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

162 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––Advantages of participant observationDuring the course of my postgraduate studies, it was put to me by more establishedcolleagues that I should regard my Ansells research as merely an exploratory ‘pilot’ study: thatit would be ‘courting disaster’ as far as the outcome of my PhD was concerned to relyexclusively on such a soft methodology; and that I should perhaps ‘hedge my bets’ bycarrying out a laboratory simulation of a strike. I now realize that I should have argued moreassertively that some degree of researcher bias is not only inevitable in studies of socialconflict, but can also prove extremely beneficial to the study; and that, whilst a researcher’spresence is bound to have an impact on his or her data, it is preferable to address the possibleeffects head on than to merely pretend – as positivists do – that research can be carried outin a social vacuum.For all my former diffidence, I have never had much difficulty emphasizing that thebenefits to be gained from adopting a participant observation approach to an appropriateresearch issue will far outweigh any practical or ethical problems likely to be encountered.One of the most advantageous reasons for using this approach is that it promotes thedevelopment of confidence and trust between the researcher and his or her respondents –all the more so if the latter have reason to assume that the former is sympathetic towardsthem (Green, 1993: 16–17). I very much doubt whether the Ansells strikers would havebeen quite so confiding and willing to admit me to the ‘backstage’ regions of the strike, hadthey not been given adequate time to thoroughly appraise my character and detect mysympathetic attitude.Participant observation also helps to reduce the likelihood of being deceived by one’srespondents (Burns, 2000). During my research, I was able to assess the consistency of people’sstatements, moods and behaviour at different times and in contrasting situations, eliminatingthe possibility of being fooled by initial appearances. I was also in a position to witness suddenor progressive changes in people’s definitions and emotions – something I could never haveappreciated had I used a more conventional, ‘one-shot’ method. There is no doubt, either,that my chosen methodology afforded me an excellent opportunity to observe the creationand exchange of key social ideas. This is best illustrated by the build-up to a crucial massmeeting of 14 February 1981.During this period, I observed the way that shop stewards systematically mingled amongthe pickets in order to innoculate them against the potentially damaging views of full-timeTGWU officials who were preparing to tell them that it would be futile to prolong the strike.One steward after another reassuringly explained to his members that the TGWU weredesperately looking for a strike victory in order to reverse a recent trend of humiliating defeatsat the hands of local employers. District and regional officials were preparing to risk theunion’s remaining credibility by ‘fully backing’ the strike, but first they had to convincethemselves that the Ansells men had sufficient determination to last out what might well provea long and bitter struggle. For this reason, the TGWU officials were planning to convey anextremely pessimistic (though entirely bogus) impression of the strikers’ chances at theforthcoming mass meeting.As a ‘member’ of the picket line, I observed how one shop steward impressed the followingmessage on his members: