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

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ATTRIBUTIONAL CODING –––––––––– 239similar to that achieved using structured questionnaires. Good reliability requires clearlydefined dimensions and coders who have had sufficient training and practice. Reliability iscalculated using Cohen’s kappa (see Fleiss, 1971) for approximately 20–30 per cent of theattributions extracted for a study. In general, Fleiss (1971) suggests that kappas above 0.4 areconsidered acceptable, whereas those above 0.6 are good.A further advantage of coding spoken attributions rests with the number of attributionsit is possible to generate. In comparison with questionnaires which may rely on six positiveand six negative attributions, the focus on spoken attributions for real events means that severalthousand attributions can be generated from a single research study. Moreover, as attributionsare coded on each dimension, the resulting data set can prove large enough to permitinvestigation of both nomothetic and idiographic patterns. By entering the data into an SPSSdata sheet, it is possible to select certain types of attributions, for example where the speakeris Agent and outcomes are positive.ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE METHOD ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Researchers need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of using any research methodbefore determining which one best suits their particular research question. The potentialdisadvantages of attributional coding lie with its complexity – it can be more costly in termsof time and money than traditional questionnaire methodology. Moreover, it will take timebefore the newcomer feels entirely confident with the method, and able to achieve adequatelevels of reliability. Attributional coding also depends upon transcribed material and, thereforethe time or funds necessary to acquire such transcripts. However, a growing body oftranscribed material is now available through outlets such as Qualidata sponsored by the ESRCin the UK (see Chapter 30). This should help to reduce costs and increase opportunities forqualitative researchers. Such issues aside, attributional coding can be a very rewarding methodfor exploring how individuals make sense of their world.However, as mentioned previously, the analysis of public or spoken attributions sitssomewhat uneasily between the two powerful camps of constructionist and reductionistresearch. This means that research is potentially open to challenge by advocates of bothapproaches and, unfortunately, there is still a tendency to mistake the method for a particularepistemological approach. I believe that a strong advantage of attributional coding is that ithas the potential to be used by both qualitative and quantitative researchers. However, this doesmean that the researcher needs to be absolutely clear about his or her assumptions when usingthe method and reporting their findings. Quantifying individual attributions according to apre-specified coding framework fits with a reductionist perspective in that it enables theresearcher to explore consistency and track change in the patterns of attributions producedby individuals or groups of individuals. But, as Marshall (1994) points out, the positivisticstandpoint which accepts language as a transparent medium through which cognitions aretransmitted unproblematically, and without distortion, is very much open to question. Indeed,when studying public or spoken causal attributions, it is difficult (and no doubt unwise) toignore the importance of context in contributing to the type of attributions produced.Similarly, rather than assume that discourse is divorced from cognition, the greater challengewill be to determine how context, cognition, personality and skill interact when individualscommunicate their causal understanding of the world to one another.