849954 sisus

general, the atmosphere should be emphasised in the discussions because it is
an assurance for a high degree of motivation.
One of the factors that can cause problems in studies is that a certain type of
managerial, well-established wording (and inherent concepts) might mislead the
researcher, as the conclusion can be predicted – more or less – and is consistent
with the predefined hypothesis because of the formulation of questions, indicating
a What-You/U-ask-is-what-you/U-get (WUAWUG)- syndrome. To reduce
this kind of risk, Alajoutsijärvi and Erikson (1998, 34) have proposed a
method of microlevel stories to elaborate the reality on every managerial level.
The methodology is based on constructive science and is suitable because reality
is a compilation of perceptions assessed by all the actors exposing themselves
in an exchange process: the actors can be individuals, or firms.
As regards informal comments, there are some analytical problems. These
comments, though often very valuable for the understanding of the phenomenon,
can not be included in the analysis. Presumably, some of the informants do
not want to unveil all the facts for strategic reasons or because the bundle of
their personal motives can be difficult to handle. Inevitably, this could partly reduce
the reliability of the research work.
On the other hand, many of the facts are clear and subject to open disclosure,
increasing the reliability of the entire research work. The question of divulgation
is always problematic, if interpersonal (also difficult) issues are to be analysed.
It is also worth noticing that the appropriate vocabulary can not just limit but also
enrich the empirical investigation. The greatest risk is whether the researcher
has true capabilities and skills to interpret correctly and promptly the material
gathered from the empiria. Often, as in some of the papers in this publication,
many of the ideas and definitions were created with the help of preliminary discussions;
hence the risk is reduced, though can not be totally eliminated.
One of the problems is the efficient use of retrospective data, as the researcher
often aims at including the temporal dimension in the analysis. The respondents
are often familiar with describing the history of the on-going relationship/s by addressing
the critical incidents. The temporality is for assessing the notable
changes in the state of a relationship: for example technological adaptations, interorganisational
cohesion, the evolution of stronger bonds, and features of network
dynamics. In the longitudinal analysis, the interviewees have a chance to
catch those events which have been decisive for their own behaviour. However,
respondents are often very reluctant to give detailed narratives in this issue. This
is partly due to the fact that networks are a result of a very stable and innocuous
18