Search

This special issue includes 5 contributions of contemporary work based in the phenomenography and variation theory research tradition and also actualises theoretical and methodological discussions. This introduction consists of 3 main parts. First is a brief introduction to and framing for the contributions through pointing to some of the main points made and putting them in perspective in the tradition. Second, the use and meanings of 4 key terms in the tradition—phenomenon, object of learning, dimension of variation, and critical aspect—are analysed across the contributions. Third, and finally, possible emergent strands of future research based in phenomenography and variation theory are discussed, and how the contributions relate to and are reflective of such emergent strands. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to enrich the theoretical understanding of the phenomenon of sensemaking where a conceptual shift was provoked by a serendipitous encounter. Design/methodology/approach – A theoretical framework consisting of three elements of reflexivity: the cognitive, the social, and the normative, all of which support the study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in the investigation of a serendipitous Episode that occurred in a larger research project. This Episode took place at a meeting between a social welfare officer and a psychologist in which they discussed the treatment of a psychiatric patient. When the psychologist left the meeting for a brief period, the researchers, unexpectedly, were able to interview the social welfare officer alone. Findings – This interview revealed a deviation from the institutionalized patient treatment procedure that was explained to the researchers in earlier interviews. The study shows that shifts in sensemaking are possible when researchers are open to serendipitous encounters. This shift in sensemaking in this Episode was strategic because it concerned the three most important aspects of the actor’s decision making: how to make diagnosis, treatments, and cooperate around the patient. Research limitations/implications – It is recommended that researchers use the theoretical framework of reflexivity to test their sensemaking processes as well as remain open to changes in planned, traditional methodological approaches. Originality/value – The study applies a post-hoc analysis with reflections on serendipitous events that may guide researchers when they encounter unanticipated events and make anomalous discoveries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates undergraduate students' application of theory in their analysis of problems presented in authentic leadership cases. Taking a phenomenographic research approach, the paper identifies two levels at which students understand ‘theory’: Level 1-Theory as knowledge acquired from books; Level 2-Theory as support for problem solutions. Only the students at Level 2 understanding achieved the highest learning outcome described by the Bologna Reforms. This result may be accounted for by the difference in the students' pre-conceived understanding of the events and relationships in the analysed cases. The phenomenographic assumption explains why the authentic cases are problematic. The high relevancy of the learning object – as an authentic case – may reduce the effect of variation, in this case the educational environment that is the mechanism for learning according to variation theory. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This study aimed to explore the communication in consultations between patients and health care staff from a gender perspective. We used 23 tape-recorded consultations between patients with Atrial Fibrillation and 5 nurses and 5 physicians at cardiac outpatient clinics at 6 different hospitals in southern Sweden during autumn 2009 to explore the verbal gendered constructions of patients. Through critical discourse analysis, we revealed that the male patients tended to describe their ailments with performance-oriented statements, whereas the female patients usually used emotional-oriented statements. The staff downplayed the male patients' questions and statements, while they acknowledged concern toward the female patients. Both the patients and the staff made conclusions according to a mutual construction. Male patients were constructed as competent, and female patients as fragile through gender-stereotypical communication. Open-ended statements and questions enabled consultations to be less limited by gender stereotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]