A participative approach in dealing with problems of the psychosocial work environment poses theoretical and methodological questions that are examined from a general epistemological perspective, with particular focus being placed on tensions between various forms of knowledge. This article demonstrates that emphasis on contextual aspects of knowledge is important, both from a theoretical and a practical standpoint. A diary-in-group method aimed at handling problems of contextuality is presented. An account of its use within a study of the psychosocial work environment of theater actors is provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bernstein, R. J.
1983. Beyond objectivism and relativism. Oxford: Blackwell.
2.
Campbell, D. T.
, and J. T. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. In Handbook of research on teaching, ed. N. L. Gage, 171-245. New York: Rand McNally.
3.
Cook, T.D.
, and D. T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
4.
Cronbach, L. J.
1971. Test validation. In Educational measurement, ed. R. L. Thorndike, 442-507. Washington, DC: American Council of Education.
5.
Cronbach, L.J.
, and P.E. Meehl. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin52:281-302.
6.
Gadamer, H.-G.
1960. Warheit und methode. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.
7.
Geertz, C.
1973. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays by Clifford Geertz. New York: Basic Books.
8.
Gustavsen, B.1988. Democratizing occupational health: The Scandinavian experience of work reform. International Journal of Health Services18(4): 675-689.
9.
Habermas, J.
1971. Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon.
10.
Huberman, A. M.
, and B. M. Miles. 1983. Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Some techniques of data reduction and display. Quality and Quantity17:281-339.
11.
Johnson, J. V.
, and G. Johansson. 1990. The psychosocial work environment: Work organization, democratization and health. New York: Baywood.
12.
Kvale, S.1987. Validity in the qualitative research interview. Methods1 (2): 37-72.
13.
Lincoln, Y.S.
, and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
Lindén, J.
, and E. Torkelson. 1991. Yrke: Skådespelare. Kritiska moment i arbetslivet. Monograph no. 1, Work Science Division, Department of Psychology, Lund University.
15.
Lindström, K.-G.
, L. I. Persson, W. Ruth, and Å. Svenstam. 1989. A study of the theater's working environment and its future development. Report no. 89: 172, Division of Educational Planning and Development, Lund University.
16.
Mendelson, J.1979. The Habermas-Gadamer debate. New German Critique18:43-73.
17.
Messick, S.
1989. Validity. In Educational measurement, 3rd ed., ed. R. L. Linn, 13-103. New York: Macmillan.
18.
Mishler, E. G.1990. Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review60:415-442.
19.
Polkinghorne, D.
1983. Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press.
20.
Polkinghorne, D.1986. Conceptual validity in a nontheoretical human science. Journal of Phenomenology and Psychology17:129-149.
21.
Polkinghorne, D.1991. Two conflicting calls for methodological reform. The Counseling Psychologist19:103-114.
22.
Ricoeur, P.
1979. The model of the text: Meaningful action considered as a text. In Interpretive social science: A reader, ed. P. Rabinow and W.M. Sullivan, 73-101. Berkeley: University of California Press.
