Publications

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how the methodological concept of reflexivity supports fieldwork and knowledge creation when doing fieldwork in Greenland.

The paper primarily focuses on how researchers navigate unfamiliar contexts, build trust, and interact with actors in the field. Based on fieldwork in two very different settings, the authors describe how reflexivity plays a significant role in Greenland research.

This paper reports on two separate fieldwork studies. The two studies interweave as they explore the reflexive journeys taken in the two very different contexts. While reflexivity plays out in two different social contexts, the two studies explore how researchers respond to unfolding events.

Study A) set out to investigate homelessness in Tasiilaq but changed direction to embrace new developments in the local context. A unique opportunity arose due to a broadcast sent via Denmark’s Radio. Thus, the researcher in the field responded by broadening his interview guide and focus.

Study B) discusses how leadership unfolds in a fish processing factory in Nuuk. The researcher emerged in everyday organizational life, observing day-to-day management based on participative observations and shadowing techniques.

Fieldwork is an evolving, fluid, and ever-changing enterprise. Despite their outset, all research projects can change course or fold due to challenges or unforeseen circumstances (Perry, 2020; Rasmussen, 2020).

During fieldwork, the researcher establishes relations within a setting and must build and maintain trust throughout (ibid).

We discuss how the research emerge and unfold as a reflexive journey where research questions and general inquiries are formed by the empirical activities and theoretical input and qualified by an intuitive and interpretive research process (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009; Mead, 1932).

When we refer to this reflexive process, we mean the reflexive process advanced by Mead (1934) as “turning back of the experience of the individual upon himself” (Mead, 1934, p. 134). The reflexive “turning back experience” in fieldwork provides access to new understandings delivering explanatory abstractions about the field of study (Yanow, 2009). Reflexivity comes about through the researcher’s intuitive reactions, active roles, and field relationships.

This paper explores the interactions and processes that empower researchers to qualify and change research questions during fieldwork. Turning to the concepts of reflexivity, reflection-in-action, reflection-on-action gives a valuable understanding of the processes that qualify research projects while they are happening. Reporting on two separate fieldwork studies in Greenland, the paper explores how the researchers respond to unfolding events in the two different Greenlandic contexts. Study A) investigated homelessness in Tasiilaq but changed direction to embrace new national and local developments. A unique opportunity arose due to a broadcast sent via Denmark’s Radio. Consequently, the researcher in the field responded by broadening the interview guide and scope of the study. Study B) discusses how leadership unfolds in fish processing factories in Nuuk and Maniitsoq. The researcher emerged in everyday organisational life, observing day-to-day activities based on participant observations, shadowing, conversations, and interviews.

This chapter presents results from a project about leadership in Greenland. It discusses how leaders in Greenlandic organizations legitimize decisions in territories of interactions. The research focus on how Greenlandic leaders at times are challenged by the tight relationship in the small society but also how the tightness supports close and fruitful interactions where leaders qualify and legitimize decisions related to quality, business development, and future actions. The findings demonstrate how the leaders legitimize actions and decision in their local networks and how this relates to and develops their everyday practice.

Ledelse og samarbejde diskuteres i artiklen som en kollektiv aktivitet i organisationer i Grønland. Med udgangspunkt i empirisk materiale indsamlet i 2018 og 2019 beskrives problemstillinger som ledere genkender og formulerer. I analysen diskuteres hvordan ledelse fremstår som en kollektiv aktivitet, at problematisering er en væsentlig del af ledelsesaktiviteten og hvordan ledelse udvikles i interaktionsterritorier.

I artiklen formuleres fem spørgsmål, der kan være relevante at stille i forbindelse med ledelsesaktiviteten, ikke mindst i den særlige situation organisationer befinder sig i lige nu med COVID-19 forebyggelsen. Herudover konkluderes det, at der fortsat er behov for at udvikle den produktive ledelsesaktivitet igennem akademisk ledelsesuddannelse.

Purpose – There is no agreement in the network literature about how participating in networks is of value. This article aims to explore the underlying dynamics that form and support the process of value co-creation in networks.

Design/methodology/approach – The article draws together symbolic interactionism and organizational ethnography to outline a research approach illustrating how participation in networks becomes valuable. The empirical data were collected through fieldwork over two in two local business networks in Denmark.

Findings – The case study illustrates how participants in local business networks struggle to make participation valuable. The article shows how networks can be considered joint spheres for value co-creation. Three main arguments supporting value in networks stands out from the research: (1) Leadership as a collective achievement supports processes of value co-creation; (2) Develop a shared but dynamic focus and (3) Participation is valuable when supporting participants’ daily worklife.

Originality/value – The article builds up a creative analytical framework based on symbolic interactionism making an important contribution about how participants experience value in networks.