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

330 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––of the phenomenon. These can be welcomed (however initially inconvenient) as indicatingthat further theory-building and/or refinement is required.Yin (1994) notes that final explanations should fit several criteria. The explanatory casestudy should be an accurate and complete rendition of the features and ‘facts’ of the case, thereshould be some consideration of the possible alternative explanations of these, and aconclusion drawn based on the explanation which appears most congruent with the facts.There should be a chain of evidence which allows the reader of the case study ‘to follow thederivation of the evidence from initial research questions to ultimate case study conclusions’(and vice versa) (Yin, 1994: 98). Eisenhardt (1989) concurs, suggesting that the writing upof the research should provide enough evidence for each construct used to allow readers tomake their own assessment of its fit with theory.A mistake in writing up case studies is to believe that the narrative is the most interestingaspect of the study. Narrative alone is unlikely to be of interest to those outside theorganization and every effort has to be made to draw out the wider implications of the studywhile giving a strong sense of the particular circumstances of the case. Sometimes a briefdescription of the main events – perhaps in a tabulated diary form – can set the eventschronologically in a succinct way so that the writing can then pursue themes. Yin (1994)suggests that an antidote to time-based rather than issue-based analysis is to write the laterelements of the case first, and work backwards to the beginning.The careful checking of constructs and theory against various sources of evidence helpsprevent being biased by early impressions. Other means of increasing the internal validity ofthe research exist too. The use of research teams can help, with the similarities in data – butalso the contrasts – being carefully explored (for example, Pettigrew et al., 1992). In addition,there may be other researchers who can act as devil’s advocate and provide criticalquestioning for your analysis. During the steel strike research, our data collection andinterpretation were enhanced by having two researchers in the field and one researcher whorarely visited the field. This supported the combination of closeness and distance which isessential to good research.Checking the findings with the case study participants can be a valuable part of the analysisand can enhance validity. As a researcher, you bear responsibility for the interpretation of thefindings, but participants should be able to agree with the verifiable facts you present.Finally, the analysing of data is enhanced by reference to the existing literature and usingthis to raise questions about whether the researcher’s findings are consistent with or differentfrom extant research. Sources of difference need to be examined and can be the source ofcreative theory development.Leaving the case studyWhen you have collected enough data (or when the issue under study has ended), you willhave to leave (see also Buchanan et al., 1988). Paying careful attention to completing the casestudy relationship can be important both for you and for your informants (see Barley, 1990).It is advisable to remind the key liaison person for the study (or working group) about yourplans for analysing and writing up the case study, when results will be available, and agreementsabout confidentiality of data or any required anonymity. You may choose to offer feedbackin recognition for the help you have received, for example, a short report or a seminar todiscuss the findings and policy recommendations. It is valuable to give the organization the