Professor Mats Alvesson

!""##$%&
‘Reflexive Methodology’
' ' ( (
)
(' ' (
* + #%%%&,

-
3

' . ' ( ( 4'

/ 5
' ( * ) &
( 0 1 '
2
'

!, ) '

#, ' )
' )
6 :, ' ' 0 )
/ ) 7
$, ' ' ' '
' ' 7 ' ) ' '

. 7 ' ;, )
8 &
<, )
' '
=, ' ' )
'
>, ' ' ' 0 )
'

1
 M Alvesson & D Kärreman: ’Constructing mystery. Academy of
Management Review Oct 2007

The ’fiction’ of facts

- data is constructed
Enter: the researcher (research community)
- observations theory laden
- social reality change - subjectivity (& discursivity) inescapable
- - better understood as a resource than bias
“Theories gain favor because of their conceptual appeal,
their logical structure, or their psychological
- transparency
plausibility. Internal coherence, parsimony, formal
elegance, and so on prevail over empirical accuracy in
determining a theory’s impact” (Astley, 1985:503).

Unsettling questions:

Can I construct/make sense of this material in

Constructing and resolving research problems: another way than suggested by the preferred
perspective/vocabulary?
- reflexivity (self-)critique Can I let myself be surprised by this material?
- sensitive constructions
Can it productively and fairly be constructed
interpretive repertoires in a way that kicks back at my framework and
how we – in my research community –
typically see and interpret things?

A methodology of sorts for theorizing from empirical

material
Creating and resolving breakdowns and
• Familiarization with the setting mystery
• Explore/construct breakdown
• Move from breakdown to mystery - Openness
• Systematize mystery - emergent design
• Resolve mystery - defamiliarization
• Generalize solution - actively expanding interpretive repertoire

2

Implications for research design
- breakdown-focused
- breakdown-sensitive
- breakdown-considering
Conclusion
Empirical material facilitate theorization
through:
- providing breakdowns
- challenging interpretive repertoires
- stimulating imagination
- providing discipline
- establishing dialogue