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

12 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––Qualitative research interviews: methodological andepistemological distinctionsQualitative research interviews vary in methodological features such as length, style ofquestioning, and participant numbers (group or individual). While most are carried out faceto-face,qualitative interviews can also be carried out by telephone, or via the internet (seeMorgan and Symon, Chapter 3, this volume). There are important differences in thephilosophical assumptions underlying approaches to interview methodology. Thetheoretical traditions from which qualitative methods have developed in psychology makewidely varying claims about the nature of the material gathered through interviews, and theuses to which it legitimately can be put. Madill et al. (2000) suggest that qualitativemethodologies can be classified on a dimension representing their epistemological positions.At one end are ‘realist’ approaches, which assume that the accounts participants produce ininterviews bear a direct relationship to their ‘real’ experiences in the world beyond theinterview situation. At the opposite end are ‘radical constructionist’ approaches. These see theaccount as a text produced in the specific setting of the interview, to be analysed in terms ofthe discursive strategies employed and resources drawn upon by the interviewee. No attemptwould be made to make claims about the participant’s personal experience.This dimension is a very useful way of getting to grips with the differences betweenqualitative approaches, though as Willig (2001) points out, such categorization systemsinevitably involve a degree of simplification of positions, and of the distinctions between them.Simplification is also unavoidable in classifying types of qualitative research interview for ashort chapter like the present one. The following section can therefore only provide an outlineof some of the main types, highlighting their key methodological features and epistemologicalassumptions.REALIST INTERVIEWSFrom a realist epistemological position, interviewees’ accounts are treated as providinginsight into their psychological and organizational lives outside of the interview situation.This necessitates a concern with the accuracy of accounts; researchers may compareinterview findings with those obtained through other methods, such as documentaryanalysis or quantitative survey data – a process known as triangulation. Realist interviewsmay be rather more structured than some other qualitative interviews, because of the needto ensure that different participants’ accounts and different types of data can be systematicallycompared.PHENOMENOLOGICAL INTERVIEWSPhenomenology is a major philosophical tradition which has had a substantial impact on thesocial sciences, and especially on the development of qualitative research methods. It is alsoa very diverse field, encompassing distinct strands which differ in important ways (Moran,2000), making generalisations about phenomenological research methods difficult. Importantstrands within psychology include the hermeneutical-phenomenological approachdeveloped at Duquesne University by Giorgi and colleagues (Giorgi, 1985), Moustakas’transcendental-phenomenological model (1994), and Smith’s Interpretative PhenomenologicalAnalysis – commonly referred to as ‘IPA’ (Smith, 1996).One key feature of phenomenological methods is the emphasis placed on the need for the