Qualitative Research Methods - Book Report/Review Example

Qualitative Research Methods 2009 Qualitative Research Methods Case Question Protection of confidentiality and privacy of data in organizational research is a critically important issue. The first and foremost justification of strict confidentiality and privacy of data is the assumption that study participants are likely to provide really credible and valid data only when they are sure the research properly protects disclosed information. As a result, representativeness and richness of obtained data will improve while the likelihood of nonresponse in the sample will decrease. A number of studies have been conducted up to date to demonstrate that "the willingness of individuals to respond, if at all, to self-report social surveys, psychological tests, and attitude scales may depend very much on assurances provided by the researcher during the consent procedure" (Kimmel, 1988, p. 94). This consideration seems to be particularly relevant in case of Kamenou who dealt with a sensitive and potentially embarrassing data. As far as organizations are concerned through which formal access is often sought by organizational researchers, there are several other considerations. On the one hand, time, resources and general inconvenience often associated with granting a researcher access to study participants can be a fair price for potentially important findings. For example, in some cases study findings may be used by organizations to design appropriate reforms or changes and eventually benefit from them. On the other hand, there is always a possibility of an ethical and legal conflict unless privacy and confidentiality of disclosed information is kept properly. A classic work of Sieber (1982) lists six main reasons for confidentiality and privacy of information obtained from participants: 1. The disclosure of collected information that may often be embarrassing or secret implies the risk of social, psychological, or economic inconveniences for participants; 2. The researcher may legally obtain sensitive information from participants only if participants' privacy is adequately maintained; otherwise the process of data collection will not be legal. 3. Names, addresses and other personal data relating to study participants is often kept by researchers for relatively long periods of time, which increases the risk of intentional or unintentional sharing with a third party. 4. Research data can be subpoenaed by a court. 5. There is always a chance that the process of obtaining sensitive information may be constrained at any time due to creation of new confidentiality standards and laws. 6. And finally, participants often feel suspicious and unsure about the way in which information disclosed by them will be used by the researcher. Organisations and participants are always aware - implicitly or explicitly - of these considerations, and the researcher often has to demonstrate great persuasive power to achieve his goals. The topic explored by Kamenou apparently belongs to the class of highly sensitive and embarrassing topics, therefore many of the above reasons materialized in overwhelming refusal of formally accessed organisations that might not even take time to consider possible benefits of Kamenou's research. Perhaps only the organisation that had eventually withdrawn from the study claiming "restructuring was in progress" (p.102) took time to weigh the benefits against potential efforts and risks, but perceived risks outweighed potential benefits. In organisational research, the task of recruiting highly representative sample consisting of participants who provide credible information is very difficult. First of all it requires brilliant knowledge of sampling strategies and techniques as well as their possible uses, drawbacks and shortcomings. Unfortunately, even masterfully planned sampling strategy is likely to fail unless the researcher pays appropriate attention to the issues of confidentiality, privacy and ethics. Only consideration of these issues, coupled with the researcher's ability to communicate them clearly and coherently may help avoid participant recruitment difficulties. Question 2 The author's choice of sampling strategy seems to be debatable. Some participants were accessed formally by contacting their organizations while the rest were approached through what the author describes as 'personal networking' (p.S102). However, Kamenou falls short of explaining how exactly the non-formal access was gained and what kind of social networking was employed. The meaning of this term is too vague to make any resolute conclusions regarding either friendship or other sort of relationship existing between the author and her participants. Furthermore, the study included, apart from 26 minority female participants, fifteen ethnic minority men, eight white women and six white men. The reason for such sampling was ' to add richness to the data by looking at minority women's work and career experiences in a variety of sectors and occupations" (p.S102). In doing so Kamenou relied on the assumption of zero difference between formal and non-formal selection of participants and similarity and mutual complementariness of male and female participant experiences. Such assumption that led to great diversity of the sample might be erroneous for several reasons. Firstly, participants approached formally through their organization might feel reluctant to share some negative experiences with the researcher because due to uncertainty associated with potential reaction of their colleagues and/or management. Besides, Kamenou does not mention any ethic consent forms or confidentiality commitments: the participants could not be sure in confidentiality of information disclosed by them. By contrast, the participants approached through social networking might be more open and willing to share their experiences with the researcher. Secondly, answers of the participants might be shaped to certain extent by the way they were approached. Thus, participants approached through social networking could possibly focus more on their experiences associated with their non-work experiences while those approached formally through their organizations might have their answers shaped by exclusively work experiences. In the context of research objective set by Kamenou, involvement of male participants and white women seems questionable too. Although it is very difficult to state which scenario might have unfolded, it seems clear that more uniform sampling (either formal or informal approach, exclusively female or male sample, only ethnic minority or white participants) would improve credibility of the study. Instead, Kamenou merges experiences and concerns voiced by representatives of differently approached samples into one single pool. It is true that qualitative researchers often tend to develop their own concepts of validity or adopt other assessment criteria that depend upon each particular case. However, the criteria of trustworthiness and rigor are applicable to any qualitative study and Kamenou's sampling strategy does not seem to fully satisfy these criteria. Question 3 Kamenou provides very scarce autobiographical information which is limited only to her scientific background. However, it is evident that the study topic is not alien to Kamenou and there is a chance that the study results might be affected by personal experiences of the author who is female. From the reader's point of view, it would be interesting to know ethnic, religious, and cultural background of the author. There is a possibility that the author's belonging to a minority group might have affected the findings through personal reflection of Kamenou. The overall direction, style and quality of the article suggest that the author's possible minority background might have affected only the choice of research topic but not the content. Kamenou's extensive scientific background and perfect knowledge of complex qualitative methods and techniques demonstrated throughout the paper hardly leave any doubt that the author would allow personal reflexivity deteriorate the results. Kamenou employed a social constructionist framework for her study. This perspective relies on the assumption of close interaction between structure, culture and agency. The constructivist paradigm is very complex and focuses on the meaning that individuals and groups make of the world around them. Constructivism is the ontological vision that rejects "the conventional inquiry on three basic grounds: its posture on reality; its stance on the knower-known relationship, and its stance on the possibility of generalisation (Lincoln, 1990: 68). The paradigm advocates multiple, socially constructed realities which, "when known more fully, tend to produce diverging inquiry" (Lincoln and Guba, 1986: 75). It is inappropriate to study these realities in pieces (e.g., as variables): holistic and context-basted approach is the only alternative. Advocates of constructivism reject the conventional views of the relationship between the researcher and the phenomenon being studied: "Knower and known not only could not remain distanced and separated in the process of evaluation, but probably should not" (Lincoln, 1990: 68). It is impossible to suppose that Kamenou was not aware of this key principle underlying the constructivist perspective. Perhaps the only area where Kamenou's possible belonging to the studied population could really affect the results and findings was data collection. The method of interviewing shares the same set of drawbacks the other qualitative methods do. Thus, data obtained during interviewing is believed to be subjective and descriptive. Probably the main drawback of this method is related to the language-imposed constraints: the researcher's questions asked verbally during the interview are believed to frame responses of the participant being interviewed (Hancock, 2002). Although the method of interviewing seems to be an absolutely appropriate and justified choice for the study design type, the above mentioned potential drawbacks might be the case in Kamenous's study. Unfortunately, the author did not explain in detail the process of interviewing and interviews' analysis. For example, there is no mentioning in the article that each interview was tapped, transcribed and carefully read several times to avoid possible biases associated with the method of interviewing. Similarly, no description of procedures to ensure rigorous analysis of data is provided and no mentioning of a coding scheme designed with reference to the study's objectives is made by the author. Analysis of data collected during the interviews apparently follows the inductive paradigm, which is typical for qualitative research, and though the formal framework of analysis is not clearly explained, Kamenou paid much attention to the interpretation of findings revealed during the analysis of data. Despite certain potential drawbacks, it is difficult to claim that it would have made a difference if the author was a member of one of the researched "ethnic minority groups" (p. S103) herself. The overall direction, style and quality of the article suggest that the author's possible minority background might have affected only the choice of research topic but not the content. Case 2 Question 1 The study by Brown, Humphreys and Gurney sought to contribute to the understanding of organizational identity of a middle-size UK company. The authors analyze shared identity narratives at the UK-based specialist tour operator Laskarina Holidays. The authors employed a combination of qualitative data collection methods, namely interviewing (unstructured and semi-structured) and observation. These two basic methods were appropriately supplemented by study of documentation, including internet pages, internal policy reports, marketing brochures and newspaper reports though interview was the primary tool. The authors justify their selection of such combination stating that it "contributed to our understanding of the organization" (p.315). Close review of the study and its design suggests that the justification provided by Brown and colleagues is absolutely reasonable. The study design is ethnography which is a renowned form of qualitative design commonly used in social and cultural research. The basic goal of ethnographic research is to provide the reader with the story of life of the group being studied and also to identify the cultural beliefs and meanings members of that group attach to their behaviours and lifestyle (Patton, 2002). The ethnographic approach requires from the researcher to spend much time in the field immersing him in the setting of the phenomenon being studied. Typically the data gathering and analysis methods used within the ethnographic design include participant observation, unstructured interview, studying documents and photographs (Creswell, 1997). Brown, Humphreys and Gurney did not go beyond the chosen methodological framework using a combination of methods and techniques typical for ethnographic studies. Thirty-nine interviews conducted in this study provided the authors with the core massive of relevant data while the documentary evidences definitely made the story more compelling by numerous supplementary details. While interviewing helped Brown and colleagues understand the meaning of narratives within a context-specific setting the supplementary techniques added validity to this meaning and contributed to better understanding of it. Therefore, even in cases when there were differences in accounts of the organization between the interviews, observations and the documentary evidence the authors had very rich data enabling them to understand the reasons for observed differences and treat them adequately. The assumption that supplementary sources (documentary evidence) were included in the study solely for the purpose of convincing the readers that the research had legitimacy is inappropriate for several reasons. Firstly, the number of interviews conducted by the authors is more than sufficient. Approximately 40 hours of interviewing with 39 participants - the majority of Laskarina staff - exceeds the formal requirements for interviewing: normally 10 to 20 interviews from 60 to 90 minutes each are enough for such studies (Seidman, 1998; Hermanowicz, 2002). Secondly, legitimacy and validity of qualitative studies is not achieved via increasing the amount of data generated from different sources. Instead, legitimacy and validity is pursued by appropriate study design, valid data collection and analysis methods, confirmability, balance and other ways of establishing validity and legitimacy (Lincoln and Guba, 1986). The issue of validity and legitimacy is particularly relevant in case of interviewing which is no longer defined as a mere process of questioning and answering (Gubrium, and Holstein, 1995). In modern organisational research interviewing is treated as a specific process during which the interviewer and interviewee are involved in the process of eliciting and representing an interpretive relationship of the world (Denzin, 2001). This approach means that the interviewee is not simply a box with information to be retrieved by the interviewer. The interviewee is a unique person who often does not have quick and clear answers to the questions ('narrative complexity'), may be affected by the perspective taken by researcher ('contextual shifts'), and may eventually discover new meanings of his own experiences revealed during interview ('horizons of meaning') (Holstein and Gubrium, 1995). Question 2 In their article, Brown and colleagues state that analysis of data collected during the study eventually produced "three coherent identity narratives" (p.315). The authors identify only three narratives because they perfectly capture the main characteristics of Laskarina as an organisation. It is true that some other less essential narratives could have been identified: the interviews, observation and analysis of documents carried out by the researchers provided exceptionally rich information. However, one of the main indicators of author's qualification is the ability to synthesize abundant data and correctly identify the most essential findings. That is exactly what Brown and colleagues masterfully did. The combination of qualitative data collection techniques greatly improved credibility to the study providing less experienced researchers with a very good example of how different qualitative methods can add naturally to each other. Although the authors do not provide a description of strength and limitations of the research methods and techniques, they do, however, present an explanation of how the method is used and how the data collected was treated, analysed and interpreted. Thus, each interview was tapped, transcribed and verified with the authors taking well-established procedures for the rigorous analysis of data and a structured coding scheme designed with reference to the study's objectives. Although the process of data collection is not described in great details, Brown and colleagues provide a synthesis of their findings using a lot of quotes so that the reader could have a sense of personal involvement in the issue being studied. The quotes highlight the most important elements of the research and strongly support the overall argument of the article. Similarly, the discussion section provides a strong synthesis of the research data and findings. Eventually, the authors identify three major points or narratives that reflect the objectives set in the introductory chapter. The term 'coherent' is used by Brown and colleagues in this case to identify the common thread between stories told by different participants. At the same time, the authors also mention those remaining 'other' stories: the three interwoven collective identity narratives (utilitarian, normative and hedonic) are contrasted with some so-called 'dissonant' or non-coherent voices that deviated from that common thread. Besides, the authors might use the term 'coherent' to demonstrate the place of their study findings within a wider framework of 'organisational identities as narrative constructs' (p.312). It is difficult to say whether Laskarina employees would recognise these narratives or not. The authors argue that any organizational change is, at least partially, constituted by changes in employees' understandings, encoded in narratives, and communicated and shared in conversations. If this statement is true - and there is no reason for thinking otherwise - the employees would probably recognise the narratives identified by Brown and colleagues. At the same time, this assumption does not mean that recognition necessarily means liking: another serious study is needed to find out the employee's attitude toward the narrative identified by the authors. Question 3 Evidently, the study under review represents a solid piece of work written by the top-level professionals in the area of organisational research. In terms of the research methodology the authors provided a brilliant example of how qualitative paradigm must be effectively used to achieve the research objectives. Despite certain limitations associated with qualitative methodologies and particularly the method of ethnography employed by the authors as well as complexity and relative novelty of the study subject, Brown and his colleagues successfully avoided the traps waiting for inexperienced researchers. Consideration associated with research ethics, confidentiality and privacy have also been taken into account properly, though some issues pertaining to ethics and privacy may be perceived by the reader as debatable. The authors identify the company by its real name. This may be considered as a potentially unethical step, but the truth is that such qualified and experienced researchers as Brown and colleagues would never indicate the company name without prior agreement of that company. Such agreement was obtained from the director and owner of the company and, therefore, no unethical behaviour is involved. Furthermore, the company and its owner might have even encouraged the authors to conduct their study because the objectives set by Brown and colleagues could provide highly valuable data to be used by the company in shaping of its internal policies and external positioning. The author's awareness of confidentiality and privacy protection requirements is perfectly illustrated by the fact that they do not identify study participants. While Kamenou used first names of her participants which is not fully correct unless consent of each participant is obtained, Brown and colleagues adopt a standard practice of using numerical identifiers such as 'rep 1', 'administrative assistant 2', 'marketing manager 3', etc. It is an extremely rare practice that participants are identified by names in organisational research, and there is simply no need to do so. Although the participants might not object mentioning their real names in the study, the traditional 'anonymous' approach taken by the authors helped them further improve validity of collected data. For example, since the permission to conduct the study was obtained from the company's director some employees might feel coerced into contributing to the study in case their names would be revealed. In this case, anonymous answers would definitely improve quality of collected data. The findings revealed by Brown and colleagues suggest that though permission to do the research was obtained from the MD of the company the employees did not feel coerced into sharing their genuine thoughts. However, this might also depend on the place where interview took place: those who were interviewed in Laskarina premises could really feel differently from those interviewed in cafs and restaurants. References Brown, A. D., Humphreys, M., Gurney, P. M., (2005). "Narrative, Identity and Change: a case study of Laskarina Holidays", Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18 (4), pp. 312-326 Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive Interactionism. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Gubrium, J. and Holstein, J. (1995). The Active Interview, Thousand Oaks: Sage Hancock, B. (2002). An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Trent Focus Group. Hermanowicz, J., C. (2002). 'The great interview: 25 strategies for studying people in bed', Qualitative Sociology, 25, 479-99 Kamenou, N. (2008). "Reconsidering work-life balance debates: Challenging limited understandings of the 'life' component in the context of ethnic minority women's experiences", British Journal of Management, 19(1), pp. S99-S109. Kimmel, A. J. (1988). Ethics and values in applied social research. Newbury Park, CA Lincoln, Y. 1990). The Making of a constructivist: a remembrance of transformations past. In E. Guba (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park: Sage Lincoln, Y., and E. Guba (1986). But is it rigorous Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In D. D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic Evaluation. New Directions in Program Evaluation, No. 30, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc Sieber, J.E. (Ed.) (1982). Ethics of social research: Surveys & experiments. New York: Springer-Verlag. Seidman, I. (1998) Interviewing as Qualitative Research. New York: Teacher's College Press. Read More