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

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ATTRIBUTIONAL CODING –––––––––– 233Target categories are usually restricted to individuals, groups or entities likely to be of interestin that particular investigation. For example, a researcher interested in family attributionsmight code each family member as a separate Agent and Target. Theoretically, any numberof Agent-Target categories can be coded, but larger numbers have the disadvantage ofreducing inter-rater reliability. I have used the following categories with material fromselection interviews:(1) Speaker(2) Speaker’s family(3) Friends and work colleagues(4) Education (may include teachers at school or university)(5) Company or employer(6) OtherSo, in the attribution: ‘I decided to study law because several of my family are lawyers’,the Target or person involved in the outcome (I decided to study law) would be coded ‘Self ’(1) and the Agent would be coded ‘Family’ (2). Similarly, in: ‘My school was very proactivein securing work placements, several of my friends got work that way’, Agent = ‘Education’(4) and Target = ‘Friends’ (3). The second attribution illustrates an advantage that the LACShas over other similar coding schemes in that it allows the researcher to code attributionswhere the Speaker is neither Agent nor Target.Agent-Target coding has a number of uses. By counting the number of times a speakermentions different Agents or Targets, it is possible to explore the extent to which a speakerdescribes themselves as an Agent (namely causing events to occur) rather than a Target(being influenced by a particular cause). A simple count provides insight into the extent towhich the Speaker considers or wishes to portray him- or her-self as influencing of, ratherthan being influenced by specific outcomes. It is also possible to identify the Agents thata Speaker views as most likely to influence different Targets and, third, whether particularAgents and Targets are associated with negative or positive outcomes. In recent workinvestigating CEO attributions, we found that customers were described more often asAgents than Targets, suggesting reactive rather than proactive customer relationships(Silvester, West and Dawson, 2002).ATTRIBUTIONAL DIMENSIONS ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The LACS codes attributions using five causal dimensions. They include: Stable–Unstable,Global–Specific, Internal–External, Personal–Universal and Controllable–Uncontrollable.Extracted attributions are coded on each of these causal dimensions and definitions of thesedimensions together with examples are provided in the next section. It is important to notethat attributions are coded, as well as extracted, from the perspective of the Speaker. The codershould use information present in the attribution or surrounding transcript to make a decision,rather than rely upon his or her own view of causal reality. Antaki (1994) describes this as‘hearable as’, that it is the meaning that the individual wishes to convey which is important,irrespective of whether or not the listener believes or agrees with what is being said.