Vol. 5, No. 1, 2018, pp. 20–28 ISSN 1903-7031 Resonant Experience in Emergent Events of Analysis Line Revsbæk Aalborg University, Department of Political Science, Fibigerstræde 3, 9220 Aalborg Øst: Denmark (revsbaek@learning.aau.dk) • Theory, and the traditions of thought available and known to us, give shape to what we are able to notice of our field of inquiry,and so also of our practice of research. Building on G. H. Mead’s Philosophy of the Present (1932), this paper draws attention to ‘emergent events’ of analysis when working abductively with interview data in a process of re-experiencing interview material through listening to audio recordings of qualitative research interviews. The paper presents an emergent event of analysis in which the theoretical argument of (the researcher’s) Self as a process of becoming in responsive relating to (case study) others is made generative as a dynamic in and of case study analysis. Using a case of being a newcomer (to research communities) researching newcomer innovation (of others), ‘resonant experience’ is illustrated as a heuristic in interview analysis to simultaneously decon- struct/reconstruct dichotomous concept categories known to organize the research literature in a field. Keywords: analysis, interview analysis, process ontology, resonant experience, emergent event, G. H. Mead. • It is true of all our experience that it is the response that interprets to us what comes to us in the stimulus. (Mead, 1934: 114) Process Ontology in Research Methodology An ‘ontological realm of inquiry’ (Shotter, 2015) has recently been heralded by the introduction of process philosophy to organization studies (see for example Helin et al., 2014; Langley & Tsoukas, 2017) and by ‘thinking with theory’ in qualitative inquiry (Jackson & Mazzei, 2017; see also Jackson & Mazzei, 2013; St. Pierre, 2011). The turn to ontology in methodology that a pro- cess disposition suggests is often referred to by the idiom of inquiring from within. Thus, in ‘strong’ process-ontological views on method- ology, the researcher’s position towards the re- searched is understood in terms of ‘a partici- pant from within’ the flow of experience, rather than of ‘an outside observer’ of it (Fachin & Langley, 2017). Elaborating on this paradigm shift concerning assumed researcher position- ality, organization scholar John Shotter, a sig- nificant figure in exploring the implications of process ontology for the understanding of methodology in process organization studies, states: ‘all our usual representational methods – that place us over against the reality we are trying to understand – are all excluded by our primary assumption of being ourselves partici- pant parts of a larger indivisible’ process (Shot- ter, 2010: 75). Shotter argues that adopting a process orientation in our practice of research confronts us ‘with the task of evolving new ways of relating ourselves (bodily, i.e., sensi- tively and emotionally) to the others and oth- ernesses around us’ (Shotter, 2010: 74), and, consequently, such different relating will af- fect the ‘what’ of ourselves, and that of others, made noticeable in a research encounter. In op- position to the ‘about-ness’ knowledge (Shot- ter, 2006) characteristic of Cartesian knowledge claims on things ‘already there’ independent of a researcher subject, and of research practices identifying them, the aspiration among process scholars to develop understanding from within evolving phenomena is sometimes referred to by a signifier of ‘with-ness thinking’ (ibid.). The Becoming of Self As A Dynamic in Analysis Arguments characteristic of the emergent paradigm of post-qualitative research have, 20 mailto:revsbaek@learning.aau.dk L. Revsbæk: Resonant Experience in Emergent Events of Analysis Qualitative Studies 5(1), pp. 20–28 ©2018 21 from similar process-relational ontology, trou- bled assumptions about the ‘always-already subject’ researcher dealing with ‘always- already object’-ified and fixed data which are inherent in conventional qualitative methodol- ogy (Jackson & Mazzei, 2013; St. Pierre, 2011). Working from postmodern and poststructural- ist challenges to humanist assumptions about the researcher subject ‘over against’ a reality to be explored, post-qualitative researchers em- phasize that ‘data’ to the process of analysis is not only that which is textualized and fixed prior to analysis, but also aspects of experience transgressive to different modalities (St. Pierre, 1997), different participants, and voices of in- formants and theorists, and as such collected and re-collected during the process of analysis rather than exclusively prior to it (St. Pierre, 2011). The debate among post-qualitative re- searchers drawing on Derrida and on Deleuze and Guattari has drawn attention to the circum- stance of working with and as ‘unstable sub- jects’ in research: ‘If the “I” of the participant is always becoming in the process of telling, so too the “I” of the researcher is always be- coming in the process of researching, listening, and writing’ (Jackson & Mazzei, 2013: 266). Il- lustrating the performative stance of such pro- cess ontology in methodology, Bronwyn Davies suggests engaging in qualitative inquiry ‘to access that which is becoming true, ontolog- ically and epistemologically, in the moment of the [research] encounter’ (Davies, 2016: 75). Drawing on Barad, Davies proposes focusing ‘on the ongoing intra-active processes through which selves come into being and go on coming into being in complex emergent relationality’ (Davies, 2016: 75). Similarly, Shotter (2010) points out that we as investigators ‘ourselves can be radically changed in such encounters’ (ibid.: 15). A different kind of ‘embodied sens- ings or feelings’ (ibid.: 4) and ‘spontaneously responsive understanding’ (ibid: 13), Shotter suggests, becomes available and noticeable to us when we relate in ‘an inner fashion to the be- coming of things (rather than observing them from the outside)’ (ibid.: 15). This paper explores the contribution of Mead’s notion of ‘the emergent event’ for un- derstanding researcher and participant becom- ing in the process of analysing. The paper presents an emergent event of interview anal- ysis in which the theoretical argument of (the researcher’s) Self as a process of becoming in the responsive relating to (case study) others is made generative in the interview analysis, thus serving as a dynamic in and of analysis. Resonant experience is presented as the shap- ing of lived experience which takes place as a case study participant’s expressed experience is perceived to challenge established concept cat- egories, thus evoking a reorganization of re- searcher’s own experience to the resonance it holds to that expressed by the case study other. Drawing on Mead’s concept of the emergent event (Mead, 1932), the paper accounts in detail for the ‘when’ of resonant experience in inter- view analysis. Taking The Attitude of Process Theory Elaborating on the role of theory, and of pro- cess philosophy to stances in methodology, Spi- vak’s account (2014) of the reading of theory may offer perspective. Spivak explains her own and her students’ practice as one of reading the theory ‘as if we were writing it’ (Spivak, 2014: 77). By entering ‘the protocol of the other per- son’s theory, [and] its private grammar, so that the theory transforms you’ (Spivak, 2014: 77), one ‘internalizes’ the theory to the point of it becoming ‘part of our mental furniture’ (ibid.). From Spivak, we understand theory to come in ‘as a reflex’ (ibid.), that is, as part of our re- searcher sensitivity evoked in research encoun- ters, giving shape to what we are able to notice both of our field of inquiry, and of our practices of research. »Taking the attitude« (Mead, 1934) of a pro- cess philosophy/philosopher as that of our own towards the doings and dealings of our research is one such way of relating differently to ma- terials and participants in our practice of re- search, as advocated by Shotter. By emphasiz- ing the ‘I-me’ dialectic in G.H. Mead’s theory of becoming a Self in a collective (Mead, 1934), we understand such relating (differently) as taking place, responsively, in spontaneous enactments of a research practice, as the researcher in a spe- cific situation responds to everything at hand in her doing. All the methodological theory that we as researchers are familiar with, and are able to witness enacted in practised research 22 L. Revsbæk: Resonant Experience in Emergent Events of Analysis Qualitative Studies 5(1), pp. 20–28 ©2018 methodologies, becomes, in Meadian terminol- ogy, our methodological ‘me’ (ibid.) to which we respond in our own situated practising of research by the spontaneity of the Meadian ‘I’. Taking a ‘strong’ process-ontological stance in methodology is, in a Meadian vocabulary, un- derstood as ‘taking the attitude’ of the process philosophy in the doing of the research. Situating Resonant Experience in Emer- gent Events: The »When« of Resonant Ex- perience It is idle, at least for the purposes of experience, to have recourse to a ‘real’ past […] for that past must be set over against a present within which the emergent appears, and the past which must then be looked at from the stand- point of the emergent, becomes a differ- ent past […] It is the ‘what it was’ that changes. (Mead, 1932: 36-37) In his paradoxical notion of time, argued as one of the most radical in social science (Fine & Flaherty, 2001), Mead (1932) seats ontolog- ical reality in the living present, in here-and- now present situations. ‘The world is a world of events’, he argues (1932: 35), explaining ‘a present […] is not a piece cut out anywhere […] Its chief reference is to the emergent event’ (Mead, 1932: 52). To Mead, the ‘emergent event’ is key in understanding time and tem- porality, and it is characterized by the occur- rence of novelty, that is, of something not pre- viously present in the processes that led up to it (ibid.). Hence, Mead considers time not primar- ily as a chronologically unfolding series of oc- currences (although he acknowledges the irre- vocability of time, stating ‘that which has hap- pened is gone beyond recall’, Mead, 1932: 37). Much more, Mead’s Philosophy of the Present (1932) is about understanding the structure of time in the living present, which means the or- ganizing of past and future in the occasion of the emergent event of a living present. It is this structuring of time, in emergent events of anal- ysis, that is described as a dynamic of analysis in this paper. According to Mead, past and fu- ture, themselves nowhere else to be found but in the present, are understood as ‘epistemolog- ical resources’ for continuous acting, partaking and understanding in the living present (Simp- son, 2014). Related to pragmatism’s concept of ab- ductive reasoning (Pierce, 1978), constituting the relationship between situation and inquiry (Brinkmann, 2014), Mead states: ‘data are such emergent events as fail to fit into the accepted structure of relations, and become nodal points from which a new structure of relations arises’ (Mead 1932: 116). Characteristic of the emer- gent event is that it ‘marks out and in a sense selects what has made its peculiarity possible. It creates with its uniqueness a past and a fu- ture’ (ibid: 52) and reorganizes past (experi- ence) and (anticipations of) future in the liv- ing present. The peculiarity of (such ‘data’ as) emergent events is thus generative of a reorder- ing of (past) experience. It is this reordering that drives the analysis through resonant expe- rience argued in this paper. Listening to interview audio recordings is an occasion for re-experiencing the interview material, and this experience is different from that of reading interview transcripts, in that the listening is rich in ‘sense data’ such as intonations, rhythm, timing and our own re- called sense of being present in the interview as interviewer (Revsbæk & Tanggaard, 2015). Daza and Gershon (2015) have recently de- scribed methodologies of sound—in contrast to that of visuals—as a means to consider ‘complex interrelations’, ‘echoes across time and con- texts’, ‘the breaking down of barriers between siloed fields’ and ‘an opening up of relation- ships within and between ecologies’ (Daza & Gershon, 2015). Responses evoked in us when listening to an interview recording answer to such broader contextuality. As is illustrated in a later section, the pe- culiarity and paradox of the expressed experi- ence of a case study other, may, in relation to existing knowledge structures in a field, con- stitute a deconstruction and a ‘breakdown-in- understanding’ (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2011), thus eliciting recollections of the researcher’s own experience brought, then, to relate to that expressed by the case study other by the decon- struction it poses to established concept cate- gories. L. Revsbæk: Resonant Experience in Emergent Events of Analysis Qualitative Studies 5(1), pp. 20–28 ©2018 23 Case The following originates from a case study on organizational socialization and newcomer in- novation in a large industrial company in Den- mark (Revsbæk, 2014).1 An interview design inclusive of organizational newcomers, their veteran co-workers and hiring managers por- trays ‘being insider’ and ‘being outsider’ as sit- uational attributes—at times inhabited by or- ganizational veterans, at times by newcom- ers—more so than appearing as fixed partici- pant categories reflecting seniority of employ- ment. Listening to the Interview Recording: Be- coming The One to Understand The Other A veteran co-worker to a newly employed en- gineer project manager in the company sup- ply chain management department talks exten- sively in the interview recording about an in- stitutionalized practice of ‘team training’ and related principles of ‘process leadership’. Ap- parently, the practice of doing a monthly team training workshop conducted by company ex- ternal consultants was introduced by the busi- ness unit president a few years back. The busi- ness unit president sponsors the programme of team training, and the training is meant for team members to get to know each other better and gain an understanding of the various indi- vidual ways of working, thus fostering wellbe- ing in work and team collaborations. As the interviewer of the veteran co- worker, it turns out that I am not being sensi- tive to the situation that he and I share early in the interview. And I am reminded of this as I listen to the interview recording. Acting in the interview like an elephant in a china shop, I let an ironic remark on the practice of team training slip spontaneously from my tongue. In case study interviews prior to this one, I have heard other case study participants talk about this practice of team training in a reasonably loyal, but also disengaged and somewhat ironic manner, implying to me a low degree of own- ership with regard to this practice. I then ac- cidentally assume that this veteran co-worker will express the same ironic attitude towards the practice, but I am wrong. He appreciates the team training and speaks extensively about it. His preoccupation with the training con- trasts with his new manager’s and newcomer colleague’s disengagement towards it. I dwell on the question of why this veteran co-worker speaks with a confidently commit- ted voice with regard to some aspects of the work, those to do with ‘team training’ and ‘pro- cess leadership’, whereas he speaks with an in- ferior voice with regard to those aspects of the work to do with ‘engineering’ and ‘engineer- driven project management’ (advocated by his new manager as a key lever for improving their department status in the company). The vet- eran co-worker states in a disparaging and in- ferior voice that he feels ‘uncertain about what is going to happen [in the light of announced future layoffs], because—this is just my own self-image—but, I am an economist by educa- tion and the others are engineers’. I am re- minded of Gallagher and Sias’s study (2009) on ‘uncertainty management’ as relevant not only to organizational newcomers, but also to veter- ans concerned with their job security in times of managerial rehiring—a study in stark con- trast to most studies on organizational social- ization focused on the uncertainty experienced by newcomers and the positioning of organi- zational veterans exclusively as ‘socialization agents’ to the newcomers (Feldman, 2012). As researcher at the time, I was seeking to convey (and understand) this story of the vet- eran co-worker who speaks with a marginal- ized voice concerning some aspects of the work, yet a superior and almost corrective voice with regard to other aspects of the work. Listening to the recorded interview, getting caught up in this paradox of ‘inferior yet superior’, an expe- rience of my own springs to mind as if explain- ing the ambiguity in the story of the veteran co- worker. I start writing an autobiographical nar- rative on this resonant experience to see what insights into the veteran co-worker’s story can be created by doing so. Researcher’s Autobiographical Narrative: Being The Possibly Excluded In a seminar in the research community that I was visiting, the doctoral students and faculty members of the community were discussing the recent withdrawal/exclusion of a student from the programme. The head of faculty said that the withdrawing student had been really strug- 24 L. Revsbæk: Resonant Experience in Emergent Events of Analysis Qualitative Studies 5(1), pp. 20–28 ©2018 gling with the work. In an email responding to my work, prior to the seminar, the same fac- ulty member had used the same choice of words on my work: ‘it seems you are struggling’, he wrote. As any researcher knows, the word ‘strug- gle’ is often a positive term describing re- searcher dedication, commitment and intense engagement with the materials at hand. Thus, ‘struggle’ might be a quality stamp on my work if I was said to be ‘struggling’ in this sense. But it didn’t quite ‘sound’ like that when I read the email, though I can’t exactly say why. Per- haps it was the way he stated his critique of my writing rather directly before concluding that I seemed to be ‘struggling’. Or perhaps I was reading in impressions from prior face-to-face meetings contributing to this sense of not ex- actly being complimented on researcher virtues with this remark. Situated in the research community meet- ing, with its members discussing the departure of this recent community member by reference to his ‘struggles’, it seemed to me that a crite- rion of exclusion was possibly emerging. And it occurred to me as such because I was sens- ing that I too might fall short in relation to this criterion of ‘a struggle’ or, rather ‘too much of a struggle’. I was becoming the possibly ex- cluded. The community members were now more explicitly discussing inclusion-exclusion criteria: a commitment to reading theory, fa- miliarizing oneself with the theoretical heritage of the community, meeting deadlines, engag- ing in the frequent peer-review process of fel- low students’ work and paying attention to the process of personal development emergent in the research process. Almost as if settling and agreeing on such criteria might secure the sense of security of the involved. I felt a need to speak up. I was uncomfortable, falling short of exclu- sion criteria sensed yet not explicated. The courage to speak came with the thought that I might not be the only one feeling like this. And since I was only visiting the community, I might as well attempt to find the voice I did not dare to use. ‘I guess exclusion criteria emerge’, I started out, expecting this opening discourse to be in resonance with the theoretical stance shared among community members, ‘in what we say, and how it is taken up by others; I think I might be struggling’. I had identified myself with the member who had just left/been asked to leave. I had to mobilize my courage in order to convey the thought and make visible the vul- nerability I felt. I remember looking at the fac- ulty member who had, in conversations prior to this one, been most supportive in my attempts at putting words to the interactions between us, and implicitly addressing him as I closed my statement. I did so, describing how I was thinking we might be creating a criterion of ex- clusion related to ‘struggling’ from the way we were making sense of the departure of the re- cent student member, further explaining that I was guessing this from my own sense of possi- bly being excluded or losing community status with reference to this criterion, since I was def- initely struggling, and had also been described as doing so by a faculty member. I closed my statement by saying ‘at least I took up voice’, hoping it would be acknowledged. Anticipat- ing that it would, from the familiarity with the community values I was starting to get a sense of. Almost instinctively and certainly unaware of it at the time, I was pleading for another cult value of the community, one in which I would be included. ‘Voicing’. And I was recognized. By the supportive faculty member. He nodded. That was enough. ‘Struggling’ did not remain a criterion of exclusion. It equated to one at some stage in the conversation, at least in my percep- tion. Then, the conversation changed, and so did the criterion of exclusion. I was no longer the possibly excluded. I no longer sensed the exclusion criteria, but I guess they were still there. Perhaps to do with ‘voicing’. But they were not calling me out. At least not currently. Resonant Experience Following Mead (1932), the lived experience of a listening researcher (like that of a case study participant) is not shaped in a fixed man- ner prior to their encounter. On the occasion of listening to an interview recording, the re- searcher’s lived experience is not even shaped prior to the post-interview listening. It finds shape in the listening, from and as the reso- nance between the expressed experience of the case study participant and researcher’s own. The incident described in the autobiograph- L. Revsbæk: Resonant Experience in Emergent Events of Analysis Qualitative Studies 5(1), pp. 20–28 ©2018 25 ical narrative took place in July 2013. It was written in November that year, coming back to me in memory in response to listening to the case study participant’s account of his experi- ence in the audio-recorded interview originally conducted in February 2011 and made an object of analysis in November 2013. The case illustrates making the temporal process of experience work as a dynamic in and of analysis, allowing the novelty of the ex- pressed experience of the case study other to evoke resonant experience of researcher’s own. Recalling my own experience as one of becom- ing ‘the possibly excluded’, enabled considering the veteran co-worker’s story and his inferior voice concerning some aspects of the work, yet superior voice concerning other aspects of the work, as a case of the veteran co-worker, in the face of perceived possible exclusion, making a plea for another community cult value: one that would allow him to stay included, that of ‘pro- cess leadership’ and ‘team training’. The shap- ing of experience to the resonance between that expressed by the case study other and the evoked of researcher’s own in an emergent event of analysis takes place beyond vocabulary and theory, and it does so as the expressed ex- perience of the other becomes ‘Meadian data’ in the sense of an ‘emergent event’ failing to fit into the structure of concept relations that otherwise organize the field of research. With a deconstructive effect, the expressed experi- ence by the case study other becomes a nodal point from which a new structure, a reorganiza- tion of past experience (including researcher’s own), takes place. Dwelling ‘in the moment of the pause before difference emerges’ (Davies, 2016: 74), the expressed experience of the other takes shape in this emergent event of analysis, at first, in and by the resonance it holds to that elicited by researcher’s own. Eventually, this shaping does not become a particular identified shape without theory and vocabulary also com- ing in ‘as a reflex’ (cf. Spivak, 2014). In the re- ported case study on organizational newcom- ers and veterans, theory and the words of com- plexity theorist Ralph Stacey helped shape the expressed and resonant experience to the re- minder that ‘values have the effect of including those who adhere to them and excluding those who do not, so establishing collective or “we” identities for all the individuals in both group- ings’ (Stacey, 2010: 165). Mead reminds us: ‘there may be and be- yond doubt is in any present with its own past a vast deal which we do not discover, and yet this which we do or do not discover will take on dif- ferent meaning and be different in its structure as an event when viewed from some later stand- point (Mead, 1932: 40). Hence, resonant experi- ence of our own, evoked in emergent events of analysis, may be such perhaps previously-not- discovered aspects of experience which take on new meaning and new structure from the standpoint of grasping those aspects of the ex- pressed experience of a case study other that are ill-captured by, or even in discord with, inherent knowledge categories and structures characteristic of the research field in question. As researchers we may not know prior to the process of analysing what aspects of our own experience could serve as a lever in understand- ing that expressed by case study others. In my own doctoral study reported above I more so ar- rived at being the newcomer (to research com- munities) who was researching newcomer in- novations others, than I started out as such. Generative Reflexivity Necessary to any social conceptualization of Self, Mead argues the need for understanding individual experience from a standpoint of so- ciety, and describes the scope of social psychol- ogy as one of determining ‘that which belongs to [the individual’s] experience because the in- dividual himself belongs to a social structure’ (Mead, 1934: 1). As process sociologist Norbert Elias reminds us about being social scientists, we are ourselves part of the (societal) figura- tional patterns of participation that we inves- tigate (Elias, 1956). Hence, deconstruction of the knowledge structure (in a field of research) assumed to represent societal or general so- cial/organizational figurations of participation stipulates a reorganization of concept struc- tures implicating identity categories also sig- nificant to the organization of the researcher’s own lived experience. By this ‘impossibility of standing outside experience’ (cf. Stacey, 2012), attention is brought to researcher reflexivity and the role of researcher’s reflexivity in case study analyses. 26 L. Revsbæk: Resonant Experience in Emergent Events of Analysis Qualitative Studies 5(1), pp. 20–28 ©2018 From the case of being a newcomer, re- searching the newcomer innovation of others, what is suggested here is for the researcher’s own history of experience to feature as a kind of ‘field-shaped’ sensitivity (Müller, 2016: 707), constitutive of the ‘what’ that a researcher is able to make hearable, noticeable and thus understandable of that which is encountered. Mead will have us recognize of the relation- ship between an organism and its environment, that ‘the nature of environment answers to the habits and selective attitudes of organisms, and the qualities that belong to the objects of the environment can only be expressed in terms of sensitivities of these organisms’ (Mead, 1932: 53). Thus, situating research in emergent events of analysis draws attention to what a subject matter is able to become in the encounter of specific participants engaged in (case study) in- quiries. From the simultaneity of ‘the two’ in the emergent event of analysis, the ‘who’ of the identifier and the ‘that’ of the identified constitute simultaneously and in resonance. It is not only a ‘who’ of the identifier that re- flects into and influences the identification of the ‘that’ of the encountered (as is character- istic of a Cartesian distinction between sub- ject and object as antecedent entities). Instead, the identified ‘that’ (of the encountered) reflects into and selects out the ‘who’ of the identifier identifying this. Such a dynamic of emergence in responsive interaction is, in this paper, un- derstood from Mead’s conceptualization of the emergent event. Researcher reflexivity thus be- comes less about relativizing knowledge claims and self-critical subtracting from results, and more about a generative settling of identification of what we take to be characteristic of the other from the resonance it holds to ourselves, recall- ing this paper’s introductory quote: ‘it is the response that interprets to us what comes to us in the stimulus’ (Mead, 1934: 114). Hence, we may learn about what we encounter from what we become in encountering it. Implications for Future Research: Iterative Analysis and Responsive Reorganizing of Knowledge and Acknowledged Experience Paying attention to resonant experience in emergent events of analysis would most often, in my work, be one aspect of a broader strategy of analysis to explore ‘what’, of case study expe- riences, is serving the emergence of new (con- cept and identity) categories grasping a current circumstance and quality of participation in the field under investigation. Davies writes on listening that ‘allowing the resonance of the other to register in one’s body involves opening oneself to an ongoing process of Deleuzian differenciation, to become other, to a process of evolution that takes one beyond the already known’ (Davies, 2011: 1). In the case of ‘the possibly excluded’, such regis- tering of the other in oneself is argued situated in emergent events of expressed experience of a case study other posing a challenge to existing knowledge structures (in which the researcher is inherently a participant). ‘Our whole being’, it is argued by French philosopher of the phe- nomenology of listening Jean-Luc Nancy, ‘is in- volved in listening, just as it is involved in inter- preting what it hears’ (Nancy & Mandell, 2007: xx). My argument is not one of claiming the expressed experience of the case study other to be the same as mine, or that identifying mine would be representational of that of the other. The aim of working responsively in anal- ysis, as here suggested, in drawing attention to- wards resonant experience in emergent events of analysis, is not one of representation. Rather, it concerns iterating the consequence of a break posed by expressed experience of case study others to the conceptual organizing of experi- ence: Which account and experience becomes possible to be with when the expressed experi- ence of another, breaking away from dominant structures of categorization, is made a nodal point for the emergence of a new conceptual structuring? Questions like this are analytic levers when analysing and developing under- standing through resonant experience. The responsive and iterative way of analysis might be extended by iterating the emancipa- tory effect through other parts of the case study material, and through the literature, to see what pattern of association and what concept figu- rations emerge when working abductively and iteratively like that in analysis. Analysis, then, becomes a process of responding, by the orga- nizing and reorganizing of material, experience and knowledge structures, to the epistemologi- L. Revsbæk: Resonant Experience in Emergent Events of Analysis Qualitative Studies 5(1), pp. 20–28 ©2018 27 cal emancipation performed in emergent events of the analysis with expressed experience pos- ing a challenge to existing knowledge struc- tures. Iterating an emergent event of analysis, captured by resonance in experience, across a vast variety of case study materials, research lit- erature and future occurrences produces, over time, new figurations in and of the case study material. Concluding Remarks Resonant experience has in this paper been sug- gested as a process-ontological heuristic in case study interview analysis. As illustrated, reso- nant experience may serve to ‘capture’ the ab- ductive element of the expressed experience of a case study participant, giving this element its first iterative shape by the resonance it holds to the evoked experience of the (listening) re- searcher. Social categories organizing a field of re- search may over time evolve into simplistic di- chotomies no longer helpful in grasping cur- rent circumstance in social and organizational life. In times of increased alienation with regard to such acknowledged and reified identity posi- tions, iterating resonant experience from emer- gent events of analysis may serve as an analytic heuristic to arrive at new/altered social cate- gories both enabling and requiring a reorgani- zation of current concept structures. Drawing on G. H. Mead’s Philosophy of the Present (1932), the paper has illustrated the pro- cess of becoming a Self in continuous processes of relating as a possible dynamic in and of anal- ysis. G. H. Mead’s concept of ‘the emergent event’ has been explored in terms of the de- constructing/reconstructing dynamic of work- ing with resonant experience in interview anal- ysis. The paper is a contribution to the present endeavours of process scholars exploring what process ontology in research methodology en- tails for the enactment of research practice. Endnotes 1. The case is a revised version of one published in Revs- bæk, 2014, and presented at the Annual Symposium on Process Organizational Studies (PROS), June 2015, Kos. References Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. (2011). Qualitative Research and Theory Development. Mystery as Method. London: Sage. Brinkmann, S. (2014). Doing without data. Qual- itative Inquiry, vol. 20(6), pp. 720-725. doi: 10.1177/1077800414530254 Davies, B. (2011). Listening: a radical pedagogy. Challenging gender: Normalization and beyond, 1-17. Working paper: https://www.google.co. uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web& cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwja0Jb- 26jaAhWKJsAKHXZpC-AQFgg2MAI&url= https%3A%2F%2Fis.muni.cz%2Fel%2F1423% 2Fpodzim2009%2Fsoc932%2Fum%2F8834758% 2FListening-_a_radical_pedagogy_11_08_09.pdf& usg=AOvVaw1h_rNGmHcQ_iK9eROTrfTU. Davies, B. (2016). Emergent Listening. Qualitative In- quiry Through a Critical Lens, 73. Daza, S., & Gershon, W. S. (2015). Beyond Ocular Inquiry: Sound, Silence, and Sonification. Qualitative Inquiry, 1077800414566692. Elias, N. (1956). Problems of involvement and detach- ment. The British Journal of Sociology, 7(3), 226-252. Fachin, F. F. & Langley, A. (2017). Researching Organi- zational Concepts Processually: The Case of Iden- tity. In Cassell C., Cunliffe A. & Grandy G. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Business and Man- agement Research Methods: History and Traditions, 308. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Feldman, D. C. (2012). The impact of socializing new- comers on insiders. In Wanberg, C. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational socialization, 215-229. Flaherty, M., & Fine, G. A. (2001). Present, past, and fu- ture: Conjugating George Herbert Mead’s perspec- tive on time. Time & Society, 10, 147-161. Gallagher, E. B., & Sias, P. M. (2009). The new employee as a source of uncertainty: Veteran employee infor- mation seeking about new hires. Western Journal of Communication, 73(1), 23-46. Helin, J., Hernes, T., Hjorth, D., & Holt, R. (2014). Process is how process does. In J. Helin, T. Hernes, D. Hjorth, & R. Holt (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Process Philosophy and Organization Studies (pp. 1-16). Ox- ford, UK: Oxford University Press. Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2013). Plugging One Text into Another: Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(4), 261-271. Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2017). Thinking with the- ory: A new analytic for qualitative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 5th ed., (pp. 717-737). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2017). Introduction: Process thinking, process theorizing and process research- ing. The SAGE Handbook of Process Organizational Studies, 1-25. Mead, G. H. (1932). The Philosophy of the Present (this edition 2002). Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. (Originally published: Chicago: Open Court Pub). https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwja0Jb-26jaAhWKJsAKHXZpC-AQFgg2MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fis.muni.cz%2Fel%2F1423%2Fpodzim2009%2Fsoc932%2Fum%2F8834758%2FListening-_a_radical_pedagogy_11_08_09.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1h_rNGmHcQ_iK9eROTrfTU https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwja0Jb-26jaAhWKJsAKHXZpC-AQFgg2MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fis.muni.cz%2Fel%2F1423%2Fpodzim2009%2Fsoc932%2Fum%2F8834758%2FListening-_a_radical_pedagogy_11_08_09.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1h_rNGmHcQ_iK9eROTrfTU https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwja0Jb-26jaAhWKJsAKHXZpC-AQFgg2MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fis.muni.cz%2Fel%2F1423%2Fpodzim2009%2Fsoc932%2Fum%2F8834758%2FListening-_a_radical_pedagogy_11_08_09.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1h_rNGmHcQ_iK9eROTrfTU https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwja0Jb-26jaAhWKJsAKHXZpC-AQFgg2MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fis.muni.cz%2Fel%2F1423%2Fpodzim2009%2Fsoc932%2Fum%2F8834758%2FListening-_a_radical_pedagogy_11_08_09.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1h_rNGmHcQ_iK9eROTrfTU https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwja0Jb-26jaAhWKJsAKHXZpC-AQFgg2MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fis.muni.cz%2Fel%2F1423%2Fpodzim2009%2Fsoc932%2Fum%2F8834758%2FListening-_a_radical_pedagogy_11_08_09.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1h_rNGmHcQ_iK9eROTrfTU https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwja0Jb-26jaAhWKJsAKHXZpC-AQFgg2MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fis.muni.cz%2Fel%2F1423%2Fpodzim2009%2Fsoc932%2Fum%2F8834758%2FListening-_a_radical_pedagogy_11_08_09.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1h_rNGmHcQ_iK9eROTrfTU https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwja0Jb-26jaAhWKJsAKHXZpC-AQFgg2MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fis.muni.cz%2Fel%2F1423%2Fpodzim2009%2Fsoc932%2Fum%2F8834758%2FListening-_a_radical_pedagogy_11_08_09.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1h_rNGmHcQ_iK9eROTrfTU https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwja0Jb-26jaAhWKJsAKHXZpC-AQFgg2MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fis.muni.cz%2Fel%2F1423%2Fpodzim2009%2Fsoc932%2Fum%2F8834758%2FListening-_a_radical_pedagogy_11_08_09.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1h_rNGmHcQ_iK9eROTrfTU 28 L. Revsbæk: Resonant Experience in Emergent Events of Analysis Qualitative Studies 5(1), pp. 20–28 ©2018 Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist (C. W. Morris, Ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Nancy, J. L., & Mandell, C. (2007). Listening. Fordham Univ Press. Pierce, C.S. (1978). Pragmatism and abduction. In C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds), Collected Papers vol. V (pp. 180-212). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Revsbæk, L. (2014). Adjusting to the Emergent. A process theory perspective on organizational socialization and newcomer innovation. (Doctoral thesis). Aal- borg, DK: Aalborg University Press. Revsbaek, L. & Tanggaard, L. (2015). Analyzing in the Present. Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 21(4), 376-387. Shotter, J. (2010). Adopting a process orientation… in practice: Chiasmic relations, language, and embod- iment in a living world. In Hernes, T. & Maitlis, S. (Eds.), Process, sensemaking, and organizing (Vol. 1), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 70-101. Shotter, J. (2015). On “relational things”: A new realm of inquiry—pre-understandings and performative un- derstandings of people’s meanings. The emergence of novelty in organizations, 56-79. Simpson, B. (2014). George Herbert Mead (1863-1931). In J. Helin, T. Hernes, D. Hjorth, & R. Holt (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Process Philosophy and Orga- nization Studies (pp. 272-286). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. St. Pierre, E. A. (1997). Methodology in the fold and the irruption of transgressive data. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(2), 175-189. St. Pierre, E.A. (2011). Post qualitative research: The cri- tique and the coming after. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th ed. (pp. 611-625). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stacey, R.D. (2010). Complexity and Organizational Real- ity. Uncertainty and the Need to Rethink Manage- ment after the Collapse of Investment Capitalism, 2nd Ed. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Stacey, R. (2012). Tools and Techniques of Leadership and Management. Meeting the Challenge of Complexity. Oxon, UK: Routledge. • About the Author Line Revsbæk PhD, MSc in psychology, is an associate professor at the Department of Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. She has held po- sitions at the University of Southern Denmark and was a visiting student at the Complexity and Management Group, Hertfordshire University, UK, during her doctoral studies. Her research focuses on organizational socializa- tion, employee induction and the social dynamics of col- laboration and organizational life. She works from pro- cess ontology, pragmatism and complexity theory per- spectives to develop research practice and methodology in terms of complex responsive processes. She has been engaged in participatory action research on employee in- duction/onboarding in academic, state government and private sector organizations, and is currently (together with Lærke Gelineck Berg and Søren Willert) research- ing collaborative reflexive writing as a method of lead- ership development in a Danish municipality. Recent publications include Revsbæk, L. (2014), Adjusting to the Emergent. A process theory perspective on organiza- tional socialization and newcomer innovation, Aalborg University Press, Aalborg; Revsbæk, L. & Tanggaard, L. (2015), Analyzing in the Present, Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 21(4), 376-387; Mosleh, W. S. & Revsbæk, L. (2017), Field- working relational complexity: Entangled in managerial dynamics, conference paper, EGOS, July 6th-8th, Copen- hagen; Ylirisko, S., Revsbæk, L. & Buur, J., Resourcing experience in co-design, Conference proceedings from DTRS11 (2017); Revsbæk, L. (2016), Making methodology a matter of process ontology, Organisation und Meth- ode. Beiträge der Kommision Organisationspädagogik, Springer VS (eds. Göhlich, M., Weber, S. M., Schröer, A. and Schemmann, M., 2016). Paper 1: Resonance In A Hurried World Paper 2: Collaborative Resonant Writing and Musical Improvisation to Explore the Concept of Resonance Background and First Step of the Method Method and process: Further Steps Methodology and the Intimacy of Resonant Writing Conceptual Dramework for the Understanding of Resonance Physical Vibrations and Acoustic Resonance Psychological and Dyadic Resonance Resonance and Implicit Knowledge in Music Therapy Resonant learning Exploring and Processing the Resonance Phenomenon Through Group Discussion and Musical Improvisation Arts-Based Input and Processing Emerging Metaphors Discussion and Collaborative Writing Analogy and Metaphor Negative Resonance The Opposite of Resonance Subtle Nuances Resonant Exploring Reflections on Methods in Collaborative Writing and Publishing: A Nine-Step Model The Discovery of a Resonant, Collaborative Procedure Conclusion and Perspectives About the Authors Paper 3: Resonant Experience in Emergent Events of Analysis Process Ontology in Research Methodology The Becoming of Self As A Dynamic in Analysis Taking The Attitude of Process Theory Situating Resonant Experience in Emergent Events: The "When" of Resonant Experience Case Listening to the Interview Recording: Becoming The One to Understand The Other Researcher’s Autobiographical Narrative: Being The Possibly Excluded Resonant Experience Generative Reflexivity Implications for Future Research: Iterative Analysis and Responsive Reorganizing of Knowledge and Acknowledged Experience Concluding Remarks About the Author Paper 4: Striving for Experiential Resonance Introduction The Critical Approach: A Hermeneutics of Suspicion Distrusting The Hermeneutics of Suspicion The Phenomenological Approach: A Hermeneutics of Everydayness Resonance: The Phenomenological Nod of Recognition Conclusion About the Author