I came to realise that action research’s limitations, as previously described, would not enable me to uncover our subjective relationships with emotion; we would be pre- occupied with the action research process itself and there would be a resulting danger of a ending-up with a manufactured set of findings (those felt to satisfy the
management). At the start of the action research workshops in 2006 I ensured that the focus would be on the work task of producing the Service Plan and my job role. This in turn would enable me to make a secondary analysis of reflection on emotion. This is key to the heart of my contribution to knowledge – emotional research must be immersed in and felt emotionally in a given context in order to find benefits for the organisation, the self and wider society. Whilst all research is impacted upon by emotions, I argue that a reflexive action and reflection, the written self focused on emotion, can bring a new grasp and ideas for practice and study. For organisations to thrive today they need reflective practitioning leaders and leadership with insight and sympathy for colleagues’ emotional states and understanding of how better emotional connections between themselves and work can help bring results and develop
individuals (based more and more on their different views of the world).
Moving on from my original position described in section 3.2.1 I can now stress my interpretation of the difference between action research and research action. I argue that research action differs from action research in the way it focuses on planned work in an organisational context, and uses the research process as part of that ongoing development. Action research is related but in my experience takes a problem into a group to explore and gain a collective understanding in order to inform a possible solution. I selected research action as I needed to engage over a long time period in order to unearth evidence of emotion and change in myself and others in work. Taking a longer view enabled my researcher identity to become embedded into the reflective practitioning mode of inquiry and so minimised my research identity’s obstruction of progress. I will describe how research action enabled me to look at emotion within the heart of control and power in my organisation.
Before establishing the Part 2 stage I experienced a turning point in my research supervision on my findings and personal reflection; this marked the transition into Part 2, in which I developed a personal reflective process that I termed “Reflective
emotion and the way power unveils itself through emotion in relationship with my inner-self. My subjectivity was empowered to breathe out ideas and work with others in an innovation process within the power dynamic of my organisation. This is not a unique experience but the way the reflexive experience related to emotion produced an energy and power that began to reveal exciting work in Part 2.
In moving away from the collectivization of emotional commodification that is mediated through emotional intelligence research and schema, I have not sought to simply critique but set out a wider discourse view of the human emotional landscape that organisational researchers must grasp. Organisations must get involved with emotions if they are to tap the energy and ideas of their community of people; yet they must also stand back and grow an environment where people can be free to think, feel and act within and outside their functional roles and in relation to colleagues. This demands trust and longer-term investments of time and care in order to see reflection pay back in work and workplace benefits. I cannot generalize or commodify the impact of the techniques but give deep insight into my account of innovations in my daily work that emerge through my reflective practitioning.
In Figure 5.2 I depict my “reversed panopticon” model (based on Foucault, 1977). This is a heliocentric perspective that places the individual and not the organisation’s controlling power regime at the centre of the field of play. My original concept was supportive of finding the positions of our selves in relationship with emotion within the landscape of organisational work. This was backed-up by Nirenberg (2011) writing in
Interconnections, who explored a similar “solar” or “helio” theme in his “solacracy” –
an organisational structure to help bring creativity through each individual
collaborating without “fear-based, stress- and anxiety-producing hyper-control, policy uniformity, privileged reward systems, the separation of responsibility from authority, or layers of distant supervisory oversight” (p.31).
However, this may work theoretically but individual researchers, practitioners and workers must connect and share their experiences and practice in order for emotion-fed creativity to flourish. For that, my further contribution is to connect the inner- and outer-selves in a personal feedback loop that honours the fact that emotions are owned by the individual and subjective; this is provided in my conclusion on reflective practice. My “reverse panopticon” needs to depict the depth dimension of our
interiorities with the outer landscape. For this an artist’s representation brings a double helix spiral of the up-and-down flowing learning of the inner-self in relationship with
the outer-self – all the while experiencing emotion in action and reflection, moving and growing as the power of this sensing of our subjectivity is given light, definition and life.
As I write my thesis at this point and reflect on exactly how I am thinking, feeling and shaping the text, it has dawned on me that I have moved myself away to write in the remotest corner of my family home. This is not our study, with the best computer and office conditions, but a small spare bedroom with a laptop computer. I now see this is my method of incubation – an effort to deeply, deeply reflect in my own space just like the ancient Socratic tradition of seclusion and waiting for messages from their gods. At the beginning of this chapter I told of my turning point in an important discussion with my supervisor. I can now reflect that it was no accident that I was changing job roles and seeking space to put my reflective practice into action. As I moved away from the Group’s work I was eager to seize an “innovation” role and fly with my ideas and emotion, powered by my inner-self and the freedom of space within my interiority. This could take me beyond the limits of organisational power to the imaginal
construction of me.