a research diary

• Corporate Services

• Blog editing
• Your Happy First Draft
• 8 1/2 Steps to Writing Faster, Better

Online courses

• How to Hire an Editor
• Extreme Writing Makeover
• Banish Your Fear of Writing

Group support

• Get It Done

The research diary: why you should keep one

Reading time: Just over 3 minutes

A research diary can take a number of different forms, but it will help you declare your opinions about your research AND allow you to stay connected with the writing process….

After reading The Diary of Anne Frank , at about the age of 11, I started keeping a diary. About three months later, my parents found it, read it (!) and chastised me for my uncharitable thoughts about my younger siblings. (I felt like chastising them for having the nerve to invade my privacy.) After that, I decided it was safer to stop keeping a diary.

Still, there are times when keeping a diary makes indisputable sense . One such time is when you need to do a large amount of research, whether for a book, a report, a thesis or a dissertation. This effort is called a research diary.

Academics who promote research diaries (see a short video by University of Greenwich business prof David Gray on this topic) generally cite four benefits to the process:

• It helps you keep a detailed history of your research as it unfolds
• It provides a reference point for when your thoughts changed/matured during the process
• It allows you to trace the development of your research skills
• It gives you a place to reflect on your research  

I agree with these points but I think there are two additional and far more compelling arguments:

• A research diary will require you to declare your opinions about what you are reading, and not just note the facts. Keep in mind that the world doesn’t need many more facts these days. We are already drowning in them. Instead, we need intelligent and thoughtful interpretations of facts. We need facts placed into context . These statements are especially true if you are working on a thesis or dissertation. Academic writing is essentially a series of conversations. And if you want your contribution to that conversation to be both useful and compelling, you need to offer more than facts; you need to share your opinion. While you are researching, you will likely be tempted to do nothing more than collect facts and citations. This diary — which is meant to record your opinions — will act as a counterweight to that natural tendency.
• A research diary will allow you to maintain your writing habit even while you are busy researching. It’s always dangerous to allow your writing habit to fall by the wayside. Imagine you’re an athlete who suddenly stops training. Or a musician, who suddenly stops practicing. When you return to the task — whether it’s athletic, musical or related to writing — you’ll have to make up for all the practice you’ve lost, which will be time-consuming. Don’t allow this to happen to you! A research diary will allow you to maintain your writing habit in a low-risk way.

What should go into your research diary? Your diary should include a description of what you’ve done each day—the people you met and what they said, books or papers that you read, lectures or conferences that you attended, notes from discussions or conversations, and ideas you want to remember to follow up. But, even more important, it should also include your personal views and opinions of all that you have learned and your analysis of any problems you’ve noticed. Questions, hunches, thoughts and plans for future actions also belong in this free-flowing document. Finally, make a diary entry even if you do nothing else that day. It will help keep you connected with your project and maintain your motivation.

Keep in mind that the diary is PERSONAL and PRIVATE so you are free to be as frank and intemperate as you wish. My experience with my own parents notwithstanding, a diary is not the place to hold back or be circumspect. It’s a place to express your honest and unvarnished thoughts.

You may wonder how or where to keep such a diary . Your answer to this question depends on your own tastes and habits. I always prefer using electronic records, mainly because my own handwriting makes me look like an arthritic 93-year-old. (I also like using Evernote or Google docs because both of these systems allow me access to my notes from any computer, wherever I happen to be.) But if you have a Moleskin notebook that you especially love, or if you just prefer the printed page, then go for it!

Just be sure to lay out the diary clearly so you have the space to add more comments later. But while you should commit to writing every day, you don’t need to set an arbitrary length. Some days’ entries will be shorter and others will be longer and that’s perfectly okay. You might also consider producing an end-of-week or end-of-month summary. This will help you stay better organized and will further refine your evaluative skills.

A diary is a place where you record events, experiences and personal reflections that interest you. It should be fun and easy to keep and entirely safe. Use this technique as a way to maintain your writing habit even while you are researching — it will pay you back a thousandfold.

An earlier version of this post first appeared on my blog on Oct. 23/18.

Have you ever kept a research diary?  We can all learn from each other so, please, share your thoughts with my readers and me in the “comments” section below. Anyone who comments on today’s post (or any others) by Aug. 31/21 will be put in a draw for a copy of my first book 8 1/2 Steps to Writing Faster, Better . Please, scroll down to the comments, directly underneath the “related posts” links, below. Note that you don’t have to join the commenting software to post. See here  to learn how to post as a guest.

• Research Essentials / Student Matters / Writing tips

Keeping a Research Diary and Documenting Your Research Process

by Glenn Stevens

Embarking on a research journey is a profound exploration of knowledge, and like any great expedition, it requires meticulous planning and documentation. One invaluable tool that accompanies researchers on this intellectual odyssey is the research diary. In this post, we explain ten benefits of keeping a research diary and the transformative impact it can have on the research process.

1. Organizing Thoughts and Ideas:

• Benefit: A research diary serves as a repository for thoughts, ideas, and reflections that may arise during the research process. It provides a structured space to organize these elements, preventing the loss of valuable insights and ensuring that every idea is given due consideration.

2. Tracking Progress and Milestones:

• Benefit: Documenting the research process allows researchers to track their progress and milestones. From the initial conceptualization of the study to data collection, analysis, and conclusion, a research diary serves as a chronological record of achievements and facilitates a sense of accomplishment.

3. Facilitating Self-Reflection:

• Benefit: Self-reflection is a powerful tool for personal and academic growth. A research diary encourages researchers to reflect on their methods, decisions, and challenges encountered. This introspective process fosters a deeper understanding of one’s own research approach and promotes continuous improvement.

4. Problem-Solving and Decision-Making:

• Benefit: Researchers often encounter challenges and uncertainties throughout their projects. A research diary becomes a space to brainstorm solutions, document decisions, and evaluate the effectiveness of chosen strategies. This proactive approach enhances problem-solving and decision-making skills.

5. Maintaining Consistency:

• Benefit: Consistency is key to robust research. A research diary helps maintain consistency by providing a centralized location for recording protocols, methodologies, and procedural details. This consistency contributes to the reliability and validity of the study.

6. Enhancing Communication with Stakeholders:

• Benefit: For collaborative research or projects involving multiple stakeholders, a research diary becomes a shared record. This fosters transparent communication, allowing team members to stay informed about each other’s progress, challenges, and breakthroughs.

7. Capturing Serendipitous Discoveries:

• Benefit: Research is often filled with serendipitous moments and unexpected discoveries. A diary captures these serendipities, preserving the essence of the research journey and potentially opening up new avenues of exploration.

8. Documenting Methodological Choices:

• Benefit: Every research project involves a series of methodological choices. A research diary is the perfect medium to document the rationale behind these choices, including any adjustments made during the course of the study. This documentation adds depth to the research process and aids in transparency.

9. Improving Replicability:

• Benefit: For studies aiming for replicability, a detailed research diary becomes a valuable resource. Other researchers can follow the documented procedures, increasing the likelihood of replicating the study with accuracy and precision.

10. Creating a Legacy of Learning:

• Benefit: Beyond the immediate research project, a research diary serves as a legacy of learning. Future researchers, including the original author, can revisit the diary to gain insights, learn from experiences, and build upon the foundation laid by the initial study.

In academia, the research diary emerges as a thread that weaves together the intellectual and emotional facets of the research process. It is more than a record; it is a companion, a mentor, and a witness to the transformative journey of knowledge creation. By recognizing the benefits of keeping a research diary, researchers can harness its potential to enhance their work, contribute to scholarly dialogue, and leave an indelible mark on the ever-evolving landscape of human understanding.

Glenn Stevens

Glenn is an academic writing and research specialist with 15 years experience writing, editing, PhD and Masters supervision and journal editing. He is also a qualified English teacher. His prior career was in magazine publishing. He is now editor of this blog. Contact Glenn

Share this:

Tags: research research diary researcher

You may also like...

The Limitations of Survey Research in Investigating Behaviour

 by Glenn Stevens · Published

Proofreading for Academic Writing Excellence

Paraphrasing for Academic Writing

• Next story  Packing for university: The ultimate first-year checklist
• Previous story  Choosing Between Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches

• Academic Writing Service
• Privacy Policy

Useful articles? Why not buy the author a coffee using the link below.

academic research academic writing AI Artificial intelligence ChatGPT data dissertation doctorate Editing ethics generalizability interviews Introduction leadership Literature review management masters MBA methodology methods mixed methods Paraphrasing phd phd thesis plagiarism proofreading proof reading psychology qualitative qualitative research quantitative quantitative research research research design researcher sampling student students supervisor survey technology theory undergraduate university Writing

The Natural History of a Doctoral Research Study: The Role of a Research Diary and Reflexivity

• First Online: 30 November 2017

Cite this chapter

• Sarah Li 3  

656 Accesses

4 Citations

The aim of this chapter is to locate critical moments of reflexivity in my doctoral research, focusing on my longitudinal research diaries. The moments highlighted were practical, theoretical, analytical and personal. I will present the actions I took, the implications arising from these moments, the strategies used, the insight that emerged and the outcomes achieved. I will use the analogy of traffic movement, signs, rules and regulations to depict and describe the challenges, obstacles, turning points, struggles, despair and triumph in this journey. I will provide a table of features that, in my view, constitute the concept of reflexivity and the strategies that I used to practice reflexivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Driving in a dead-end street: critical remarks on Andrew Abbott’s Processual Sociology

Looking in the Mirror

Conclusion: The Limits of Punk Sociology and a Glimpse into Its Future

Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology. New vistas for qualitative research . London: Sage.

Google Scholar  

Arber, A. (2006). Reflexivity: A Challenge for the researcher as practitioner? Journal of Research in Nursing, 11 (2), 147–157.

Article   Google Scholar  

Beck, U., Giddens, A., et al. (1994). Replies and critiques. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization. Politics, traditions and aesthetics in the modern social order (Chap. 4, pp. 174–215). London: Polity Press.

Borg, S. (2001). The research journal: A tool for promoting and understanding researcher development. Learning Teaching Research, 5 (2), 156.

Buscatto, M. (2016). Practising reflexivity in ethnography. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (Chap. 9, pp. 137–151). London: Sage.

Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self . London: Sage.

Book   Google Scholar  

Engin, M. (2011). Research diary: A tool for scaffolding. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10 (3), 296–306.

Engward, H., & Davis, G. (2015). Being reflexive in qualitative grounded theory: Discussion and application of a model of reflexivity. Journal of Advance Nursing, 71 , 1530–1538.

Enosh, G. (2016). Reflexivity: The creation of liminal spaces-researchers, participants, and research encounters. Qualitative Health Research, 26 (4), 578–584.

Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2 (2), 209–230.

Foucault, M. (1963). The birth of the clinic. An archaeology of medical perception . London: Tavistock.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Garfinkel, H. (1992). Doing ‘being ordinary’. In H. Sacks (Ed.), Lectures on conversation (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Essay on face-to-face behaviour . London, Fakenham, and Reading: Penguin Books.

Goffman, E. (1976a). The nature of deference and demeanour. American Anthropologist, 58 , 473–502.

Goffman, E. (1976b). The presentation of self in everyday life . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography. Principles in practice . London and New York: Routledge.

Hertz, R. (1997). Reflexivity and voice . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research . Newbury Park, London, and New Delhi: Sage.

Li, S. (1985). Analysis of nursing environment using critical incidences of dying . Unpublished B.Ed Research Project, University of Sussex, Sussex.

Li, S. (2001). My research diary: First year. Current Research Newsletter . Department of Sociology, Goldsmith’s College, University of London, November (16): 15–18.

Li, S. (2002a). My research diary (Continued). Current Research Newsletter . Department of Sociology, Goldsmith’s College, University of London, June (17): 8–10.

Li, S. (2002b). Symbiotic niceness: A study of psychosocial care in palliative care settings . PhD thesis. Goldsmith’s College, University of London, London: 300.

Li, S. (2003). My research diary (The Grand Finale!). Current Research Newsletter . Department of Sociology, Goldsmith’s College, University of London, March (18): 8–11.

Li, S. (2004). ‘Symbiotic niceness’: Constructing a therapeutic relationship in psychosocial palliative care. Social Sciences & Medicine, 58 (12), 2571–2583.

Li, S. (2005). Doing criticism in symbiotic niceness: A study of palliative care nurses’ talk. Social Sciences & Medicine, 60 (9), 1949–1959.

Li, S. & C. Seale (2007a). Just you, me and the PhD. The Times Higher Education Supplement , p. 21. London.

Li, S., & Seale, C. (2007b). Learning to do qualitative data analysis: An observational study of PhD work. Qualitative Health Research, 17 (10), 1442–1452.

Li, S., & Seale, C. (2007c). Managing criticism in PhD Supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (4), 511–526.

Li, S., & Seale, C. (2008). Acquiring a sociological identity: An observational study of a PhD project. Sociology, 42 (5), 971–986.

Malaurent, J. & D. Avison (2017). Reflexivity: A third essential ‘R’ to enhance interpretive field studies. Information & Management (Available online 20 February 2017).

May, T., & Perry, B. (2010). Social research and reflexivity. Content, consequences and context . London: Sage.

Nadin, S., & Cassell, C. (2006). The use of a research diary as a tool for reflexive practice. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 3 (2), 208–217.

Potter, S. (2006). Academic writing. In S. Potter (Ed.), Doing postgraduate research (Chap. 6, pp. 114–150). London: Sage.

Rapley, T. (2007). Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis . Los Angeles: Sage.

Sacks, H. (1992a). Doing ‘being ordinary’. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 513–529). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1992b). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell.

Saunders, C., & Baines, M. (1983). Living with dying, the management of terminal illness . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Silverman, D. (2010a). Evaluating qualitative research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Doing qualitative research (Chap. 16, pp. 202–308). London: Sage.

Silverman, D. (2010b). Quality in qualitative research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Doing qualitative research (Chap. 15, 3rd ed., pp. 268–289). London: Sage.

Silverman, D. (2010c). The research experience 1. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Doing qualitative research (Chap. 3, 3rd ed., pp. 17–42). London: Sage.

Singnal, N. & R. Jeffrey (2008). Qualitative research skill workshop. A facilitator’s reference manual. London. 2017. Retrieved from http://oer.educ.cam.ac.uk

Sudnow, D. (1967). Passing on . London and New York: Prentice Hall.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

St George’s, University of London, London, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Middlesex University, London, United Kingdom

Helen T. Allan

University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Li, S. (2018). The Natural History of a Doctoral Research Study: The Role of a Research Diary and Reflexivity. In: Allan, H., Arber, A. (eds) Emotions and Reflexivity in Health & Social Care Field Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65503-1_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65503-1_2

Published : 30 November 2017

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-65502-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-65503-1

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Reflexive journals in qualitative research

Daniel Turner

It is common practice for researcher to keep a journal or diary during the research process, regardless of discipline or methodology. These are sometimes called reflexive diaries, self-reflexive journals, research journals or research diaries. They are all basically the same thing – a written (or verbal) record written by the researcher during the research process, detailing what they did and why.

Lincoln and Guba (1982) wrote a classic paper detailing reflexive journals as part of an auditing process for research projects, but with the very specific aim of improving the reliability of research and removing bias. Smith (1999) also describes research journals as an important part of ‘enhancing ethical and methodologic rigour’, but there much more to them than this, regardless of the rather positivistic terminology.

Qualitative research projects are complex to design, manage and analyse, and can take many years to complete. Keeping a personal record of the process, key decisions and feelings offers the researcher the opportunity to learn from the research process (Thorpe 2010) and better remember how things came to pass. When writing up, this log can become as a vital a source of data as a participant interview.

There are lots of papers and textbooks that give examples of what research journals look like (eg Silverman 2013 has several from former students), however few detail what they should contain, or how to keep them.

Lincoln and Guba (1982), offers one of the few good published guidelines for what should actually be in a reflexive journal. They define it as “analogous to the anthropologists field journals and is the major means for an inquirer to perform a running check on the biases, which he (sic) carried with him into the context”. The paper lists 4 major things to record in the diary:

1. A log of evolving perceptions

2. A log of day-to-day procedures

3. A log of methodological decision points

4. A log of day-to-day personal introspections

But as Janesick (1998) notes, another important role is to “refine the understanding of the responses of participants in the study, much like a physician or health care worker might do”. In other words, to also record the researchers own observations about the participants and their lives, when doing interviews, focus groups or ethnography, that will enrich and give context to other more ‘formal’ methods of data collection. She defines a different set of 4 roles for research journals which are more focused towards typical qualitative projects and philosophies:

1. Refine the understanding of the role of the researcher through reflection and writing, much like an artist might do;

2. Refine the understanding of the responses of participants in the study, much like a physician or health care worker might do;

3. Use a journal as an interactive tool of communication between the researcher and participants in the study, as a type of interdisciplinary triangulation of data;

4. View journal writing as a type of connoisseurship by which individuals become connoisseurs of their own thinking and reflection patterns, and indeed their own understanding of their work as qualitative researchers.

Reflexive diaries can also be used by those performing research that contains ethnographic methods, and diaries or journals are very commonly used in ethnography. See for example Barry and O’Callaghan (2009), using diaries to record the experiences of student therapists in a hospital setting. Reflexive journals can also be used in autoethnography, or other qualitative research that focuses on the researcher as the participant or main focus of the study or context.

But it’s important to not confuse these with diaries or journals which are given to participants as data collection of the lives and experiences of respondents. There is much more written in the literature on this topic, see our own post on participant diaries , and Janesick (1998) has written about distinguishing and triangulating these in her article.

So what does a reflective journal look like? Many people prefer to write a physical diary, in a paper journal or notebook (eg Nadin and Cassell 2006), or you can just use any standard word-processor like Word. There are advantages to having it digitally: it does make it easier to search, and easier to back up (by saving it in multiple places). Vicary, Young and Hicks (2016) recommend writing a research diary directly in qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS), in their case using Nvivo 10, but any qualitative software has the same basic capability.

The latest version of Quirkos (2.3) contains a new feature which can help with a reflexive journal. For the live collaboration in Quirkos cloud, we added a chat feature so that people can communicate, either in real time, or when working sequentially on their project. But we also added this feature to the offline version as well, not just to keep feature parity, but to give a space to write project wide notes. While you can attach memos to sections of text, and use a source property to have notes attached to a section of text, there wasn’t an designated to write generally in the project file.

Previously we’ve suggested that people created a blank source and write in there, which gives the advantage that you can treat it like any other data source – coding it and including (or excluding) it from search and query results. However, the chat function works as a great journaling system Even though you are just ‘talking’ to yourself, each entry has a date and time stamp, and you can scroll up and down the list and remove specific entries if needs be. It’s also right there, in the same window you are using to analyse, which makes it very easy to keep quick comments as you work.

If you want to see how intuitive and simple Quirkos makes qualitative analysis, you can try either it with Cloud storage or offline storage for free, for Windows, Mac or Linux . You can also get a good idea of what it’s like to work with Quirkos by watching a short tutorial video right here:

Barry, P., O’Callaghan, 2009, Reflexive Journal Writing: A Tool for Music Therapy Student Clinical Practice Development, Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 17(1) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08098130809478196

Janesick, V., 1998, Journal Writing as a Qualitative Research Technique: History, Issues, and Reflections, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED420702.pdf

Lincoln, Y., Guba, E., 1982, ESTABLISHING DEPENDABILITY AND CONFIRMABILITY IN NATURALISTIC INQUIRY THROUGH AN AUDIT, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED216019.pdf

Nadin, S., 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 3:208-217, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227430125_The_use_of_a_research_diary_as_a_tool_for_reflexive_practice_Some_reflections_from_management_research

Silverman, D., 2013, Doing Qualitative Research, Sage, London

Smith, B., 1999, Ethical and methodologic benefits of using a reflexive journal in hermeneutic-phenomenologic research., Image Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 1999;31(4):359-63.

Thorpe, K. (2010) Reflective learning journals: From concept to practice Reflective Practice; International and multidisciplinary perspectives Vo 5 Issue 3 pp 327-343

Vicary, Young and Hicks, 2016, A reflective journal as learning process and contribution to quality and validity in Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, Qualitative Social Work, 16(4), 550–565. https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/27234596/POST-PEER-REVIEW-NON-PUBLISHERS.PDF

Sign up for more like this.

• Richard G. Trefry Library

Q. Why (and how) should I keep a research journal?

• Course-Specific
• Textbooks & Course Materials
• Tutoring & Classroom Help
• Writing & Citing
• 44 Articles & Journals
• 5 Artificial Intelligence
• 11 Capstone/Thesis/Dissertation Research
• 37 Databases
• 56 Information Literacy
• 9 Interlibrary Loan
• 9 Need help getting started?
• 22 Technical Help

Answered By: Priscilla Coulter Last Updated: Jul 27, 2022     Views: 28651

Keeping a research journal (or research diary) is simple, and it can do big things for you:

1.  It will save you time.   You'll know where you searched, which keywords worked best, what you found and how you plan to use each source in your paper or presentation.  Have you ever lost that perfect article , then couldn't find it again?  A research journal will help you get back to it.

2.  It will strengthen your writing.   As you search, you'll come across articles and books that give you new perspectives and ideas on your topic.   Recording these ideas in your journal as you find them will help you make sure they're not forgotten when it's time to start writing.

3.  It will help you avoid plagiarism.  It's hard to properly quote or paraphrase a source if you've lost it, or you don't remember which part of it you used.  In a research journal, you'll make a note with each source that you plan to use.  That note will include a citation and a note about what parts you planned to use in your paper.  All that's left is formatting your citations!  

To start your journal, you just need a place to record some key details about each search that you perform.  You could:

• Keep a Word document on your computer's desktop or in Office365 , and keep it open to make an entry each time you sit down for a research session (save your work often!).  A simple journal template is attached below as an example (feel free to download it for your own use).    
• Use a free online tool, like a journaling app or a blog .  
• Keep a dedicated paper notebook on your desk, and jot down the crucial details of your searches the old-fashioned way.   

Make sure each entry in your journal includes:

• Where you searched.  Which library database did you use?   Did you try an internet search engine like Google?  Knowing where you searched will help you remember where you found a book or article (in case you need to track it back down later).  
• What keywords did you use, and how well did they work?   Effective keywords can make all the difference...by tracking them, you can pinpoint the good ones (and stop wasting time with the rest).  
• What sources did you find?  Make sure you have at least a citation for each source that you think you want to use in your paper.  That will be one less thing to do when it's time to write!  Saving each source's full text as you go is a good idea, too.  
• How do you plan to use each source?  Make a note to remind yourself of any new ideas that arose as you read it, or sections you want to quote or paraphrase.  

See also:   What's the best way to read a scholarly article?

Links & Files

• Example Research Journal Template
• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 47 No 6

Related Topics

• Information Literacy

Need personalized help? Librarians are available 365 days/nights per year! See our schedule.

Learn more about how librarians can help you succeed.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, the use of a research diary as a tool for reflexive practice: some reflections from management research.

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management

ISSN : 1176-6093

Article publication date: 1 September 2006

To provide a practical example of how a research diary can be used to aid reflexivity in the research process. Whilst there have been increasing calls for reflexivity in management research, little has been written about how to “do” reflexivity in practice.

Design/methodology/approach

Qualitative data from the first author's research diary which relate to three distinctive experiences are used as analytical examples.

The research diary was a valuable tool, prompting insights which informed a variety of methodological and theoretical decisions in relation to the research.

Practical implications

Suggests that all researchers should systematically use a research diary, regardless of epistemological position. However, what is needed first and foremost is a commitment to the pursuit of reflexivity and awareness on ones' own epistemological assumptions.

Originality/value

The paper gives a practical example of how to practice reflexivity, something which is lacking in the current literature. It is intended to be of use to those management researchers interested in pursuing reflexive research.

• Research methods
• Qualitative research

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, pp. 208-217. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766090610705407

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2006, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Uses of a research diary: learning reflectively, developing understanding and establishing transparency

Affiliation.

• 1 Wrexham Maelor Hospital, North East Wales NHS Trust, Wrexham, UK.
• PMID: 19911656
• DOI: 10.7748/nr2009.10.17.1.68.c7342

The author of this paper started a research diary to provide transparency to her study and to help her clarify thoughts and feelings--as well as to acknowledge factors that may have influenced her analysis. She found it helped in her development as a novice phenomenological nurse researcher through creative and critical thinking. She recommends all novice researchers keep a diary.

• Documentation*
• Nursing Research*

Finance Contrôle Stratégie

Accueil Numéros 21-3 The sibylline research diary

The sibylline research diary

Texte intégral.

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

1 The 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.

2 The 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.

3 Research 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 (...)

4 We 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 diary 2 , 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.

5 As 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.

6 This 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 (...)

7 This 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 artifact 3 for collecting data in the context of such research.

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

8 So-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)

9 Immersion 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.

10 Indeed, 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

11 Non-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)).

12 These 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).

13 It 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

14 To 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.

15 The 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).

16 The 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.

17 To 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).

18 Finally, 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.

19 Keeping 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.

20 The 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

21 The 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

22 Sensemaking 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).

23 One 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).

24 The 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

25 The 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).

26 Thus, 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

27 In 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

28 Envisaging 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

29 The 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.

30 The 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.

31 The 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).

32 This 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).

33 1- 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.

34 2- 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.

35 3- 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.

36 The 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).

37 Consequently, 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.

38 The 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

39 Our 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).

40 Expectations 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.

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)

41 Having 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

42 In 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.

43 Lastly, 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

44 The 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

45 We 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

46 In 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.

47 First 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).

48 This 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.

49 We 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

50 The 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.

51 In 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.

52 However, 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

53 Faced 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

54 On 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).

55 Every 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.

56 To 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

57 In 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.

58 With 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.

59 On 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.

60 Finally, 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).

61 The 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.

62 This 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.

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,

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, B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f M a n a g e m e n t ,

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 (4 th 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,

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.

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).

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 08 novembre 2024 . URL  : http://journals.openedition.org/fcs/3519 ; DOI  : https://doi.org/10.4000/fcs.3519

Alexis Laszczuk

HEC Montréal

Articles du même auteur

• Le journal de bord sibyllique [Texte intégral] Paru dans Finance Contrôle Stratégie , 21-3 | 2018

Lionel Garreau

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

• La quantification des données qualitatives : intérêts et difficultés en sciences de gestion [Texte intégral] Paru dans Finance Contrôle Stratégie , NS-6 | 2019

Droits d’auteur

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

Numéros en texte intégral

• 2024 27-1  | NS-14  | NS-15  | 27-2
• 2023 26-1  | 26-2  | 26-3  | 26-4
• 2022 25-1  | NS-12  | 25-2  | 25-3/4  | NS-13
• 2021 24-1  | NS-11  | 24-2  | 24-3  | 24-4
• 2020 NS-7  | 23-1  | NS-8  | NS-9  | 23-2  | NS-10  | 23-3  | 23-4
• 2019 NS-5  | 22-1  | NS-6  | 22-2/3  | 22-4
• 2018 21-1  | NS-1  | 21-2  | NS-2  | NS-3  | NS-4  | 21-3
• 2017 20-1  | 20-2  | 20-3  | 20-4
• 2016 19-1  | 19-2  | 19-3  | 19-4
• 2015 18-1  | 18-2  | 18-3  | 18-4
• 2014 17-1  | 17-2  | 17-3  | 17-4
• 2013 16-1  | 16-2  | 16-3  | 16-4
• 2012 15-1/2  | 15-3  | 15-4

Tous les numéros

Appels à contribution.

• Appels en cours
• Appels clos
• Présentation
• Recommandations aux auteurs
• Charte éthique
• Articles à paraître

Informations

• Politiques de publication

Suivez-nous

Lettres d’information

• La Lettre d’OpenEdition

Affiliations/partenaires

ISSN électronique 2261-5512

Voir la notice dans le catalogue OpenEdition  

Plan du site  – Contact  – Crédits  – Flux de syndication

Politique de confidentialité  – Gestion des cookies  – Signaler un problème

Nous adhérons à OpenEdition Journals  – Édité avec Lodel  – Accès réservé

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search