The work-reflection-learning cycle - Department of Computer and ...

Evaluation
According to the principle of dialogical reasoning it is important to make transparent (to
the reader and to oneself as researcher) “the historical intellectual basis of the research
(i.e. its fundamental philosophical assumptions)” – in other words, explain “the lenses
through which field data are construed, documented and organized” (Klein and Myers
1999, p.76). The research papers of the thesis always include a section outlining
theoretical background framing the empirical studies. Also, while the introduction of
relevant theory has happened at different stages of research for the different papers (see
Table 4), they are all grounded in an underlying constructionist view, which is made
explicit in some of the papers.
The principle of multiple interpretations and the principle of suspicion are important in
interpretive research, in which the identification of interesting phenomena may lead the
researcher to look for confirmatory data and findings while being less observant to
contradictory ones. As a case in point I will describe an experience related to the study
of Team F from which I gained important insights about the case and the research
process, in particular the importance of follow-up interviews. This could only be very
briefly addressed in P8. Figure 16 shows two diagrams originating in my analysis of the
data from the retrospective reflection workshop of Team F (see P7 and P8). They depict
my interpretation of how the team changed the story of their project during their
reflection workshop; the left diagram outlining the „before‟ version and the right
diagram showing the „after‟-.
Figure 16: Diagrams showing the researchers' interpretation of how Team F
changed their story of their project in their reflection workshop.
The diagrams were shown to the team members in individual follow-up interviews
about three months after the workshop (after the summer holiday). The students thought
the diagrams and my accompanying explanation fit with their conception of what
happened during the workshop. These viewpoints could be seen as strengthening my
interpretation, even taking into account the effect of the model power (Bråten 1981;
Buhl and Richter 2004) exerted by me as a researcher presenting finished diagrams.
However, the informal interviews with the students also brought about some new
71