Abstract
The aim of the paper is to contribute to the definition and analysis of the “access to the field” (Feldman et al. 2003) through an inter-organizational perspective. The paper discusses a case study on the access of a researcher to a hospital department where both organizations and actors are shown as actively constructing the research site. Both researcher and participants are described in terms of work organizations originally engaged in parallel systems of activity. Dynamics of negotiation “tied” the different actors’ activities in a new activity system where researcher and participants concur to the effectiveness of both organizations (i.e., the research and the hospital ward). An Activity Theory perspective (Leont’ev 1978) is used with the aim of focusing the analysis on the activities in charge to the different actors. The approach adopted introduces the idea that, from the outset, research is made possible by a process of co-construction that works through the development of a completely new and shared work space arising around the encounter between researchers and participants. It is the balance between improvised actions and the co-creation of “boundary objects” (Star and Griesemer 1989), which makes interlacement possible between the two activity systems. The concept of “knotworking” (Engeström 2007a) is adopted to interpret specific actions by both organizations and actors intended to build a knot of activities whereby the new research system takes place.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
All names mentioned in the paper are pseudonyms of the original names of participants.
The initial agreement with the hospital included a three years research on the electronic nurse record usage. The actual research data were collected within a period of six months, after which research moved to another hospital.
References
Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (2001). Handbook of ethnography. London: Sage.
Bachtin, M. (1979). L’autore e l’eroe. Teoria letteraria e scienze umane. trad. it. 1988. Torino: Einaudi.
Bruni, A. (2003). Lo studio etnografico delle organizzazioni. Roma: Carocci.
Bruni, A., Fasol, R., & Gherardi, S. (2007). L’accesso ai servizi sanitari. Traiettorie, differenze, disuguaglianze. Roma: Carocci.
Buchanan, D., Boddy, D., & McCalman, J. (1988). Getting in, getting on, getting out, and getting back. In A. Bryman (Ed.), Doing research in organizations (pp. 53–67). London: Routledge.
Delamont, S. (2004). Ethnography and participant observation. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 217–229). London: Sage.
Duke, K. (2002). Getting beyond the “Official line”: reflections on dilemmas of access, knowledge and power in researching policy networks. Journal of Social Policy, 31(1), 39–59.
Duranti, A. (1992). Etnografia del Parlare quotidiano. Roma: NIS.
Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 7(43), 960–974.
Engeström, Y. (2007). From communities of practice to mycorrhizae. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson, & L. Unwin (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives (pp. 41–54). London: Routledge.
Engestrom, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1–2), 23–39.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Vähäaho, T. (1999). When the center does not hold: The importance of knotworking. In M. Hedegaard, S. Chaiklin, & U. J. Jensen (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice: cultural-historical approaches. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Feldman, M. S., Bell, J., & Berger, M. T. (2003). Gaining access. A pratical and theoretical guide for qualitative research. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Fine, M. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 70–82). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Glaveanu, V. P. (2015). On units of analysis and creativity theory: towards a “molecular” perspective. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 3(45), 311–330.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.
Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative methods in management research. London: Sage.
Harris, J. (1997). Surviving ethnography: coping with isolation, violence and anger. The Qualitative Report 3(1).
Hill, S. (2004). Doing collaborative research: doing what feels right and makes sense. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 7(2), 109–126.
Hill, M. C. (2006). Representin(g) negotiating multiple roles and identities in the field and behind the desk. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(5), 926–949.
Howarth, C. (2002). Using the theory of social representations to explore difference in the research relationship. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 21–34.
Hunt, S. A. (1984). The development of rapport through the negotiation of gender in field work among police. Human Organization, 43(4), 283–294.
Johl, S. K., & Renganathan, S. (2010). Strategies for gaining access in doing fieldwork: reflection of two research. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 8(1), 42–50.
Kadianaki, I. (2014). Conceptualizing the mediating role of power asymmetries in research communication: a Social Representations approach. Culture & Psychology, 3(20), 358–374.
Laurila, J. (1997). Promoting research access and informant rapport in corporative settings: notes from research on a crisis company. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 407–418.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leigh Star, S., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
Leont’ev, A. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Lundby, K. (2007). Interdisciplinarity and infrastructure: mediation and knotworking in communication research. Nordicom Review, 27, 195–209.
Moghaddam, F. M. (2003). Interobjectivity and culture. Culture & Psychology, 9(3), 221–232.
Moscovici, S. (1973). Foreword. In C. Herzlich (Ed.), Health and illness: A social psychological analysis. London: Academic.
Mulhall, A. (2003). In the field: notes on observation in qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(3), 306–331.
Murphy, E., & Dingwall, R. (2001). The ethics of ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography. London: Sage.
Okumus, F., Altinay, L., & Roper, A. (2006). Gaining access for research. Reflection from experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 7–26.
Reeves, S., MacMillian, K., & Van Soeren, M. (2010). Leadership of interprofessional health and social care teams: a socio-historical analysis. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 258–264.
Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology & Human Values, 5(35), 601–617.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’, and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals on Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.
Talamo, A., Zucchermaglio, C., & Ligorio, B. (2001). Communities deveolpment in CVE's and sustaining Functions of On-line tutorship. In G. Riva and C. Galimberti (Ed.), Cyberpsychology: Mind, identity and society in the Internet Age (pp. 184-207), IOS Press.
Talamo, A., Zucchermaglio, C., & Iorio, K. (2002). Repertorio, impegno, impresa: costituzione e sviluppo di comunità virtuali. In M. Bonaiuto (Ed.) Conversazioni virtuali (pp. 249-277), Edizione: Guerini e Associati.
Talamo, A., Ligorio, M.B., & Zucchermaglio, C. (2004). Identità costruite, identità negoziate nel cyberspazio. Rassegna di Psicologia, 11, 147–178.
Talamo, A., & Pozzi, S. (2011). The tension between dialogicality and interobjectivity in cooperative activities. Culture & Psychology, 3(17), 302–318.
Tyler, S. (1986). Post-modern ethnography: From document of the occult to occult document. In J. Clifford & G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture (pp. 122–140). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wanat, C. L. (2008). Getting past the gatekeepers: differences between access and cooperation in public school research. Field Methods, 20(2), 191–208.
Wenger, E. (1988). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (1996). Representing the other: A feminism and psychology reader. London: Sage.
Zucchermaglio, C., & Talamo, A. (2003). The development of a virtual community of practices using electronic mail and communicative genres. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 3(17), 259–284.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Talamo, A., Mellini, B., Camilli, M. et al. An Organizational Perspective to the Creation of the Research Field. Integr. psych. behav. 50, 401–419 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9338-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9338-y