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

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ATTRIBUTIONAL CODING –––––––––– 231IDENTIFY SOURCE OF ATTRIBUTIONS ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The LACS can be used to code attributions from a range of sources, for example: a speechby a chief executive officer, team meetings, semi-structured research interviews, or writtenarchival material such as annual reports or letters to share-holders. Attributions can be foundin a variety of materials, but certain sources may not be as rich as others. Experience suggeststhat technical descriptions, or interviews where factual or problem solving answers arerequested, tend to generate fewer attributions than material where individuals discussimportant events (for example, performance down-turn of an organization or group, failureto pass an exam) or justify decisions and behaviour (for example, promoting one individualand not another, choosing to study abroad). Typically, semi-structured or critical incidentresearch interviews will generate 1–2 attributions per minute.EXTRACT ATTRIBUTIONS ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Attributions are extracted from verbatim transcripts of the material. Although attributions canbe extracted by ‘ear’ simply by listening to audio-tapes (less time-consuming and costly), thiscan lead to a reduction in reliability. It also makes it difficult for coders to use the additionalcontextual information that is present in a transcript. An attribution is defined as: ‘a statementthat refers to a causal relationship where the speaker implies that a specific outcome (forexample, ‘I got the job’) is a consequence of a particular cause’ (for example, ‘because I hadfriends in that company’). In general, the LACS makes no distinction between reasons,justifications, causal accounts or hypothetical outcomes. Finally, it is very important toremember that attributions are extracted and coded from the speaker’s perspective. Therefore,all attributions made by the speaker, whether considered highly unlikely or even ‘wrong’ bythe researcher (for example, ‘I got the job, because I’m the best candidate they’ll ever see’),are extracted for later coding.It takes a little practice to identify attributions quickly and reliably. Some attributions aremore obvious than others and many will include a causal connective such as ‘because’, ‘so’,‘therefore’, ‘as a result’. But there will also be causal attributions where the link is impliedrather than stated explicitly. In the case of ‘He’s never been very good in cars, he had a badexperience when he was young’ the bad experience (cause) results in not being very goodin cars (outcome) but no link word is used. In selection interviews, interviewers oftenexplicitly request a causal explanation (for example, ‘Why do you think you are suited to thisparticular job?’) and in doing so they provide an outcome (being suited to the job) and requestone or more causes from the candidate (for example, ‘Well, I’ve always been very good withpeople’). Similarly, although speakers do generate simple causal statements (for example, ‘I willget a good grade if my lecturer gives me feedback’), in many instances causal statements arecomplex and may be best described as a causal sequence. Take the following example of amanager describing a good performing female:Interviewer:Manager:Can you give me an example of someone you have managed whoperformed particularly well?Yes well, I will talk about an individual who happens to be a lady. Shewas particularly successful because she was always willing to listen andlearn. Um . . . worked incredibly hard, was a team player. She was