essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DIARIES –––––––––– 111EVALUATING DIARY STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––I have already referred to the many positive benefits of the diary study, which can be foundin the immediacy of the account of events and feelings generated, and the degree of detailwhich can be recorded, which all contribute to an understanding of complex organizationalprocesses. Additionally, the charting of events over time allows the identification of patternsand changes in respondents’ accounts of these processes.A potential drawback is the extent to which respondents are committed to recordingevents, reactions, and so on on a regular basis. I have suggested a number of ways in whichrespondents could be encouraged to provide ‘full’ accounts: by carefully explaining projectobjectives; by keeping in regular contact; by involving respondents in the design; by workingon specifying a regular time and place for completion; and by ensuring the diaries arepersonally useful. However, one must also avoid the situation of ‘forcing’ respondents toprovide ‘answers’ to ‘questions’ that are not really relevant. In my case example, some shorterdiaries were probably an accurate reflection of the respondents’ degree of involvement in theIT project. In this way, diaries may have the advantage over some methods in that they do notnecessarily force participants to respond – depending, of course, on the particular design ofthe diary and the nature of the ‘contract’ between the researcher and the respondent.This leads to another issue which I think should be considered in the design of diarystudies: the degree of structure imposed on diary responses. One could argue that by providingspecific questions I was influencing respondents’ responses too much and structuring theiraccounts for them. Although the participants were free to define ‘activity’, even providingseparate pages for each activity is an assumption on my part of some notion of (relatively)fragmented events. Reflexively, this illustrates for me the ‘implicit theories’ that the researcherbrings to the research process. The diaries indicate some preconceptions on my part (forexample, that activities can be regarded as separate events; and that activities have objectivesand outcomes, and so on), some of which were challenged by the respondents themselves.It is, of course, possible to use much less structured materials (for example, a blank sheet foreach day). In doing this, one may want to be careful about finding a balance betweendepicting participants’ everyday experiences and fulfilling research objectives.There are probably other disadvantages that could be described for the diary approach –and these will differ according to one’s epistemological position. However, while I would notclaim that my case study example is ‘perfect’ (and there are changes I would have made withhindsight), it certainly revealed for me the potential of the qualitative diary as a method ofgaining insight into complex, ongoing organizational processes.CONCLUSION ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Stewart (1967) and Mintzberg (1973) concluded that diaries were inappropriate tools forgathering the kind of detailed information they were seeking. In this chapter, I have tried toillustrate that this conclusion was based on a rather restricted perception of potential uses ofthe diary method, and that the qualitative diary study can be a very useful and insightfulinformation source.While I have drawn on my use of a qualitative activity diary to demonstrate the potentialof diary studies, there are many more psychological and organizational phenomena which