness, triangulation, affiliation, deliberation and consolidation. This process emphasizes that sensemaking takes place both during the field immersion stages – that is, while the researcher is interacting with other actors in the field – and when the researcher takes a step back and analyzes the data collected. Long immersion can generate an alternation of intense phases of immersion in the field with periods away from the field, which then give a specific dynamic to the sensemaking carried out by the researcher, in which progress can be made in the sequence set out by Giroux (2006).

23One of the main properties of sensemaking is that it becomes conscious when the actor – here the researcher – faces an unforeseen situation, where he is unable make sense of events or the environment. In such a situation, the actor does not possess the cognitive schema, that is, the repertoire of cognemes (Codol, 1969) and the necessary cognitive links, to make sense of it automatically. As a result, he is confronted with the difficulty of making sense of the situation and enters into a process of meaning construction (Weick, 1979, 1995). Louis (1980) shows the role of surprise and of the mismatch between expectations and reality in the process of triggering sensemaking. Thus, the researcher who expects to observe given activities in the field, and who does not see them fully realized, enters a process of conscious sensemaking. Although he does not use the sensemaking framework, David (1999) argues along similar lines: “Note that for ‘problematic’ data, we need to have a theory in mind, however approximate and indefinite, which acts as a mirror: it is always a theory that defines what is observable, even at the beginning of the observation process” (p.5). Work on prospective sensemaking, showing that the individual anticipates a sequence of events and makes sense of the present and the past according to his expectations, emphasizes the anticipation of the unfolding of situations in the future and its role in making sense of situations in real time (Gioia et al., 1994; Stigliani and Ravasi, 2012).

24The idea is then to use the research diary as an artifact to generate, control, and record this sensemaking process so as to better develop the operating model of the system being studied.

2.2. The use of the research diary as a support for sensemaking

25The sociomateriality current in the science of organizations is interested in how the artifacts influence and intermingle with the action of the individuals within an activity or an organization. Whether it involves PowerPoint presentations (Kaplan, 2011) or symbolic artifacts such as a cube embodying an organization’s strategy (Whittington et al., 2006), the use of artifacts as functional, political, symbolic, or cognitive supports in individual or collective activity is recognized as fundamental. Thus from a practical standpoint, the power of artifacts lies not so much in their intrinsic properties as in their potential to support analysis, stimulate action, and generate new points of view (Jarzabkowski and Kaplan, 2014). Sociomateriality and sensemaking have previously been used to show how, through artifacts, prospective and retrospective sensemaking are combined for the development of new objects in a design firm (Stigliani and Ravasi, 2012); or that the status of an artifact can be modified through the sensemaking/sensegiving practices that deploy it (Garreau et al., 2015).

26Thus, inspired by the socio-material perspective, we conceive the research diary as an artifact that supports the researcher’s sensemaking activity. In this context, the research diary should allow the researcher to make sense, in the most systematic way possible, of his observations. Consequently, the research diary must allow the researcher to generate, frame and record the process of sensemaking at work, so that it is not random, but complies with the criteria of internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity. We therefore propose a method that allows the research diary to be constructed in order to systematically generate the sensemaking process, to maintain its traceability, and to improve the analyses produced by the immersed researcher.

3. The sibylline research diary: a method for integrating the researcher’s expectations into maintaining a research diary

27In the previous sections, we presented the objectives of a research diary from an immersed research perspective with a view to developing an operating model of a system being studied. We also showed that the research diary can be viewed as an artifact that supports the researcher’s sensemaking in the field. With a view to providing a quality-ensuring artifact in qualitative research, in the following section we develop a methodological proposal – the sibylline research diary – which integrates the researcher’s expectations into the research diary in order to make the sensemaking process rigorous and systematic.

3.1. The sibylline research diary: principles and method

28Envisaging the research diary as a full-fledged data source – a coding and analysis tool – we opted for a digital support to facilitate future processing (coding, analysis) by CAQDAS software. The research diary thus consists of a set of documents derived from word-processing software. In order to ensure the homogeneity of the format of the notes recorded in the research diary, each event reported has its own word-processing file, which is always structured in the same pre-determined way. The structure we propose (Figure 1) is based on our literature review and immersion experience.

Figure 1. Structure and process of writing the sibylline research diary

Image 10000000000001670000029AB13509A7.jpg

29The first lines of each document concern basic information about the event (Burgess, 1982): date, location, actors present, topics and duration. Then, in order to force the researcher to adopt a systematic sensemaking logic, the first box is reserved for his expectations about the forthcoming event. The researcher thus engages in prospective sensemaking by anticipating future events, while bearing in mind past events. This prospective sensemaking is able to make explicit the cognitive schemas (and thus theories, intermediate analyses, etc.) through which reasoning regarding the anticipated unfolding of the activity is constructed. These expectations are not arbitrary, but lie within a system of knowledge derived from the literature on the research field concerned. It involves formulating and anticipating future events, based either on aspects of the literature (for which it is important to note the theories concerned) or on emerging and temporary theoretical propositions as in the framework of a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). This “Expectations” section is completed prior to the event. Note that this section – never included in other forms of research diary – is crucial for the writing of the sibylline research diary. It makes it possible to materialize and make explicit the researcher’s presuppositions, anticipatory frameworks, and mental schemas in the framework of his understanding of the system studied. In this respect, these first elements of the sibylline research diary go further than simply using an observation grid (Peretz 2004; Wacheux, 1996) in that it specifies the expected links between certain elements of the observation grid.

30The second box, “Report”, is used to describe the event. It relates in a factual manner the content and unfolding of the event, as well as elements of context. A review of the facts, this part of the research diary is similar to descriptive notes (Arborio and Fournier, 1999; Laperrière, 2003). The researcher should not only specify in it any elements related to expectations, but also include those pertaining to the event recorded and the phenomenon studied. The difficulty of remaining attentive to any event or any data that might be of interest has previously been highlighted (e.g. Wacheux, 1996), and use of the sibylline research diary is no exception in this respect.

31The third section, “Discrepancies and Analysis”, contains the intermediate analysis. Here, the researcher systematically compares the projections and descriptions of the facts in the “Expectations” and “Report” sections respectively. Points of agreement and discrepancies are analyzed in order to understand to what extent the researcher’s expectations – based on pre-existing theories or intermediate propositions – have been able to predict how the research has unfolded. Thus certain assumptions about the work (mechanisms, trends, stages, etc.), as mentioned in the literature, may or may not have been fulfilled. Concretely listing expectations in the research diary and then comparing them to the facts calls for an analysis of all the elements that come into play. What occurred in a different way than expected? Which elements were unanticipated? Which expectations were not fulfilled? And so on. In this way, by identifying a natural logic underlying the unfolding events, the researcher thus avoids rationalizing a posteriori. By noting the discrepancies and matches between his expectations and the unfolding of events and by distinguishing the elements of the theoretical framework elements mobilized ex ante from the facts as reported, the researcher is forced to engage in sensemaking. Doing so allows the researcher to defer the formal analysis of the moment of note-taking in real time – even if we do not call into question the idea that note-taking of any kind can only be done through a first intuitive interpretation of the observed phenomenon (see Van Maanen, 2011).

32This section of the sibylline diary is crucial, because it allows the immersed researcher to enter into the logic of abduction-deduction-induction as described by David (1999).

331- When the data confirm the researcher’s expectations, deductive logic applies and informs him that his expectations are well founded. The elements underlying the expectation have not been refuted, and can be tested again later as the phenomenon unfolds.

342- When the data turn out to be completely at odds with the forecasts, the elements on which the expectation was based are refuted. But this provides an opportunity to produce, by induction, new hypotheses relating to the functioning of the system studied. They will be reported in the “Expectations” section of the next entries in the research diary.

353- When the data match the expectations to a greater or lesser extent, more refined explanatory hypotheses that include additional elements, contextual elements, etc. can be formulated. They will also be reported in the “Expectations” section of the next entries in the research diary.

36The fourth and final box, “Reflexivity”, records the elements resulting from the researcher’s reflexivity process. Reflexivity is the way in which the researcher thinks about his relationship to his research subject, with regard both to fieldwork and its theoretical elaboration. Thus the reflexive researcher does not simply report facts, but builds his interpretation on evidence collected in the field (Hertz, 1997). Reflexivity is expressed differently depending on the epistemological paradigms concerned (Brannick and Coghlan, 2007). But, whatever the perspective or the discipline used, the researcher should take care to optimally organize the production of knowledge within the framework chosen, in order to avoid repeating errors or running risks – which have often been identified and listed – in his research tools (Viale, 2013). Using a reflexivity-based research diary in this context is standard practice in many disciplines (Darawsheh, 2014; Koch and Harrington, 1998; Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

37Consequently, within our perspective on the immersed researcher, this section should remind him both of the distance needed to be maintained from the field and of the intended objectivity of his interpretations. Power games, actors’ games, prevailing influences, sources of distortion of analyses, and so on, can all be included in this section. In being made explicit during immersed research, they enable the researcher to make continuous adjustments that allow him to remain within the framework of his objective. This section can also be used to list data collection and data analysis practices needed for further research development, in the same way as methodological notes (Laperrière, 2003). In addition, a retrospective look at these notes will allow the researcher to better understand his own trajectory during the development of the research and thus to report on it more transparently. In the approach associated with the sibylline research diary, the more personal elements specific to the researcher (e.g. conflicts, difficulties) are not deemed irrelevant for the research (Peretz, 2004), but instead are viewed as a way for the researcher to control the quality in his analyses.

38The following section illustrates the use of the sibylline research diary by means of an example from the research project in which this artifact was developed.

3.2. Application example

39Our methodological proposal is based on a study of the dynamics of change in a corporate business model. The researcher’s period of immersion in the field extends over more than three years and is complemented by conducting interviews and collecting documentary data (such as PowerPoint presentations, emails, etc.), that do not need to be presented in detail here. The sibylline research diary, developed for this work, is presented in the present paper. Among the data collected in the context of the above-mentioned research, we have selected an extract from a sibylline research diary to illustrate how it works. In particular the example draws on the analytic frameworks of the business model and of sensemaking.

“Expectations”

The combination of the previous discussions (meeting of [date]) and the academic literature makes it possible to formulate expectations as to how the next meeting will go:

[…] in the event that these aspects of the BM are modified, the principle of internal coherence (Morris et al., 2005; Lecocq et al., 2006) leads to alignment of the other elements of the BM resulting from the modification. The concept of internal coherence of the BM (Moyon, 2011):

i. Is crucial because it is a factor in the performance of a BM;

ii. Evaluation of this coherence is at the initiative of the managers. The evaluation of the internal coherence of the BM should therefore be carried out by François and Gilbert;

iii. The frameworks for building a BM (e.g. Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010) are a way of facilitating understanding of the concept of internal coherence of the BM. As part of the project, none of these frameworks are used, so it will be interesting to observe the mechanisms for evaluating internal coherence;

The previous point refers more generally to the actors’ “reasoning” mechanisms: the way in which the actors reason, grasp situations, and take decisions and act. We can refer to the notion of cognitive schemata (Bougon et al., 1977), which makes it possible to understand actors’ meaning construction mechanisms that are specific to the concept of sensemaking (Weick, 1995). Among the supporting elements for the construction of meaning are similar previous experiences, to which the actors will refer for interpreting current situations (Guilmot and Vas, 2012). We can thus expect that actors, in the process of sensemaking for the evaluating the internal coherence of the BM, reason on the basis of similar previous experiences. The “weight” of managers’ cognitive schemas is emphasized (Barr et al., 1992), and the reasoning of François and Gilbert should therefore be predominant.” (Extract from the sibylline research diary).

40Expectations are based on previously observed events coupled with knowledge derived from the academic literature. In the example, the researcher anticipates, among other things, a certain amount of reasoning by those present in a meeting, drawing on the principles of sensemaking, which is used as the theoretical framework in the study. The “report” part then gives a factual account of how the event develops. This part should be as objective as possible: the researcher is not here aiming to theorize when writing the report – as for instance in an ethnographical study posture where writing from an immersed position constitutes the real first work of theorization (Van Maanen, 2011) – , but to record in the most factual and accurate way possible the constituents of his observation grid.

“Report”

The heart of the subject is addressed early in the meeting, with François taking the floor to put things in context. He explains to us that he discussed the subject with Gilbert over lunch (who agrees) in order to identify the areas of work. They have drawn up a meeting agenda [...] We return to the topic of marketing as a priority. In this regard, François quickly runs over the actions tried out and lessons to be learned from them [...] As the central element of our discussion, we return to the view that the target organizations have benefits from the sector and we try to identify what subjects and approaches are likely to attract them. François and Gilbert focus on their respective experiences of target organizations, either consulting missions in the past, or conversations with the directors / top managers of these organizations. In principle, these organizations are not situated in the model of big consultancy players. As François and Gilbert are themselves from large companies in the sector, they quickly identify the points on which they disagree or are even in conflict. [...] A new approach to the new offer is emerging [...] This new configuration of the offer changes it in depth and requires some adjustments. [...] Resources represent a point of alignment as a result. Julie and I emphasize that this approach requires experienced profiles, and we feel we would not be the right people for interventions of this kind. They are more suited for profiles like those of François and Gilbert, who agree that in this new configuration, resources should be adapted [...] After a period of discussion, so as to clarify his explanation, Gilbert stood up and began schematizing what he was suggesting (see archived photos). The rest of the discussion led to a gradual enrichment of these visuals, which quickly became key for structuring the reasoning. In particular this allowed us more easily to “follow” how the thinking was evolving and to “test” tracks that were subsequently dropped or deepened. [...]” (extract from the sibylline research diary)

41Having presented these two extracts from the research diary, we now compare them in order to identify the discrepancies between expectations and the actual process. In the box below, understanding and discussion of these discrepancies form the basis of the first intermediate analysis.

“Discrepancies and analysis”

François and Gilbert immediately took control of the meeting. Their investment in ‘setting the pace’ in the session and their initiatives (framing objectives, initiating reflection, etc.) allowed them 1. To motivate the group, 2. to initiate a process of collective sensemaking around objectives and points of discussion. Their doing so chimes with a point emphasized in the academic literature on the leadership role of management (Isabella, 1990; Greenberg, 1995). This point of analysis has more resonance when compared with other work sessions where their leadership was less in evidence. [...] The discussion is structured, and draws on and progresses on the basis of illustrations and examples from each person’s experiences [...] Gilbert quickly comes up with examples and illustrations from his personal experiences and with reported anecdotes:

- Firstly, these illustrations are the basis for structuring the actors’ thinking: they draw on these experiences as a foundation for how they analyze things. → This pertains to the notion of ‘cognitive schemas’ found in the academic literature (Bartunek, 1984), which act as ‘templates’ for actors’ reasoning. The key role played by François and Gilbert in the structuring of the reasoning confirms the predominance of managers’ cognitive schemas underlined by the literature (Barr et al., 1992). This observation should be put in context, since the heterogeneity of the actors’ experience levels may have accentuated the phenomenon. […]

- Next, they function as a support for the actors’ sensemaking with a view to progressing collectively in their thinking. These experiences and illustrations are interpreted by the group and thus ‘feed’ the sensemaking process. The interactionist sensemaking perspective (Weick, 1995) applies here.

- These illustrations and experiences are able to “validate”, “confirm”, “legitimize” and “credibilize” an idea, a conviction in the group → that drawing on these experiences for this purpose is comparable to sensegiving practices (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007)

The work session led to changes with regard to the BM of the new offering [...] The adjustments envisaged following changes to the BM of the offering illustrate the principle of internal coherence of the BM (e.g. Morris et al., 2005). [...] No BM framework was used in the context of the reasoning, and adjustments were considered naturally in the flow of interactions. […]

The previous point leads to another consideration regarding this work session: the interaction with the materials used (in the case, a paper board) helped to provide support for the team’s reasoning and sensemaking process, by means of diagrams, tables, etc. [...] This aspect of facilitating the sensemaking through a physical support has been emphasized in some research studies (e.g. Stigliani and Ravasi, 2012). ” Extract from the sibylline research diary

42In the context of this example, writing the sibylline research diary allowed several expectations formulated upstream of the observation to be confirmed, such as the importance of the actors’ previous experiences for sensemaking and the preponderance of the modes of reasoning of actors with high hierarchical status. These elements are thus reinforced in the modeling of the phenomenon observed. Furthermore, from the intermediate analyses stemming from the report, there emerges the idea that managers expect their mental schemas to resonate with other actors, thereby leading to action. In addition, the use of artifacts by actors in meetings emerges as a significant aspect of sensemaking processes. Such elements will give rise to new expectations in the following entries in the sibylline research diary.

43Lastly, the sibylline research diary requires the researcher to take a step back from the situation, with the inclusion of a section on reflexivity. The following passage describes actions to be carried out for further research.

“Reflexivity”

Elements of future observations: 1. In order to deepen / confirm the notion of enactment in the context of the new offering, I need to be attentive to the "impact" of the new offering on the environment, i.e. following its presentation to clients, carrying out missions, etc. Consider whether the introduction of such an offering in the market generates: i. a change in the behaviors, opinions or expectations of target organizations regarding services?; ii. reactions from the competition?; 2. In the same way, during the next observations I should pay attention to the supports (materials in particular) of the reasoning. These elements help me understand the team’s sensemaking mechanisms, and today’s diagrams are a good example. [...] I identify other topics that I’d like to consider later. Today’s observations confirm my interest and questions about the cognitive mechanisms at work in the context of commercial approaches: projection into the client’s position, analysis of his way of reasoning, looking at things so as to better identify the client and address him effectively for the business relationship. Sensegiving practices implemented as part of these processes: presentation of experiences, understanding and interpretation of customer needs, etc. interest me. To be kept in mind for the future. ”Extract from the sibylline research diary

44The above example demonstrates the support provided to the researcher by reflexive notes in terms of methodology and maintaining a distance from the field. On the one hand, putting the empirical and theoretical elements into perspective through intermediate analyses allows him to record the phenomena which he will have consider during his next observations (use of material supports in meetings). On the other hand, the mobilization of conceptual frameworks for research in the context of writing the sibylline research diary helps the researcher to adopt an analytical stance that allows him to identify and record other lines of research drawing on the same theoretical elements. Here, the sensemaking perspective is identified as relevant for the development of research on business practices in consultancy. And writing this section forced the researcher to maintain his position as a participant observer, without violating the need for the distancing required for his analysis.

4. Discussion : maintaining a sibylline research diary, a complex exercise

45We have so far proposed a method for constructing a research diary with a view to ensuring that the researcher makes sense of the phenomenon he is studying from a position of immersion in the field. Having tested this method, we now offer a number of points of discussion stemming from our practice, so as to better understand the scope and limitations of the method.

4.1. Sensemaking and theorization

46In this paper we have proposed a method for keeping a research diary which, in its writing, particularly with regard to systematizing expectations, ensures a regular and conscious sensemaking process for the immersed researcher. Consequently, two points seem important to emphasize.

47First of all, we consider sensemaking here as an unavoidable exercise, which goes beyond the usual sensemaking framework as described by Weick (1995). Indeed, we force the researcher to make sense of what he perceives by obliging him to analyze the differences between his expectations and the unfolding of the facts. The researcher therefore has to make his expectations explicit with regard to the course of events. In the classical sensemaking process, these expectations may be much less precise or even unconscious, and do not give rise to a systematic analysis. In our view, making the researcher’s expectations explicit is one of the strengths of our method. Indeed, in the process of simplification, translation and/or modeling of reality in which immersed researchers engage (Angot and Milano, 2014; Dumez, 2013; Mbengue et al., 2014), the systematization of expectations allows them always to link observation to the research question, using a systematized observation grid, so as make sure they look at what seems in principle to be relevant. However, this does not remove the problem of a priori knowledge of what is or is not relevant for the study, and therefore of the extent of the observation to be made (Journé, 2012; Wacheux, 1996). On the other hand, this method necessarily makes explicit the mental maps that the researcher has in mind prior to observation (David, 1999) and draws attention to the fact that elements not included in the researcher’s expectations may be relevant for understanding the unfolding of the phenomenon studied – provided that the researcher has remained fairly open to the emergence of these elements, as proposed by Romelaer through open positivism (forthcoming).

48This method is also used to generate a sensemaking process underlying the analysis when keeping the research diary during periods of immersion. This does not mean that the analysis should be limited simply to keeping of the research diary, and in particular “discrepancies and analysis” section, even though this plays a very important role. Since the analyses are retained until the data collection is complete, the researcher will need to recapture all the collected data – which often include interviews, archive data, etc. as well as observations – from entering the field up until exit, in order to re-inscribe it within a global perspective. Thus sensemaking as we envisage it takes place mainly during the writing of the sibylline research diary, and does not concern the whole process of theorization in the course of the research project. Although it would certainly be possible to do this, it is not the subject of this paper.

49We note that in the literature, even though the research diary is viewed as a source of data, it is often relegated to a secondary role, and is largely used for data triangulation (Nadin and Cassell 2006; Baribeau 2005). The structuring and the systematization of the research diary proposed in our method aims, through its application and use, to give it a primary role. We want the data from the research diary, like other research material, to be subject to coding and analysis. A comprehensive exercise of data analysis is necessary, retrospectively. Thus, the analysis and discrepancy sections serve as intermediate analyses, usable in a further analysis, covering the entire research period. As a result, the researcher will be able to report on the system studied in the usual ways, for example in an analytical (Corbin and Strauss, 1998), descriptive or narrative form or through modeling (Corley and Gioia, 2004; al., 2013. Mbengue et al., 2014).

4.2. Improving the systematization of the analysis

50The proposed method aims to ensure a thorough systematization of the sensemaking process. Thus after each event or at a pre-established time (daily, weekly, etc.) the researcher updates the research diary for period n and states his expectations for period n+1. The systematization of this process gives rise to the obligation make explicit his expectations and his analysis of the discrepancies at each event or pre-established time.

51In this way, the research diary generates two major effects. First of all, the artifact’s periodicity obliges the researcher to systematically formulate his expectations. By being pre-formatted, as shown in Figure 1, the artifact allows empty spaces to be visualized and therefore to be systematically filled in. A researcher who did not fill in the “expectations” box in time would be obliged to complete the “report” box, with the former box left empty. While this may occur after the early events or time periods, the sense of failing to maintain the artifact that emerges from the sight of the empty box prompts greater effort at time of subsequent iterations. The sight of the physical object thus helps reinforce the systematization of the approach.

52However, it would be wrong to believe that systematization facilitates the writing of the sibylline research diary. Indeed, the systematic aspect can be paralyzing when the time-frames are short. In our study, the periodicity is around seven days, allowing important events to be recorded with a satisfactory level of accuracy for reflecting the reality of the situation. Consequently, systematization proves to be structuring for the researcher immersed on a day-to-day basis. Making his expectations explicit, writing a factual report, carrying out analyses and continuing reflexive work require some eight to ten hours for record an event in the sibylline research diary. In addition, deciding on the time-frame for writing up the research diary is not easy, and depends on the pace of events taking place in the field. At certain times, events follow each other rapidly and a weekly periodicity may be too long. On the other hand, sometimes nothing much happens for several weeks and writing up the research diary every week does not generate any exploitable data. The periodicity of the phenomenon gives rise to little difficulty for writing a research diary that does not include the researcher’s expectations. In the case of the sibylline research diary, however, a time horizon suitable for specifying the researcher’s expectations needs to be defined. The researcher’s knowledge of the field allows him to adjust the periodicity in accordance with what is taking place.

4.3. The sibylline research diary as an artifact for improving the quality of research

53Faced with the existence of a recognized paradox in management sciences whereby the proximity of the researcher to the field is a source both of richness and of risk (Anteby, 2013, Langley and Klag, 2017), our paper is consistent with the ongoing need for practical solutions to be conceived for managing this paradox (Langley and Klag, 2017). The sibylline research diary thus constitutes a concrete methodological proposal for immersed research, in line with the quality criteria generally used for research aimed at developing a model of the functioning of reality: internal and external validity, reliability and objectivity (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The sibylline research diary as a response to the quality issues of immersed research

Image 10000000000003970000021C902C2369.jpg

54On the one hand, the sibylline research diary fulfills the primary function of a research diary, that of collecting factual observations and contextual elements, thus preserving the natural and spontaneous nature of the data (Reis, 1994) in order to closely reflect reality. Retrospective bias is reduced by the writing of the “report” section during or shortly after the observations, if real-time note taking is not possible. On the other hand, writing the “Discrepancies and Analysis” section allows a first level of analysis to be conducted throughout the collection of data, by assessing the differences between expectations and reality, but also by comparing the data from the field with the theoretical frameworks mobilized. This regular dual confrontation enables the researcher to go beyond the descriptive character of the data, thus favoring theorization and the generalization of the results of the research over a wide area. Secondly, the sibylline research diary helps resolve the researcher’s distancing problem (Noiriel, 1990), in particular by encouraging a reflexive approach (Nadin and Cassell, 2006). Space is provided for reflection, to which the researcher is expected to devote time (Mauthner and Doucet, 2003). The distinction between facts and elements relating to the researcher contributes as much to the authenticity of the data as to the objectivity of the approach. In the course of his participatory observation, the researcher develops, as anyone would, personal thoughts of various kinds (opinions, intuitions, analyses, etc.). Rather than trying to ignore them, he enters them into the spaces provided, with a view to achieving greater objectivity. The use of the sibylline research diary reveals the researcher’s subjective elements (personal reflections) (Ahern, 1999), and their expression makes the scientific approach more rational (Richardson, 2000): “I provide subjective elements for the sake of ‘objectivity’ (Weber in Noiriel, 1990: 139).

55Every event recorded in the sibylline research diary conforms to the same drafting process, as previously described. This systematic approach is essential for continuity and scientific quality (Burgess, 1982). The systematization of the writing and reflexivity contribute to the transparency and reliability of the research process (Valéau and Gardody, 2016). Lastly, the sibylline research diary incorporates different types of notes within a single document, thus respecting the chronology of the research. In particular, this feature allows the reader to grasp the theoretical construction process. At what points did the various aspects of the research emerge? What situations have contributed to the construction of the theoretical elements? And so on.

56To sum up, the sibylline research diary is variously: an aide-mémoire for the researcher in which he records his observations; a support for analysis by systematizing intermediate analyses in the course of the researcher’s immersion; and a support for reflexivity that enables certain biases stemming from the position of the researcher to be reduced. Our sibylline research diary proposal therefore lies within a perspective in which the research diary provides “an overview of the research process” (Valéau and Gardody, 2016: 82).

4.4. Practical difficulties in using the sibylline research diary

57In addition to its innovative character, the sibylline research diary, like any artifact, is characterized by limitations and practical difficulties in use, that we present below.

58With the sibylline research diary, the acknowledged demanding aspects of keeping a research diary are exacerbated (Baribeau, 2005). Indeed, the distinctive feature of the sibylline research diary imposes a three-stage time frame for taking notes: prior to the events for the drafting of expectations; during or shortly after observations for recording the facts (the report section); and analyzing discrepancies and noting elements of reflexivity. In addition to the frequency of writing called for, use of the artifact requires the researcher to invest a significant amount of time. On the one hand, the prospective nature of the expectations calls for thinking about the data as well as deployment of the researcher’s theoretical framework as a grid for interpreting the observations. On the other, while the writing of the report section can be largely systematized, the discrepancy analysis and reflexivity sections involve exacting and demanding work, especially following the observation stages, which themselves involve time and effort.

59On the strength of our own experience, use of the sibylline research diary proved complicated in the early stages. The configuration of our research project required a quick start to data collection, without any prior stage for grasping the theoretical framework. Consequently, writing up the first expectations and analyses of discrepancies required working in parallel with gaining familiarity with the literature. The effort to master the theoretical elements during the first months of the research did, however, make writing the sibylline research diary more efficient and improved its content (quality of expectations and the relevance of the intermediate analyses). As a corollary, putting our expectations into writing made us aware of the need to achiever greater mastery of the theoretical framework used.

60Finally, taking a step back from our experience raises questions about the relevance and feasibility of mobilizing the sibylline research diary for research with short observation phases. Indeed, the studies resulting from the use of this method involved regular immersion over a long period (presence of the researcher in the field at least once a week over a period of more than three years).

61The long time-frame allows the writing of expectations before the empirical elements appear (and in the opposite case, the absence of expectations can be analyzed through the prism of the occurrence of unexpected emergent elements). On the other hand, for short-term research, writing the “Expectations” section seems more difficult. Indeed, since expectations arise from the researcher’s understanding of the unfolding of events, writing them up requires a thorough knowledge of the field, in order to be able to understand the underlying elements and to grasp the mechanisms at work. Writing this part of the journal without prior immersion would relegate expectations to the extraction of hypotheses from the literature, leading to an approach that if not hypothetico-deductive is at least abductive, but requiring expectations to be formulated on the basis of the theories mobilized. In such a configuration, the distinctive features of the sibylline research diary would be of limited interest.

Conclusion

62This methodological essay proposes a concrete method for the writing of an immersed research diary aimed at modeling the system being studied. This method, the sibylline research diary, is based on the sensemaking approach and aims to theorize the activity of the immersed researcher. It improves the quality of research by meeting the requirements of validity (internal and external), reliability and distance, and strives for greater transparency of the research process. Although this artifact cannot meet all the challenges of an immersed study, it nevertheless provides day-to-day help for the researcher immersed in the field. In addition, its construction generates other methodological questions, such as the uniformity of the protocol for analyzing the research diary’s data, linked to questions stemming from complementary data. How, ultimately, can the researcher combine this use of the sibylline research diary with interviews or archive data? Can a single coding system be used, as is the case with the main research designs? Moreover, when it comes to presenting the results of research using a sibylline research diary, there is no simple solution for showing the linkage between data and analysis (see, for example, the thesis by Laszczuk, 2018). In conclusion, we believe that the sibylline research diary can be used over and beyond research aimed at developing an operating model of the system studied. Indeed, in the context of other objectives such as the transformation of the system by action research or intervention research, the expectations could then include maneuvers and actions intended to transform the system to the desired state (action research, research intervention ) or even to develop new elements through the design sciences. However, since we have not used the sibylline research diary for such purposes, and have not addressed their specific quality criteria, it is currently difficult for us to fully measure and detail its applicability in these contexts. We hope other researchers will appropriate this artifact and adapt it to such uses.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Adam-Ledunois, S., Damart, S. and Canet, E., (2019). Recherche collaborative ou comprendre le management en le transformant, In L. Garreau and P. Romelaer, Méthodes de recherche en sciences sociales et management, Economica, p. 21-41.

Ahern, K.J. 1999. Ten Tips for Reflexive Bracketing , Qualitative health research, vol. 9, nᵒ 3, p. 407‑411.

Allard-Poesi, F. and Perret, V. 2014. Fondements épistémologiques de la recherche, In R.-A. Thiétart, Méthodes de recherche en management, Dunod (4th edtion), p. 14-46.

Allard-Poesi, F. and Perret, V. 2002. Peut-on faire comme si le postmodernisme n’existait pas?, In

N. Mourgues, F. Allard-Poesi, A. Amine, S. Chareire and J. Le Goff, Questions de méthodes en Sciences de Gestion, Editions EMS, p. 255–291.

Alvesson, M. 2003. Methodology for Close Up Studies, Higher Education, vol. 46, nᵒ 2, p. 167-193.

Angot, J. and Milano, P., 2014. Comment lier concepts et données, In R.-A. Thiétart, Méthodes de recherche en management, Dunod (4th edtion), p. 197-218.

Anteby, M., 2013. PERSPECTIVE — Relaxing the Taboo on Telling Our Own Stories: Upholding Professional Distance and Personal Involvement, Organization Science, vol. 24, nᵒ 4, p. 1277‑1290.

Arborio, AM. and Fournier P., 1999. L’enquête et ses méthodes. L’observation directe, Armand Colin.

Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J. and Lofland, L.H., 2001. Handbook of ethnography,

Sage.

Avenier, MJ. and Gavard-Perret, ML., 2012. Inscrire son projet de recherche dans un cadre épistémologique, In M.-L. Gavard-Perret, D. Gotteland, C. Haon and A. Jolibert, Méthodologie de la recherche en sciences de gestion, Pearson (2nd edition), p. 11-62.

Baribeau, C., 2005. L’instrumentation dans la collecte de données, Recherches Qualitatives, n° HS2, p. 98‑114.

Becker, H.S., 1958. Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant Observation, American Sociological Review, vol. 23, nᵒ 6, p. 652‑660.

Becker, H.S. and Geer, B., 1957. Participant Observation and Interviewing: A Comparison, Human Organization, vol. 16, nᵒ 3, p. 28‑32.

Bolger, N., Davis, A. and Rafaeli, E., 2003. Diary Methods: Capturing Life as it is Lived, Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 54, nᵒ 1, p. 579‑616.

Bourgoin, A. and Harvey, JF., 2018. Professional Image Under Threat: Dealing with Learning– Credibility Tension, Human Relations, online first, p. 1-29.

Boxenbaum, E. and Rouleau, L., 2011. New Knowledge Products as Bricolage: Metaphors and Scripts in Organizational Theory, Academy of Management Review, vol. 36, nᵒ 2, p. 272‑296.

Brannick, T. and Coghlan, D., 2007. In Defense of Being “Native”: The Case for Insider Academic Research, Organizational research methods, vol. 10, nᵒ 1, p. 59‑74.

Burgess, R G. 1982. Field research: A sourcebook and field manual, Routledge.

Chanlat, JF., 2005. La recherche en gestion et les méthodes ethnosociologques, In P. Roussel and F. Wacheux, Management des ressources humaines, De Boeck Supérieur, p. 159-175.

Codol, JP., 1969. Représentation de soi, d’autrui et de la tâche dans une situation sociale,

Psychologie française, vol. 14, p. 217‑228.

Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T., 2005. Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, Sage. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A., 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage.

Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D., 2004. Identity Ambiguity and Change in the Wake of a Corporate Spin-off, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 49, n° 2, p. 173-208.

Cunliffe, A.L. and Alcadipani, R., 2016. The Politics of Access in Fieldwork: Immersion, Backstage Dramas, and Deception, Organizational research methods, vol. 19, nᵒ 4, p. 535‑561.

Darawsheh, W., 2014. Reflexivity in Research: Promoting Rigour, Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, vol. 21, nᵒ 12, p. 560‑568.

David, A., 2012a. La recherche-intervention, cadre général pour la recherche en management?, In A. David, A. Hatchuel, and R. Laufer, Les nouvelles fondations des sciences de gestion: éléments d’épistémologie de la recherche en management , Presses des Mines, p. 241–264.

David, A., 2012b. Logique, épistémologie et méthodologie en sciences de gestion p. trois hypothèses revisitées, In A. David, A. Hatchuel, and R. Laufer, Les nouvelles fondations des sciences de gestion: éléments d’épistémologie de la recherche en management, Presses des Mines, p. 111–142.

David, A., 1999. Logique, épistémologie et méthodologie en sciences de gestion. Communication at the 8th Conférence of AIMS.

De Certau, M., 1980. L’invention du quotidien. UGE.

Doloriert, C. and Sambrook, S., 2012. Organisational Autoethnography, Journal of Organizational Ethnography, vol. 1, nᵒ 1, p. 83‑95.

Douglas, J.D., 1976. Investigative social research: Individual and team field research, Sage. Douglas, J. and Hughes, J.A., 1983. The Perspective of Ethnomethodology, Longman London. Dumez, H., 2013. Méthodologie de la recherche qualitative, Vuibert.

Emerson, R.M., 1981. Observational Field Work, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 7, nᵒ 1, p. 351‑378.

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I. and Shaw, L.L., 2011. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, University of Chicago Press.

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I. and Shaw, L.L., 2001. Participant Observation and Fieldnotes, In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, and L.H. Lofland, Handbook of Ethnography, Sage, p. 352– 368.

Empson, L., 2013. My Affair With the “Other”: Identity Journeys Across the Research-Practice Divide, Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 22, nᵒ 2, p. 229‑248.

Finlay, L., 2002. Negotiating the Swamp: the Opportunity and Challenge of Reflexivity in Research Practice, Qualitative Research, vol. 2, nᵒ 2, p. 209‑230.

Fonteyn, M.E. and Cahill, M., 1998. The Use of Clinical Logs to Improve Nursing Students’ Metacognition: a Pilot Study, Journal of advanced Nursing, vol. 28, nᵒ 1, p. 149‑154.

Garreau, L., Mouricou, P. and Grimand, A., 2015. Drawing on the Map: An Exploration of Strategic Sensemaking/Giving Practices using Visual Representations, British Journal of Management,

vol. 26, nᵒ 4, p. 689‑712.

Gilmore, S. and Kenny, K., 2015. Work-Worlds Colliding: Self-Reflexivity, Power and Emotion in Organizational Ethnography, Human Relations, vol. 68, nᵒ 1, p. 55‑78.

Gioia, D., Thomas, J.B., Clark, S.M. and Chittipeddi, K., 1994. Symbolism and Strategic Change in Academia: The Dynamics of Sensemaking and Influence, Organization Science, vol. 5, nᵒ 3, p. 363‑383.

Gioia, D., Corley, K. and Hamilton, A.L., 2013. Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research Notes on the Gioia Methodology, Organizational research methods, vol. 16, nᵒ 1, p. 15‑31.

Girin, J., 1990. Analyse empirique des situations de gestion: éléments de théorie et de méthode, In A. C. Martinet, Epistémologies et Sciences de Gestion, Economica, p. 141-182.

Giroux, N., 2006. La démarche paradoxale de Karl E. Weick, In D. Autissier and F. Bensebaa, Les défis du sensemaking en entreprise, Economica, p. 25-50.

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine.

Grawitz, M., 2001. Méthodes des sciences sociales, Dalloz.

Green, W. and Cluley, R., 2014. The Field of Radical Innovation: Making Sense of Organizational Cultures and Radical Innovation, Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 43, nᵒ 8, p. 1343‑1350.

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S., 1994. Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research, In N. K. Denzin and

Y.S. Lincoln, Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, p. 105-117.

Hancock, P., 1999. Reflective Practice – Using a Learning Journal, Nursing Standard, vol. 13, nᵒ 17, p. 37‑40.

Hatchuel, A., 1994. Apprentissages collectifs et activités de conception, Revue française de gestion, vol. 99, p. 109‑120.

Hatchuel, A. and David, A., 2007. Collaboration for Management Research, In A.B. Shani, S.A. Mohrman, W.A. Pasmore, B. Stymne, and N. Adler, Handbook of Collaborative Management Research, Sage, p. 143-162.

Hertz, R., 1997. Reflexivity & Voice. Sage Publications.

Ingold, T., 1993. The Temporality of the Landscape, World Archaeology, vol. 25, nᵒ 2, p. 152‑174.

Jarzabkowski, P. and Kaplan, S., 2015. Strategy Tools‐in‐use: A Framework for Understanding “Technologies of Rationality” in Practice, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 36, n° 4, p. 537-558.

Johnson, P. and Duberley, J., 2003. Reflexivity in Management Research, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, nᵒ 5, p. 1279‑1303.

Journé, B., 2012. Collecter les données par l’observation, In M.-L. Gavard-Perret, D. Gotteland, C. Haon, and A. Jolibert, Méthodologie de la recherche en sciences de gestion, Pearson (2nd edition), p. 165-206.

Kahneman, D., 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan. Kaplan, S., 2011. Strategy and PowerPoint: An Inquiry into the Epistemic Culture and Machinery of Strategy Making, Organization Science, vol. 22, nᵒ 2, p. 320‑346.

Koch, T., and Harrington, A., 1998. Reconceptualizing Rigour: the Case for Reflexivity, Journal of advanced Nursing, vol. 28, nᵒ 4, p. 882‑890.

Langley, A., and Klag, M., 2017. Being Where? Navigating the Involvement Paradox in Qualitative Research Accounts, Organizational research methods, vol. 14, nᵒ 4, p. 1-29.

Lapassade, Georges. 2002. Observation Participante, In J. Barus-Michel et al., Vocabulaire de psychosociologie ERES Hors collection, p. 375‑390.

Laperrière, A., 2003. L’observation directe, In B. Gauthier, Recherche Sociale, Presses de l’Université du Québec, p. 269-291.

Le Moigne, JL., 1990. Epistémologies constructivistes et sciences de l’organisation, In A. C. Martinet, Epistémologies et Sciences de Gestion, Economica, p. 81–140.

Lièvre, P. and Rix, G., 2005. Le management des expéditions polaires, Revue française de comptabilité, n° 383, p. 46‑52.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G., 1985. Naturalistic inquiry, Sage.

Lofland, J., Snow, D.A., Anderson, L. and Lofland, L.H. 2006. Analyzing Social Settings, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Louis, M.R., 1980. Surprise and Sense Making: What Newcomers Experience in Entering Unfamiliar Organizational Settings, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 25, nᵒ 2, p. 226‑251.

Mallinger, M., 2013. Faculty to Administration and Back Again I’m a Stranger Here Myself ,

Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 22, nᵒ 1, p. 59‑67.

Marcus, G.E., 1994. What Comes (just) after “Post”? The Case of Ethnography, In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, Handbook Of Qualitative Research, Sage, p. 563-575.

Martinet, AC., 2006. Stratégie et pensée complexe, Revue française de gestion, vol. 32, nᵒ 160, p. 31‑46.

Martinet, AC., 1990. Epistémologies et Sciences de Gestion, Economica.

Mauthner, N.S. and Doucet, A., 2003. Reflexive Accounts and Accounts of Reflexivity in Qualitative Data Analysis, Sociology, vol. 37, nᵒ 3, p. 413‑431.

Mbengue, A., Vandangeon-Derumez, I. and Garreau, L., 2014. Construire un modèle, In Thiétart, R.- A., Méthodes de recherche en management, Dunod (4th edition), p. 334–387.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M., 1994. Analyse des données qualitatives, De Boeck Supérieur.

Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., and Saldana, J., 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook,

Sage.

Morrison, K., 1996. Developing Reflective Practice in Higher Degree Students Through a Learning Journal, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 21, nᵒ 3, p. 317-332.

Mucchielli, Alex. 2009. Dictionnaire des méthodes qualitatives en sciences humaines, Armand Colin.

Nadin, S. and Cassell, C., 2006. The Use of a Research Diary as a Tool for Reflexive Practice: Some Reflections from Management Research, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management,

vol. 3, nᵒ 3, p. 208‑217.

Noiriel, G., 1990. Journal de terrain, journal de recherche et auto-analyse. Entretien avec Florence Weber, Genèses, vol. 2, nᵒ 1, p. 138‑147.

Ortlipp, M., 2008. Keeping and Using Reflective Journals in the Qualitative Research Process, The Qualitative Report, vol. 13, nᵒ 4, p. 695‑705.

Peretz, H., 2004. Les méthodes en sociologie: l’observation, La découverte.

Reis, H. T., 1994. Domains of experience: Investigating relationship processes from three perspectives, In R. Erber, and R. Gilmour, Theoretical Frameworks for Personal Relationships, Psychology Press, p; 83-110.

Richardson, L. 2000. Writing: a Method of Enquiry, In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage p. 923-948.

Rix-Lièvre, G., and Lièvre, P., 2011. Une méthodologie d’investigation du déroulement “effectif “ d’un projet. Une expédition polaire, In M. Aubry, and P. Lièvre, Gestion de projet et expeditions polaires: que pouvons-nous apprendre? , Presses de l’Université de Québec. p. 79-93.

Stigliani, I. and Ravasi, D., 2012. Organizing Thoughts and Connecting Brains: Material Practices and the Transition from Individual to Group-Level Prospective Sensemaking, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 55, nᵒ 5, p. 1232‑1259.

Susman, G.I. and Evered, R.D., 1978. An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research,

Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 23, nᵒ 4, p. 582.

Valéau, P. and Gardody, J., 2016. La communication du journal de bord: un complément d’information pour prouver la vraisemblance et la fiabilité des recherches qualitatives, Recherches Qualitatives, vol. 35, nᵒ 1, p. 76‑100.

Van Maanen, J., 2011. Ethnography as Work: Some Rules of Engagement, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 48, nᵒ 1 p. 218‑234.

Vesa, M. and Vaara, E., 2014. Strategic Ethnography 2.0: Four Methods for Advancing Atrategy Process and PResearch, Strategic Organization, vol. 12, nᵒ 4, p. 288‑298.

Viale, R., 2013. Methodological Cognitivism Vol II. Cognition, Science, and Innovation. Springer. Vidaillet, B., 2003. Le sens de l’action, Vuibert.

Wacheux, F., 1996. Méthodes qualitatives et recherche en gestion, Economica.

Wacquant, L., 2002. Scrutinizing the Street: Poverty, Morality, and the Pitfalls of Urban Ethnography, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 107, nᵒ 6, p. 1468‑1532.

Weick, K.E., 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K.E., 1985. Cosmos vs. Chaos: Sense and Nonsense in Electronic Contexts , Organizational dynamics, vol. 14, nᵒ 2, p. 51‑64.

Weick, K.E., 1989. Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination, Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, nᵒ 4, p. 516‑531.

Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage.

Weick, K.E., 1999. Theory Construction as Disciplined Reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the 90s , Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, nᵒ 4, p. 797‑806.

Werner, JF., 1999. L’ethnographie mise à nu par l’écriture, L’Homme et la société, vol. 134, p. 63‑80.

Whittington, R., Molloy, E., Mayer, M. and Smith, A., 2006. Practices of Strategising/Organising: Broadening Strategy Work and Skills, Long Range Planning, vol. 39, nᵒ 6, p. 615‑629.

Zundel, M., MacIntosh, R. and Mackay, D., 2016. The Utility of Video Diaries for Organizational Research, Organizational research methods, vol. 21, n° 2, p. 386-411.

Haut de page

Notes

1 We have chosen this term, as it describes something related to a sibyl, i.e prophetic, to emphasize the role played by the researcher’s expectations, the basis of the method we propose here.

2 While previous studies have used the term ‘tool’ to refer to the research diary, we use the term ‘artifact’ for the sibylline research diary, so as to emphasize that this is how we have designed and fashioned it – a characteristic of artifacts in contrast to tools, according to Ingold (1993) – which generates the specificities of its use.

3 Here again, we are aware that the epistemological outlooks of some readers will lead them to affirm that real objectivity is never possible. This paper stays clear of these debates, which are well documented elsewhere (Allard-Poesi and Perret 2002 ; Girin 1990 ; Le Moigne 1990).

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Alexis Laszczuk et Lionel Garreau, « The sibylline research diary »Finance Contrôle Stratégie [En ligne], 21-3 | 2018, mis en ligne le 23 mai 2019, consulté le 07 février 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/fcs/3519 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/fcs.3519

Haut de page

Auteurs

Alexis Laszczuk

HEC Montréal

Articles du même auteur

Lionel Garreau

Université Paris-Dauphine, Université PSL, CNRS, DRM, [M&O], 75016 PARIS, France

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search