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

38 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––Having obtained the data, the researcher is left with two analytical problems. The firstinvolves what to do with the mass of data. The second involves the fundamental problematicaround surfacing taken-for-granted assumptions. Basic assumptions are notoriouslyinaccessible in that they exist at a level whereby people are commonly unable to articulatethem, even though their behaviour might be in accordance with the rules that they embody(Garfinkel, 1967; Schein, 1985). Jones (1983) suggests that researchers can deal with boththese problems through a process of setting up a series of oppositions: first, within members’accounts; second, between members’ accounts; and third, between members’ accounts andthe researcher’s constructions of the situation. During this iterative process, the researcherwill develop constructs and concepts which expose and describe the theoretical frameworksof individuals, at the same time as subjecting these to the theoretical orientation developedby the researcher. The object is to retain the integrity of the data whilst seeking to confrontits internal logic and thus explain the relationship to taken-for-granted assumptions. Theresearcher should involve members as much as possible in this process by taking the ensuingtheoretical explanations back to them for comment. The carrying out of this complexprocess is best illustrated through the description of empirical work contained in the nextsection.SOME EMPIRICAL EXAMPLES ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The examples referred to in this section are taken from doctoral work on how general medicalpractitioners (GPs) in the UK experienced and understood the 1990 health care reformswhich impacted on their daily practice (Musson, 1994), directly linking for the first time theirclinical activity, and the ability to document that activity, to the financial reward that theyreceive. It would be tempting at this point to indicate that life history method was a wellthought out, predetermined approach at the start of the doctoral research, but this would notreflect the truth of the situation. It is much more the case that during the in-depth researchwith six general practices carried out over two years it became more and more apparent thatthe life histories of key actors were significant in the way the changes were construed,understood and experienced, and that allowing people to tell something of their life historiesilluminated the sense making process. The original planned method involved using a varietyof techniques including participant observation, semi-structured interviews, group discussionsand analysis of documentation. This was eventually supplemented with informal interviewdata that focused specifically on collecting individual life histories. As Plummer (1996: 54)notes, this reflects a ‘less formal life history strategy’ of triangulated data collection, mixingparticipant observation, formal and informal interview data and field notes, rather than themore traditional method of encouraging people to write their own life history, or to recordspecific life history interviews over a period of time.What follows are some extracts where life history data were able to enhance theunderstandings surfaced by the other methods. These extracts will also be used to describethe oppositional process outlined in the previous section. The extracts are necessarily short,but hopefully comprehensive enough to demonstrate how the method is useful inorganizational analysis. They include actual quotes from the research data whereverpossible.