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

30 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––‘hyperpersonal’ relationships even in short-term groups (Joinson, 2001). It has also beensuggested that people develop new social processes and new ‘strategies of visibility’(Paccagnella, 1997) to make up for the limitations of electronic communication. However,this type of research tends to focus on effects of the medium on constructs such as intimacy,affection and social attractiveness, rather than about the quality of the communication, whichis important to qualitative researchers.Research is continuing in these areas, and certainly one needs to be aware of potentialdifferences in response when using this method. At a practical level, Sallis and Kassabova(2000) suggest poor e-mail readability can lead to considerable ambiguity, suggesting careshould be taken to develop a clear style. For the moment, we will agree that e-mailcommunication is a simplified register and a hybrid of oral and written communication(Murray, 1995, in Selwyn and Robson, 1998), which if managed with sensitivity could leadto a rich new form of information exchange.POWER ISSUES AND DEMOCRACYIt has been suggested that, due to the lack of social information, electronic research cantranscend race, gender and age (Selwyn and Robson, 1998), leading to democratization orequalization through computer mediated communications (Sproull and Kiesler, 1990).However, it has also been shown that many cues are still available using this medium. Forexample, the very style and nature of language used in the texts is a social cue and attributionswill be made (Hayne and Rice, 1987). In organizations, people are probably aware of thestatus of individuals using e-mail (for example, Mantovani, 1994). For research purposes,participants will already know the interviewer is a researcher, and that carries with it muchdetail regarding likely social class and educational level. Although some suggest that researchusing this method is potentially non-coercive and anti-hierarchical (Paccagnella, 1997), thereremain issues around the researcher-participant power relationship. This is not helped by thepotential low security of electronic interviews. Care should be taken to ensure participantsdo not feel their responses may be made public or that the researcher is being intrusive (forexample, by sending an excessive number of reminders). There may be differences in thereaction of participants to the use of e-mail rather than other methods. For example, Moon(1998) highlights differences in impression management when using e-mail, and Walther(1996) suggests that the sender will tend towards an optimized self-presentation and thereceiver towards an idealized perception. How these perceptions impact upon research andwhether the processes change by context or over time is not really known. We would certainlyargue that the power issue between researcher and participants still needs to be carefullymanaged, and that consideration should be given to respondents’ perceptions of the researchprocess and method.TEMPORALITYThe ability to communicate across time boundaries, regardless of whether the individual isactually ‘there’ is a key strength of this method, however there are some issues related to this.Some suggest that spontaneity is very important in interviews (Kvale, 1996) and this may belost with electronic interviews. Whilst this method could increase reflexivity, especially as it alsogives the respondent time to look at previous communications, it is uncertain whether allrespondents actually do this, often e-mails are responded to in a speedy stream of consciousness.There is some evidence that people become more self-aware and can focus more because of