Succeeding with interactive research: How to manage research with and about society

Abstract

Increasingly, social science research is carried out in collaboration with partners outside universities, yet research methodology is lacking on how to manoeuvre in a terrain where multiple actors set expectations for research. This article conceptualizes interactive research as research with and about society, and provides a set of systematic reflections on how to manage opposing pressures, tensions and dilemmas in interactive research projects. We formulate and address three major interactive research management tasks: ensuring continual commitment from external stakeholders, maintaining the capacity for critique and ensuring that scientific standards are met. Based on our own experience and theories of interactive governance, network management and collaborative leadership, as well as on existing methodological literature, we provide guidance and suggest concrete tools and methods for performing the tasks in order to avoid the pitfalls and harvest the gains of interactive research.

Exploring the work and competence of interactive researchers

“…This process further reduced the list of articles, making the total number of studies included in the literature review 29 [1]. Notably, none of the articles explicitly used competence theory to discuss the interactive researcher, and only one article even mentioned the term "competence" (Krogh and Nielsen, 2017). Rather, it was more common that the roles and tasks of the researcher were discussed (e.g.…”

“…According to the studies, the most important aspect of this collaboration is to build trust and confidence in the relations among the practitioners early in the process (Rosenlund et al , 2015), both at high levels and at operative levels (Ahlström et al , 2007). Without trust, it becomes difficult to ensure commitment from external stakeholders and to gain entrance into the organisation (Ahlström et al , 2007; Krogh and Nielsen, 2017; Whitehurst and Richter, 2018). In many of the studies, the issue of power relations is highlighted as important to consider when building interactive relations.…”

“…The solution, according to the reviewed articles, is for both the researchers and practitioners to aspire to build inter-personal relations characterised by an exchange of views and experiences in a democratic dialogue that can develop new meaning and knowledge (Albinsson and Arnesson, 2010; Holmquist, 2009; Rosenlund et al , 2015; Svensson, 2007). A way to build a proper foundation for cooperation, trust and joint learning is to establish communicative spaces in which the researchers and practitioners reach an agreement concerning common goals and research questions that satisfy both the research and practice systems (Krogh and Nielsen, 2017; Sandberg and Wallo, 2013).…”

“…There is also a need to establish a mutual understanding concerning the means of reaching the end of the process and to discuss what the goals of the process are and how they should be achieved (Sandberg and Wallo, 2013). According to Krogh and Nielsen (2017), it is especially important for the researcher to communicate and explain the research ideas in a succinct manner to ensure that the practitioners can see the benefits of being part of the process and to ascribe meaning to the research project. In this regard, participation in the conceptualisation of the research problem can be a factor that creates both commitments from practitioners (Calder, 2004; Krogh and Nielsen, 2017) and more relevant research questions for the researchers (Holmquist, 2009).…”

“…It is possible to distinguish two patterns in the articles: the balance between the research system and the practice system and the balance between proximity and distance to practice. With regard to the balance between research and practice, several authors raise the point of having a division of labour in so far as the researcher is responsible for driving the search for new knowledge and the development of new theories, while practitioners are responsible for the actual development that takes place in the organisations (Eklund and Karltun, 2012; Krogh and Nielsen, 2017; Sandberg and Wallo, 2013). However, finding the balance between these two systems is not an easy task (Eklund and Karltun, 2012), and in the reviewed studies, it is not possible to fully deduce how this has been accomplished.…”