Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 785

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

In Defense of Being “Native”: The Case for Insider Academic Research

Brannick, Teresa, Coghlan, David·2007·Organizational Research Methods
DOI 10.1177/1094428106289253
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Within organizational research, the subject of insider academic research has received relatively little consideration. By insider research, we mean research by complete members of organizational systems in and on their own organizations. Insider research can be undertaken within any of the three major research paradigms—positivism, hermeneutics, and action research—selected and presented in this article. First, we revisit some of the established research paradigms to see what position they might have on insider research. Second, we explore the dynamics of insider research under the headings of access, preunderstanding, role duality, and managing organizational politics. Our conclusion is that within each of the main streams of research, there is no inherent reason why being native is an issue and that the value of insider research is worth reaffirming.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094428106289253

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. 10.4135/9781412984973 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.4135/9781412983679 · DOI
  3. 10.1023/A:1024716513774 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.3102/0013189X028005012 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Anderson, G. L., 1994, Studying your own school
  6. Argyris, C., 1985, Action science
  7. Barnard, C., 1938, The functions of the executive
  8. Bartunek, J. M., 2000, Handbook of organizational consultation, 59
  9. Bartunek, J. M., 1996, Insider/outsider team research
  10. Burns, T., 1961, The management of innovation
  11. Buroway, M., 1979, Manufacturing consent
  12. 10.1177/001872674800100408 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1177/1350507601321004 · DOI
  14. Coghlan, D., 2005, Doing action research in your own organization
  15. Dalton, M., 1959, Men who manage
  16. 10.1287/orsc.7.2.191 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.2307/1251403 · DOI
  18. 10.2307/257374 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1177/1094428102051005 · DOI
  20. Gadiesh, O., 1998, Harvard Business Review, 139
  21. Goffman, E., 1961, Asylums
  22. 10.1075/dowi.8 · DOI
  23. Greenwood, D., 1998, Introduction to action research
  24. Guba, E. G., 1994, Handbook of qualitative research, 105
  25. Gummesson, E., 2000, Qualitative methods in management research
  26. 10.7208/chicago/9780226229362.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1177/107780049700300302 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.2307/3151482 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Holian, R., 1999, Action Research International
  30. Homa, P. (1998). Re-engineering the Leicester Royal Infirmary healthcare process. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Henley Management College/Brunel University, UK.
  31. Jacques, E., 1952, The changing culture of a factory
  32. Jeffcut, P., 1996, Understanding management, 174
  33. 10.4135/9780857020185 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1111/1467-6486.00380 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Jones, M. O., 1988, Inside organizations
  36. Kraut, A., 1996, Organizational surveys: Tools for assessment and change
  37. Krim, R., 1988, Human inquiry in action, 144
  38. Kunda, G., 1993, Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high tech corporation
  39. Lawrence, P., 1967, Organization and environment
  40. McDonagh, J., 2001, Handbook of action research, 372
  41. 10.1086/225294 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.2307/41165202 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Morse, J. M., 1998, Strategies of qualitative inquiry, 56
  44. Nielsen, J. C. R., 1993, From nearness to distance—And back: On analysing your own organization
  45. Perry, C., 1999, Irish Marketing Review, 12, 16
  46. 10.2307/1251404 · DOI
  47. 10.1177/105649269323002 · DOI
  48. Reason, P., 2001, Handbook of action research
  49. 10.1075/cat.6.1.02rea · DOI · Paper page
  50. Reed, M., 1996, Handbook of organization studies, 31
  51. Reichardt, C., 1979, Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research, 7
  52. 10.1177/089124167700500405 · DOI
  53. Roethlisberger, F., 1939, Management and the worker
  54. 10.17730/humo.18.4.07j88hr1p4074605 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.5465/3069460 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Schein, E. H., 1996, Strategic pragmatism
  57. Schon, D., 1983, The reflective practitioner
  58. 10.4135/9781848608191 · DOI · Paper page
  59. 10.1177/105960118701200204 · DOI
  60. Stablein, R., 1996, Handbook of organization studies, 509
  61. 10.17730/humo.40.2.bm0222k70018666q · DOI
  62. 10.2307/2392581 · DOI · Paper page
  63. 10.1075/dowi.2 · DOI
  64. Whyte, W. F., 1984, Learning from the field
  65. 10.4135/9781412985383 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Young, M., 1991, An inside job
  67. Zuber-Skerritt, O. & Perry, C. (2002). Action research within organizations and university thesis writing. The Learning Organization, 9, 171-179. · DOI
  68. Zuboff, S., 1988, In the age of the smart machine

Cited by

See all 785

Metadata

Authors
Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D.
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2007-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
59-74
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
DOI
10.1177/1094428106289253
OpenAlex
W2041170859
Cited by
785
References
1
FWCI
36.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: In Defense of Being “Native”: The Case for Insider Academic Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094428106289253
The paper
Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D. (2007). In Defense of Being “Native”: The Case for Insider Academic Research. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106289253

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.