Qualitative Management Research.
Qualitative Management Research
Qualitative management research is an often uncertain and emergent undertaking which is just as complex as management it self. Accordingly, the inexperienced researcher needs some reference points to help them balance practical worth with academic rigor. It can be claimed that recent works have taken a qualitative and ethnographic approach, using extensive interviewing and observation, to the study of management. These examples will all be more or less different, and some might say they are unique. What all of these examples and stories have in common is that they attempt to approach the complexity of a particular entrepreneurial setting as an ongoing process, as a process of becoming. Every managerial attempt is written on a daily basis, with many actors on multiple scenes simultaneously searching to move existing realities through creative actions into new worlds. Management is a creative process enacted through everyday practices: It is never done, and always going on, a journey more with surprises than with predictable patterns. As such, every managerial endeavor follows and writes its own story.
This leaves management as a young academic discipline with the huge task of deciding how to "organize" its knowledge of these "local complexities." The question is how to develop qualitative research activities in terms of paradigmatic conceptions, methodological practices, and ways of theorizing that match the complexity and uniqueness of entrepreneurial endeavors. In this paper I will discuss how such process studies can be conceived and what are the drawbacks of qualitative research.
Departing from a discussion of management as a process and embedding this concept within a paradigm of "becoming," we explore the methodological implications by addressing epistemological reflections, ways of theorizing, and methodological practices such as generating, analyzing, interpreting, and writing up data. Concerns of epistemology, method, and theorizing, we must stress, cannot become disconnected, and methodological considerations as such are difficult to make without taking into account the research contexts, in terms of both the sites the researcher visits and the paradigmatic position he or she takes.
The call for qualitative research in management is clear and strong1. However, before embarking on a qualitative research project, researchers must understand qualitative methods, including their advantages and disadvantages.
Qualitative methods assist researchers who desire to understand complex social phenomena. They are appropriate when seeking knowledge about the fundamental characteristics of a phenomenon being studied before theorizing about it. This knowledge often surfaces through close contact with subjects of a study, allowing the researcher to understand their points of view about and experiences with the phenomenon. However, the potential of qualitative methodologies in providing answers to questions about phenomena related to management and organization science has been hindered by the confusion about the nature of qualitative research. The label qualitative methods has no precise meaning in any of the social sciences. It is at best an umbrella term covering an array of interpretive techniques which seek to describe, decode, translate, and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not the frequency, of certain more or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world.
To operate in a qualitative mode is to trade in linguistic symbols and, by so doing, attempt to reduce the distance between indicated and indicator, between theory and data, between context and action.
Researchers even disagree on the definition of "qualitative." For example, some researchers use terms such as naturalistic and descriptive, as well as field, product, and case study. Perhaps the best way to clear up some of the confusion about qualitative research is to examine some its most accepted methodologies and characteristics.2
Interviews - One of the main thrusts of the research was to investigate 'meanings'. The key qualitative tool used for this purpose was the interview, a data collection instrument which has been described as the essential source of information for the case study method . The approach to
interviewing developed as the research progressed, although any changes were consistent with the overall research strategy. It was originally envisaged that the main interviews would be largely based on a number of set questions i.e. they would be structured. But the experience of the preliminary fieldwork indicated that this would be too in flexible. Amongst the problems encountered were: asking respondents questions they had already answered (if involved in repeat interviews); asking questions which were not relevant to the experience or expertise of the individual; and pre-emptively restricting the range of answers if prompts were used. It was therefore decided to revise the approach to the case study questioning, making interviews semi- structured, with specific preparation being made for each separate interview. These were based on an overall interview structure which covered the process, content and context of change. A key advantage of this flexible approach to interviewing was the ability to in corporate emergent issues. Consequently, although the majority of themes and issues had already been identified
through the literature review and the preliminary fieldwork, some be came evident as work progressed. These emergent issues included the extent of contact with external consultants. A further out come of the semi-structured approach was that follow-up interviews could be used to clarify queries from initial meetings, to cover topics which had not been previously discussed, to explore emergent issues in more detail, and to track the changing interpretations of individuals over time. Whyte (1982) has maintained that even unstructured interviews should be structured towards the research problem. Consequently, the process of interviewing was as carefully organised as ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
through the literature review and the preliminary fieldwork, some be came evident as work progressed. These emergent issues included the extent of contact with external consultants. A further out come of the semi-structured approach was that follow-up interviews could be used to clarify queries from initial meetings, to cover topics which had not been previously discussed, to explore emergent issues in more detail, and to track the changing interpretations of individuals over time. Whyte (1982) has maintained that even unstructured interviews should be structured towards the research problem. Consequently, the process of interviewing was as carefully organised as the content of interviews. Interviews were planned through the use of key informants who had several functions including: serving as gate keepers to the organisation; developing an overview of the research problem; providing a number of alternative perspectives to the research problem; and helping to generate operational definitions of research terms. As Tremblay3 has argued: "When we use key informants, we are not randomly sampling
from the universe of characteristics under study. Rather we are selectively sampling specialised knowledge of the characteristics". The use of key informants was therefore carefully managed, with the initial point of contact in each organisation being human resources and facilities planning specialists.
Observation - The research used observation in two distinct ways; to develop an understanding of the physical symbols of relocation and to develop a greater understanding of the case organisations. With the exception of participant observation, it appears that 'qualitative observation' is an underdeveloped aspect of research. Indeed, it has been suggested that: "A common mistake among observers is to take the physical environment for granted"4. The preliminary fieldwork had drawn the researcher's attention to a variety of observational cues. These included observation whilst in reception areas, waiting in the car outside the organisation, walking around public areas in the organisation and using facilities such as the library and canteen. Taken on their own, these 'chance' observations may have provided useful sources of information. However, whilst it was both undesirable and impossible to filter out these influences, it was important to take a more systematic approach to observation (Becker and Geer, 1982).
Documents - In addition to the main literature review, further dimensions of data were obtained through the analysis of documents. Moser and Kalton (1975) identify three different types of document: those giving information about specific research areas, those giving information about the population being studied, and personal documents. Alternatively, Scott (1990) classifies twelve different types of document based on the attributes of access and authorship. Whilst such demarcations may be suitable for general social research, they were in appropriate for this particular investigation. Consequently, for the purposes of this work, two types of document were identified: primary documentary data produced by the case organisations; and primary documentary data produced about the sector.
Questionnaires - In addition to questionnaires used during the preliminary fieldwork, a survey was conducted into mission and vision statements in the electricity supply industry. All three surveys were based on the use of semi-structured questionnaires which contained mainly open-ended questions. This approach was intended to allow respondents to reply 'in their own terms' 5 without predetermining the content of their contribution. It has been argued that data collected in this way is affected by: the respondent's ability to communicate in writing; the inability to probe or review contributions; and the reliance on respondents providing full replies (Patton, 1980). However, each survey was followed up with written requests for information and telephone requests for responses or for the clarification of contributions
It has been suggested that: "There are no formal, universal rules to follow in analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating qualitative data"6. However, it has also been argued that: "We should continue to be concerned with producing texts that ex plicate how we claim to know what we know"7. Indeed, it appears that one of the potential dangers of adopting a predominantly qualitative research approach would lie in not explaining how the researcher turned the raw data into findings.
The research had an epistemological leaning towards inductivism, with the consequent broadly inductive approach to analysis meaning that: "... the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis"8. The resultant approach to analysis was therefore continuous, iterative, intensive and comparative. For example, the researcher's immersion in each case led to the triggering of analysis and interpretation during the fieldwork. To control this process, such interpretations were entered into a 'day -book'. These interpretations were subsequently examined more rigorously during the process of data analysis which followed the conclusion of the main field work. Consequently, one of the main strengths of the research strategy was the opportunity to develop continuously an understanding of the data while it was being collected.
Academic research is frequently assessed on the basis of questions regarding validity, reliability and generalisability. However, this language is believed to derive from quantitative research, which makes it difficult to apply in the context of qualitative re search. Alternative labels have been adopted by a number of researches who suggested that: "... the basic purpose of qualitative analysis is to provide use full, meaningful, and credible answers", and Altheide and John son (1994) who argue in terms of 'validity-as-reflexive --accounting'. The underlying theme of these apparently contradictory positions is that academic research is distinctive in its method, even though these methods may vary quite considerably between different philosophical approaches. The following critique will consequently focus on the 'logics of engagement' which were used to link the researcher with the research objects, rather than the differences, which are some times used to defend one philosophical approach against an other. This critique will be structured around four overlapping categories proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994) which cover questions of confirmability, dependability, credibility, and transferability.
The 'objectivity/confirmability' of the research was dealt with in a number of ways. There searcher strove to present as full as possible a description of the methods used in the study. Furthermore, the researcher attempted to be 'reflexive' in terms of the personal experiences, which preceded the research project, and in terms of acknowledging the potential impact of these on the field work and subsequent analysis. In addition, the data was subjected to competing explanations, most notably in the application of different theories of change management. By addressing such issues the researcher sought to reduce any potential bias in the work. However, the basis of the research was in 'analytic realism'9. This means that the researcher presupposed that reality is social constructed and interpreted. Consequently, the researcher endeavoured to represent the social world constructed by those researched, and to highlight the influences on the way in which this had been interpreted by the researcher. As a result of this the reader should be better placed to make their own interpretation of the research findings.
The second question concerns the 'reliability/dependability/auditability' of the findings, which was regarded in terms of whether or not the re search systematically studied what it claimed to study. As has been out lined previously, the research was based on a number of fundamental research questions which linked the fieldwork and theory. These questions were used to maintain the focus of the work, while at the same time allowing relevant (but unanticipated) is sues to be encompassed during the field work. The preceding discussion of the fieldwork has described the role of the researcher within the case studies i.e. as a researcher collecting data for a doctorate. Efforts were made to collect data from a variety of data sources and using a variety of data collection instruments which would be consistent with the research questions. Furthermore, data were assessed on a number of dimensions including the degree to which meaning was shared between the researcher and the informant, and consistency with data gathered through other means. Finally, findings were subjected to peer review in terms of the continuous process of supervisory review, internal reviews of written work, responses to internal and external presentations, and the publication of articles. The dependability of the research was therefore safe guarded by aiming to collect data systematically over time, and systematically within each case.
The 'internal validity/credibility/authenticity' of the findings was taken to mean the degree to which the findings have meaning for those interested in them. One of the main tactics for dealing with this was to present comprehensive descriptions of the cases studied which were closely linked to both their inner and outer con texts. Triangulation was used extensively to synthesise multiple perspectives and clarify meanings. In addition, findings were drawn from several cases which covered a number of different contexts. Furthermore, efforts were made to identify disconfirming evidence, to interrogate the data using rival explanations, and to link the findings with extant theory. The findings resulted from a systematic process of examining the propositions and questions generated by the research. Finally, where areas of uncertainty arose, these were noted and identified in the text. Consequently, the issue of credibility was addressed in terms of description, interpretation and theory.
Many academics feel that they never really produce as many pieces of work from their works as they should have done. There are many reasons for this failure, ranging from a lack of confidence in the value of preliminary results, to feeling the need to escape from a beast which has occupied much of a researcher's home and work lives for several years. However, starting to produce distinct outputs from the early stages of a qualitative management research project can be a useful way of improving the quality of later work.
Because of the grounded theory approach to this research project, findings were subjected to numerous iterations of analysis and interpretation. These iterations encompassed a range of formal and informal reviews by peers. For example, the whole research process was subjected to regular reviews of progress by the researcher's academic supervisor.
Towards the conclusion of this paper the output has portrayed the ways in which a specific qualitative management research project was brought to a successful conclusion. Multiple instruments could be used to collect data including over 100 interviews, three semi-structured surveys, structured observation, literature reviews, and document reviews. These individual data collection instruments have been reviewed critically and the extensive triangulation used to synthesise multiple views and clarify meanings has been described.
We have outlined the combination of intuition, data saturation, time, and contextual changes which were used to bring the fieldwork to a close. It has also explained the iterative and continuous process of data analysis and interpretation. In particular, it has argued that although the research was inductive by nature, the focus of the research was maintained through the generation of research propositions and questions from the main literature review and initial fieldwork. Furthermore, the overall research strategy was critically examined and defended in terms of the confirmability, dependability, credibility and transferability of method and findings. However, this examination was undertaken in terms appropriate for the research philosophy adopted and not in terms imposed by other philosophies.
Finally, several outputs from the research have been high lighted including published articles. The study supported the contention that: "Interpretive studies of change in complex business organisations are relatively rare"10. In view of the apparent lack of research precedent (both of the subject and the cases) the research strategy incorporated a 'controlled opportunism'11 to data collection. Furthermore, although the research was based in inductive and grounded theory it did not ignore existing theory (see, for example, Strauss and Corbin, 1994). Indeed, the research presented an opportunity for 'theory elaboration'12 whereby extant change management theories could be developed in apparently novel settings. Additionally, the iterative and comparative nature of the research strategy was also important in conducting a more thorough and transferable interrogation of the research propositions and questions. Ultimately, conducting the chosen research project was hugely rewarding and, despite the challenging, un certain and emergent nature of qualitative management research, we would encourage others to follow suit.
References:
. Altheide, D. L. and John son, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research In: Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. eds Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage, 485- 499
2. Becker, H. S. and Geer, B. (1982). Participant observation: the analysis of qualitative field data. In: Burgess, R. G. ed. Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. London: George Allen & Unwin, 239- 250
3. Denzin N.K. and Lincoln Y.S., "The discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research, p.1-25
4. Easterby-Smith M., Thorpe R. and Lowe A. (1991). Management Re search. An Introduction. London: Sage Publications Ltd
5. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, 532- 550
6. Lofland, J. (1971). Analysing Social Settings. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. London: Sage (2nd edition).
7. Moser, C. A. and Kalton, G. (1975). Survey Methods in Social Investigation. London: Heinemann Educational Books
8. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. London: Sage (2nd edition).
9. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. London: Sage
0. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In: Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage, 273- 285
1. Tremblay, M. (1982). The key informant technique: a non-ethnographic application. In: Burgess, R. G. ed Field Research. A Sourcebook and Field Manual London:
2. George Al len & Un win, 97- 104
3. Van de Ven, A. H. (1988). Review essay: four requirements for procession analysis. In: Petigrew, A. M. ed. The Management of Strategic Change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 330- 341
4. Watson, T.J. (1994). "Managing, Crafting and Researching: Words, Skill and Imagination in Shaping Management Research", British Journal of Management, Vol. S Special Issue, S77-S87 (June 1994)
5. Whyte, W. F. (1982). Interviewing in field research. In: Burgess, R. G. ed. Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. London: George Allen & Unwin, 111- 122
6. Wilson, I. (1992). Realising the power of strategic vision. Long Range Planning, 25, 5, 18- 28
Tony J. Watson, p2
2 Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, p.3
3 Tremblay (1982, p.98)
4 Patton, 1980, p.140
5 Lofland, 1971, p.7
6 Patton, 1980, p.268
7 Altheide and Johnson, 1994, p.496
8 Patton, 1980, p.306
9 Altheide and Johnson, 1994, p.
0 Wilson, 1992, p.81
1 Eisenhardt, 1989, p.539
2 Vaughan, 1992, p.175
