Dialogue Meetings as an Arena for Collaboration and Reflection among Researchers and Practitioners
The research question of the article is to explore whether the dialogue meetings method could be relevant for reflective learning among researchers and practitioners when welfare technology should be implemented in municipalities, or not. A testbed was planned to be implemented in a retirement home in a Swedish municipality, and the practitioners worked with a pre-study of that testbed. In the article, the dialogue between the researchers and the practitioners in the dialogue meetings is described and analyzed. The potential of dialogue meetings as an arena for learning and reflection among researchers and practitioners is discussed. The research methodology approach is participatory action research with mixed methods (dialogue meetings, focus groups, participant observations). The main findings from the dialogue meetings were that the researchers learned more about the use of traditional research methods, and the practitioners learned more about how they could improve their use of the methods to facilitate change processes in their organization. These findings have the potential both for the researchers and the practitioners to result in more relevant use of research methods in change processes in organizations. It is concluded that dialogue meetings could be relevant for reflective learning among researchers and practitioners when welfare technology should be implemented in a health care organization.
[1] Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1964.
[2] Senge, P.M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, NY: Dobleday Currency, 1990.
[3] Høyrup, S. Reflection as a core process of organizational learning. In Journal of Workplace Learning, 16 (8), pp. 442-454, 2014.
[4] Hammarén, A. Writing: A Method for Reflection. Utbildningsförlaget, 1995.
[5] Göranzon, B. & Hammarén, M. ”The methodology of the Dialogue seminar” in Göranzon, B., Hammarén, M. & Ennals, R. (eds.) Dialogue, Skill & Tacit Knowledge. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 47-66, 2006.
[6] Ellström, P-E. “Lärande och innovation i organisationer”. In Backlund, T. et. al. (eds.) Lärdilemman i arbetslivet. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2001.
[7] Svensson L. & Åberg, C. E-learning och arbetsplatslärande – en revolution av vuxenutbildningar. Stockholm: Bilda förlag, 2001.
[8] Rapoport, R., N. “Three dilemmas in Action Research”, Human Relations, 23 (4), p. 499, 1970.
[9] Bray, J. N., Joyce. L., Smith, L., L. & Yorks, L. Collaborative inquiry in practice. London: Sage Publications, 2000.
[10] Dewey, J. Demokrati och utbildning. Göteborg: Daidalos, 1999.
[11] Schön, D. The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1983.
[12] Grundén. K. “Reflection meetings as a method for learning and evaluation” in Remenyi, D (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation (ECITE2004), 2004.
[13] Lave, J. & Wenger, E. Situated learning: Legitimate Peripheral participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1991.
[14] Henfridsson, O. IT-adaption as sense making: Inventing New Meaning for Technology in Organizations. Doctoral thesis. Umeå: Research reports in informatics: RR-99.01. Umeå University, Departments of Informatics, 1999.
[15] Thiry, M. “Sensemaking in value management practice”, International Journal of Project Management, 19, pp. 71-77, 2001.
[16] Weick, K. E. Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage, 1995.
[17] Boud, D., Cressey, P. & Docherty, P. Productive Reflection at Work. Learning for changing organizations. Routledge, London, 2006.
[18] Erikson, K. & Holmer, J. Studiecirklar som stöd för förändring i arbetslivet, report No. 9, University of Gothenburg, Institution for Pedagogik, 1991.
[19] Perby, M-L Konsten att förvalta yrkeskunnande. Gidlunds, 1995.
[20] Högdin, S., & Kjellman, C. “Research circles: A method for the development of knowledge and the creation of change in practice”. Academic Journal, 19, pp. 24-37, 2014.
[21] Evetts, J. (2006) “Introduction: Trust and Professionalism: Challenges and Occupational Changes”, Current Sociology, 54 (4), pp. 515-531, 2006.
[22] Chen, H-L., Fan, H-L. & Tsai, C-C). “The role of community trust and altruism in knowledge sharing: An investigation of a virtual community of teacher professionals”, Educational Technology & Society, 17 (3), pp. 168-179, 2014.
[23] Hashim, K.F. & Tan, F.B. “The mediating role of trust and commitment on members’ continuous knowledge sharing intention: A commitment-trust theory perspective”, International Journal of Information Management, 35, pp. 145-151, 2009.
[24] Wood, L. & Govender, B., “You learn from going through the process’: the perceptions of South African school leaders about action research”, Action Research, 11 (2), pp. 176-193, 2013.
[25] Reason, P. & McArdle, K). “Brief Notes on the Theory and Practice of Action Research”, In S. Becker & A. Bryman (Eds.) Understanding Research Methods for Social Policy and Practice. 2004, London: The Polity Press.
[26] Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. The Sage Handbook of action research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, (2nd ed.) 2007. London, Sage.
[27] Ghaye, T., Melander‐Wikman, A., Kisare, M., Chambers, P., Bergmark, U., Kostenius, C. & Lillyman, S. “Participatory and appreciative action and reflection (PAAR) –democratizing reflective practices”. Reflective practice, 9 (4), pp. 361-397, 2008.
[28] Waddington, D. “Participant observation”, Cassell, C. & Symon, G. (eds). Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, 2004 Chapter 13
[29] Sendall, M. C., McCosker, L. K., Brodie, A., Hill, M. & Crane, P. “Participatory action research, mixed methods, and research teams: learning from philosophically juxtaposed methodologies for optimal research outcomes”. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18 (1), pp. 1-6, 2018.
[30] Wibeck, V. Fokusgrupper. Om fokuserade gruppintervjuer som undersökningsmetod. Lund, Studentlitteratur, 2000.
[31] Waddington, D. “Participant observation”. In Cassell, C. & Symon, G., (eds.) Essential guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research,). London: Sage Publications, pp. 154-165, 2004.
[1] Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1964.
[2] Senge, P.M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, NY: Dobleday Currency, 1990.
[3] Høyrup, S. Reflection as a core process of organizational learning. In Journal of Workplace Learning, 16 (8), pp. 442-454, 2014.
[4] Hammarén, A. Writing: A Method for Reflection. Utbildningsförlaget, 1995.
[5] Göranzon, B. & Hammarén, M. ”The methodology of the Dialogue seminar” in Göranzon, B., Hammarén, M. & Ennals, R. (eds.) Dialogue, Skill & Tacit Knowledge. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 47-66, 2006.
[6] Ellström, P-E. “Lärande och innovation i organisationer”. In Backlund, T. et. al. (eds.) Lärdilemman i arbetslivet. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2001.
[7] Svensson L. & Åberg, C. E-learning och arbetsplatslärande – en revolution av vuxenutbildningar. Stockholm: Bilda förlag, 2001.
[8] Rapoport, R., N. “Three dilemmas in Action Research”, Human Relations, 23 (4), p. 499, 1970.
[9] Bray, J. N., Joyce. L., Smith, L., L. & Yorks, L. Collaborative inquiry in practice. London: Sage Publications, 2000.
[10] Dewey, J. Demokrati och utbildning. Göteborg: Daidalos, 1999.
[11] Schön, D. The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1983.
[12] Grundén. K. “Reflection meetings as a method for learning and evaluation” in Remenyi, D (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation (ECITE2004), 2004.
[13] Lave, J. & Wenger, E. Situated learning: Legitimate Peripheral participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1991.
[14] Henfridsson, O. IT-adaption as sense making: Inventing New Meaning for Technology in Organizations. Doctoral thesis. Umeå: Research reports in informatics: RR-99.01. Umeå University, Departments of Informatics, 1999.
[15] Thiry, M. “Sensemaking in value management practice”, International Journal of Project Management, 19, pp. 71-77, 2001.
[16] Weick, K. E. Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage, 1995.
[17] Boud, D., Cressey, P. & Docherty, P. Productive Reflection at Work. Learning for changing organizations. Routledge, London, 2006.
[18] Erikson, K. & Holmer, J. Studiecirklar som stöd för förändring i arbetslivet, report No. 9, University of Gothenburg, Institution for Pedagogik, 1991.
[19] Perby, M-L Konsten att förvalta yrkeskunnande. Gidlunds, 1995.
[20] Högdin, S., & Kjellman, C. “Research circles: A method for the development of knowledge and the creation of change in practice”. Academic Journal, 19, pp. 24-37, 2014.
[21] Evetts, J. (2006) “Introduction: Trust and Professionalism: Challenges and Occupational Changes”, Current Sociology, 54 (4), pp. 515-531, 2006.
[22] Chen, H-L., Fan, H-L. & Tsai, C-C). “The role of community trust and altruism in knowledge sharing: An investigation of a virtual community of teacher professionals”, Educational Technology & Society, 17 (3), pp. 168-179, 2014.
[23] Hashim, K.F. & Tan, F.B. “The mediating role of trust and commitment on members’ continuous knowledge sharing intention: A commitment-trust theory perspective”, International Journal of Information Management, 35, pp. 145-151, 2009.
[24] Wood, L. & Govender, B., “You learn from going through the process’: the perceptions of South African school leaders about action research”, Action Research, 11 (2), pp. 176-193, 2013.
[25] Reason, P. & McArdle, K). “Brief Notes on the Theory and Practice of Action Research”, In S. Becker & A. Bryman (Eds.) Understanding Research Methods for Social Policy and Practice. 2004, London: The Polity Press.
[26] Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. The Sage Handbook of action research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, (2nd ed.) 2007. London, Sage.
[27] Ghaye, T., Melander‐Wikman, A., Kisare, M., Chambers, P., Bergmark, U., Kostenius, C. & Lillyman, S. “Participatory and appreciative action and reflection (PAAR) –democratizing reflective practices”. Reflective practice, 9 (4), pp. 361-397, 2008.
[28] Waddington, D. “Participant observation”, Cassell, C. & Symon, G. (eds). Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, 2004 Chapter 13
[29] Sendall, M. C., McCosker, L. K., Brodie, A., Hill, M. & Crane, P. “Participatory action research, mixed methods, and research teams: learning from philosophically juxtaposed methodologies for optimal research outcomes”. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18 (1), pp. 1-6, 2018.
[30] Wibeck, V. Fokusgrupper. Om fokuserade gruppintervjuer som undersökningsmetod. Lund, Studentlitteratur, 2000.
[31] Waddington, D. “Participant observation”. In Cassell, C. & Symon, G., (eds.) Essential guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research,). London: Sage Publications, pp. 154-165, 2004.
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:79787", author = "Kerstin Grunden and Ann Svensson and Berit Forsman and Christina Karlsson and Ayman Obeid", title = "Dialogue Meetings as an Arena for Collaboration and Reflection among Researchers and Practitioners ", abstract = "The research question of the article is to explore whether the dialogue meetings method could be relevant for reflective learning among researchers and practitioners when welfare technology should be implemented in municipalities, or not. A testbed was planned to be implemented in a retirement home in a Swedish municipality, and the practitioners worked with a pre-study of that testbed. In the article, the dialogue between the researchers and the practitioners in the dialogue meetings is described and analyzed. The potential of dialogue meetings as an arena for learning and reflection among researchers and practitioners is discussed. The research methodology approach is participatory action research with mixed methods (dialogue meetings, focus groups, participant observations). The main findings from the dialogue meetings were that the researchers learned more about the use of traditional research methods, and the practitioners learned more about how they could improve their use of the methods to facilitate change processes in their organization. These findings have the potential both for the researchers and the practitioners to result in more relevant use of research methods in change processes in organizations. It is concluded that dialogue meetings could be relevant for reflective learning among researchers and practitioners when welfare technology should be implemented in a health care organization.", keywords = "Dialogue meetings, implementation, reflection, test bed, welfare technology, participatory action research.", volume = "14", number = "8", pages = "687-6", }
