– Much of what the author want to say in this paper had to do with “control” “exactness,” “precision” and their declination in both: shadowing and Consensus Building Approach. The purpose of this paper is to discuss these issues.
– This paper upholds two things: first, that shadowing is a field technique particularly attuned to action research as defined by Chris Argyris: “I would summarize [action-research and action-science] by saying that Kurt Lewin did three things: he was committed to understanding reality as the participants understood it, he used a combination of so-called ‘normal’ science with a narrative-integrative approach, and he tested his ideas by trying to change the things that he was studying.”
– Second, that the results of such a research are best understood by the organization's management when the interpretation and decision process follow an approach based on active listening and an inclusive participatory methodology such as Consensus Building.
– When this does not happen, the shadowing methodology allows a very rich research experience with no real impact on the organization's life.
