‘Critical distance’ within a workplace

I am really just guessing here. Whilst I have found Jameson’s reference to ‘critical distance’ I haven’t really found a definition of it per se. Lee, Green, & Brennan, 2000:131 suggest that critical distance can be understood as the supersession (replacement) of the representation problem. Eric Igou (Igou, 1999) argues that we often interpret facts through a ‘selectivity’ lens where we tend to infer characteristics and construe relationships beyond the information given. That we form cognitive ‘representations’ of stimulus that differ from the information and that it these formed representations (and not the original stimuli) that govern our subsequent thoughts, judgements and behaviours. Put another way, we tend to ‘read’ into what we may see or what we may hear our own interpretations?

I take it that Jameson is suggesting that classic knowledge or research (science) is undertaken by objective practitioners, compared to the subjectivity inherent in post-modern interpretations. University researchers tout their academic rigour as a sound basis for knowledge construction.

Lee, Green and Brennan, 2000:131 suggest that it is in the mingling of previously disparate realms (such as academia, the workplace and society?) where the risk is that critical distance might be lost.

To my way of thinking, the issue of critical distance is of little difference independent of the specific realm. In fact, I could better understand the issue if it was touted that critical distance is perhaps potentially compromised within realms other than academia. However, in a ‘mingled’ realm I do not understand the concern.
Bottom line, the concept of adopting collaborative, cooperative cross-realm research approaches hopefully address any validity concerns of workplace-based knowledge construction.