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

116 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––research agendas which may be pursued, based on stories. These include viewing stories aselements of organizational culture (Allaire and Firsirotu, 1984; Mahler, 1988; Meek, 1988;Hansen and Kahnweiler, 1993), the study of stories (Bowles, 1989; Gabriel, 2000), theexploration of stories as a vehicle for organizational communication and learning (Wilkins,1983; Wilkins and Martin, 1979; Boje, 1991, 1994), and the analysis of stories as an expressionof political domination and opposition subverting management power (Rosen, 1985; Meek,1988; Collinson, 1994; Gabriel, 2000). There has also been much interest in examining storiesas performances involving a degree of improvisation and an interaction with an audience(Boje, 1991, 2001; Case, 1995) and also viewing them as narrative structures and studyingthem through different forms of discourse analysis. Generally, a researcher’s methodology willreflect his/her theoretical interests and the uses to which the field material will be put.SOME ISSUES OF METHODOLOGY ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Should the researcher elicit stories?Eliciting stories generates larger amounts of field material, the stories ‘framed’ for the benefitof the researcher. Different accounts of the same story may be compared as can the storyprofiles of different organizations in a relatively economical manner. The researcher knowswhen to switch his/her tape recorder on and off and may easily transcribe and process thematerial at his/her leisure later. This approach is favoured by many of the systematicresearchers into stories (for example, Mahler, 1988; Gabriel, 2000). The main disadvantageof eliciting stories is that the researcher risks imposing his/her definitions of what is importantor enjoyable. The stories are not encountered in their natural state, namely as part oforganizational talk, but are presented and performed for the benefit of an outsider. They arepart of the dyadic research discourse rather than of organizational discourse proper.The alternative of collecting stories when and as they occur, is more time- and moneyconsumingand is part of a broader ethnographic approach. It has been used with notablesuccess for studying humour (for example, Coser, 1959; Collinson, 1988; Gabriel, 2000) andis especially important if the emphasis lies on approaching stories as performance rather thanmerely as text. Boje (1991), who has made a notable contribution using this approach,observed that, within their organizational settings, stories are fragmented, terse, discontinuous,polysemic and multi-authored – most renditions omit large amounts of information whichis taken for granted. Observers who are not familiar with such taken-for-granted informationmay miss the point or the catch or may not be aware that a story is actually being performedat all.The researcher who pursues storytelling as part of a broader ethnographic project, withoutspecifically seeking to elicit them, may be charged with pursuing research agendas hidden fromtheir respondents. Besides ethical questions, this raises both practical and methodologicalquestions. Does the researcher use a tape recorder? This risks intimidating or unnervingpotential storytellers. The presence of a tape-recorder may inhibit organizational participantsfrom telling tales which may not be factually backed up or which may compromise them withcolleagues, subordinates and superiors. If no tape recorder is used, the researcher must rely oneither hand-written notes or on recollection. Written notes have a less disturbing effect thantape-recorders but nevertheless slow down the storytelling and undermine the naturalness of