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

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– USING DATA MATRICES –––––––––– 275with her. Afterwards when reflecting on her behaviour in the interview she felt concernedthat at no point had she challenged any of his views, rather she felt she had colluded in thewhole episode in terms of making reassuring noises and nods of the head. In contrast, anotherinterviewee was experienced as a considerate man who could not do more for his employeesbut still considered himself as ‘not a proper business’ and indeed ‘not worthy of studying’. Theresearcher on reflection felt angry that researchers may play a role in perpetuating what typesof company are perceived as worthy of study and which are not. In this case, these reflectionswere not put into the matrix, but rather were used as a way of providing the researcher withthe opportunity to examine her own experience of the interviews and how this might haveimpacted upon her analytical interpretations. In this way the research diary was used alongsidethe matrix analysis. In another study, however, such types of experiences could indeed beincluded in a matrix, depending on the aim of the study.Initially, template analysis (see King, Chapter 21, this volume) was chosen as the methodof analysis and an ‘initial template’ was constructed following the first three interviews. Themain aim of this was to assess the appropriateness of the interview schedule before proceedingwith the remaining interviews. An important realization at this stage was that whilst there werethemes and issues common to all three interviews, the interviews were also very different fromeach other, and, that this uniqueness should be reflected in the analysis. Thus, whilstidentifying themes common to all cases was very valuable, this should be complimented byan exploration of the differences between the cases, thus preserving the uniqueness of eachcase. This created a challenge analytically as it suggested analysis at different levels. Anotherimportant realization was the sheer depth and volume of the data generated in the interviews,little of which appeared to be redundant. Thus, even once the template analysis had beencompleted, the result was a weighty document of over 80 pages. A method was required ofsummarizing the data in a meaningful and relevant way in order to make it accessible bothto the researcher (namely being able to step back from it and look at the wider picture) andalso for the reader.Faced with the problem of how to do this, cross site matrices analysis (Miles and Huberman,1994) offered the ideal solution. Miles and Huberman comment upon the increasing trendtowards multi-site (as opposed to single site) field research, a trend which they trace back toGlaser and Strauss (1967) in Discovery of Grounded Theory. Whilst Glaser and Strauss advocatedthe use of multiple comparison groups by ethnographers, as Miles and Huberman point out,they ‘did not move on to the pragmatics of how one actually does multiple-case study work’further adding that ‘developing a good cross-site synthesis is not a simple matter’ (1994: 151).Such words are reassuring in so far as they confirm our initial perception of the analyticalchallenges faced as somewhat problematic. Matrix analysis offered a practical solution to theproblem enabling the identification of common themes (or points of contrast) between thecases (a between group analysis), whilst allowing the uniqueness of each case to be preservedthrough the within-site analysis. Some may question whether an interview with one personfrom an organization is enough to form the basis of a cross site analysis. It is worth quotingMiles and Huberman in full on this point:Once again we remind the reader that we use the term ‘site’ by preference, to indicatea bounded context where one is studying something, but ‘site’ is for us equivalent to‘case’, in the sense of ‘case study’. So what we call ‘cross-site’ methods can actuallybe used in the study of several individual people, each seen as a ‘case’. (1994:151)