Transcript Phenomenological or Ideographic Research: A Multiplicity

Phenomenological or
Ideographic Research:
A Multiplicity of Methods Applied
to Scholarly Research in
Management
Professor Luiz Moutinho
Foundation Chair of Marketing
School of Business and Management
University of Glasgow, Scotland
ONTOLOGY
The object and subject dyad
Scientific Research Criteria
 Relevance
 Compatibility with theoretical underpinnings
 Generalisability
 Reproduction/ Replication
 Precision
 Rigour
 Verificability
. . . NO to second-rate research
overloaded with truisms and
tautologies, lacking rigour and
practical theories . . .
When to use a qualitative methodology
 When nature of problem cannot be
understood by an objective, distant
approach
 When little is known or understood about
the topic
 When complex processes of interaction are
to be understood
 When the researcher believes that reality is
socially constructed and knowledge is
neutral
Why use a qualitative methodology
 When you need to ‘get close’ to
participants
 When you need to interpret participants’
realities and perspectives
 When you want to generate an
understanding which ‘fits and works’ with
the substantive area
Constructivism, broadly conceived, is
the thesis that knowledge can not be
a passive reflection of reality, but has
to be more of an active construction
by an agent. Although this view has
its roots in the ideas of Kant, the term
was first coined by Piaget (1954) to
denote the process whereby an
individual constructs its view of the
world.
Grounded Theory
 Is a phenomenological phylosophical perspective,
subjective and constructivist.
 Gives priority to the context and emphasises the
meaning of occurrences or events
 Uses inductive methods to develop theory
 Develops theory through the study of social
phenomena
 Utilises qualitative methods, undertakes a systematic
collection of data, especially through the use of semistructured interviews
 Does not start from established theories, but
formulates research questions or research propositions
 Any proposed a priori development of theory can
contaminate the collection, analysis and interpretation
of data
Grounded Theory
 Purpose: to build theory that is faithful to the area
under study.
 The theoretical framework is developed by the
researcher, alternating between inductive and
deductive thought – i) inductively gains information
and ii) deductive approach which allows the researcher
to turn away from the data and think rationally about
missing information and form conclusions based on
logic. When conclusions are drawn, then he/she
reverts back to an inductive approach. By reverting
back to the data, deductions can be supported, refuted
or modified
 The constant reference to the data, helps ground the
theory!
Grounded theory – distinctive features:
are its commitment to research and
“discovery” through direct contact
with the social world studied coupled
with a rejection of a priori theorizing.
It also encompasses
“analytical generalisation”
Grounded Theory
The notion of theory as a process
The researcher should enter the
research setting with as few
predetermined ideas as possible
An initial attempt to develop
categories which illuminate the data
Content Analysis





Bitty
Go by frequency
Objectivity
Deductive
Testing “hypotheses”
(qualitative)
Grounded Theory
 Holistic
 Go by feel
 Closer to the data,
open much longer
 Inductive
 Testing out themes,
developing patterns
Differences between “content analysis” and “grounded theory”
Ethnographic Research is not one
technique but an approach
which draws on a variety of
techniques. Generally it seeks
to see the world through the
eyes of those being researched.
Ethnographic Research
 Derives from anthropology, tries to describe
and interpret OR explain what people do
within a particular context, through research
interactions.
 Specific understanding and knowledge is
shared with the participants which guides
behaviour with the specific context of the
research (the culture of the group)
 Ethnography describes the culture of a group
of people
 The main goal of ethnographic research is to
obtain a “dense” description (complete)
Ethnographic Research
 Immediate perspectives of subjects –
ethnographic comparison
 The object of ethnography is to find a cluster
of “significants” from which events, facts,
actions and contexts are produced,
understood and interpreted. Without these,
there is no “cultural category”
 It does not follow a rigid or predetermined
patterns
 A Radically Inductive Method . . . but
induction and deduction are in constant
dialogue in terms of the analytical procedure
Ethnographic Research
 The categories and themes selected for
observation are not set a priori
 At each “moment of reflexivity”, the fieldwork
is altered. Data collection has its own
“movement”.
 Ethnographic Research encompasses a
number of techniques – social research,
participant observation, interpretative
research, analytical research and
hermeneutics research
 Direct observation of a group of subjects
within their “living conditions” and context
Ethnographic Research
Mostly, is the study of anticipated
patterns of thought and human
behaviours manifested in a daily
routine.
An interactive context
An holistic approach in order to reveal
the “daily signifier” in which people
act upon. The objective is to find the
meaning of action.
In phenomenological research,
the participant observation tries to
find the meaning of the
experiences of a group – object of
study, from each of the many
perspectives raised within the
group.
Participant Observation
 Technique seeking in-depth knowledge
 No a priori assumptions
 To study day-to-day activities of a group under
observation
 To study interpersonal dynamics of the
group/sociometrics
 Gets first-hand information, not intentions or
preferences of the object studied
 Immersed in the real environment
 Highly subjective measurement
 Data contamination. Lack of objectivity through
the investigator’s eyes . . . Better to have
investigator triangulation
Participant Observation
 Non-systematic data collection. Erratic
 Highly context dependent. “Biases” – contextskewed. “Acquaintance’s” meetings . . . not the
crucial ones
 Immersion of the researcher in the object of the
study in order to better understand and document
how events occur
 More in-depth knowledge than survey research
 Perspectives derived from the values of a
community, internal relations, structures and
conflicts, more through the observations of actions
than normative declarations by subjects.
Participant Observation
 There are no preconceived ideas about what is
important to observe
 Inductive method
 Appropriate technique for studies of interpersonal
processes within a group
 Real participation – even by learning a new
language or jargon live in a particular context, etc.
 Lack of objectivity
 Subjective measurement
 Possible ethical problems
 Contextual observation at a reduced scale leads to
“localised” and specific results. No generalisation.
No external validity
Reflexive Methodology
 The development of a reflexive methodology shows
how culture, language, selective perception and
ideology all, in complicated ways, permeate
scientific activity
 Focus on the interpretative nature, politics and
rhetoric of empirical research
 Reflexivity in research as a complete recognition of
the ambivalent relation between the researcher’s
text and the investigated reality. Reflexivity means
to interpret our own interpretations. Metainterpretation
 How the researcher thinks about his/her own
thinking process
Reflexive Methodology
 How the different types of linguistic, social, political
and theoretical elements intertwine within the
process of knowledge development, in which the
empirical material is constructed, interpreted and
written.
 The importance of language
 The reflexivity orientates the attention towards
“inside” the researcher. Self-reflexivity
 “The interpretation of the interpretation” . . . Active
interpretation
 The self-explanation, critical of one’s own
interpretations and construction
Reflexive Methodology
 Considers perceptual, cognitive, theoretical,
linguistic, intertextual political and cultural
circumstances
 The critical interpretation of unconscious
processes and ideologies
 The meaning is constructed by meaningful
events/acts
 Metatheory
 The construction of social reality in which the
researchers interact with the studied agents
 Hermeneutics
Semiotics
 The study of the systems of signs. A sign is an
entity that is utilised to represent something.
Language, gestures, documents, art, fashion are
examples of systems that contain signs used to
communicate a meaning
 Semiotics is, therefore, also the study of the
structure of meanings focused on communication
from something, either directly or indirectly, within
either an intentional or no-intentional format
 Modern Semiotics – Ferdinand de Saussure
(Semiology) – the science that studies the signs in
a society. Focused on wording and language as
complex systems or signs of a human nature which
are learned through semiotic socialisation
processes.
Semiotics
 To read the signs which transmit (organisational)
discourse
 Narrative structures. Cultural artefacts
 Ontological position – semiotics has a perception
of reality as a social construction phenomenon
which is comprised by a system of signs, where
language assumes an important role
 This philosophy (close to structuralism) sees
human beings as the creators of the structure
 The systems of signs lack learning and are
socially limited by a culture or context
Semiotics
Ferdinand de Saussure characterised a sign as the
relationship between a significant (word) and a
signifier (object/concept). The flow of
communication and its meaning is transmitted
through the association of a significant to a
signifier through a system of signs.
He has distinguished the study of synthagmatic
relations (words’ sequence) from associative
relations (choice of a work in relation to other
words).
Charles Pierce introduced a third dimension in the
semiotic process as a human experience – the
interpreter. He has also expanded the concept of
semiotics to also encompass the inclusion of a
system of nonverbal signs.
Semiotics
Roland Barthes introduced the concept of “layers of
meaning” – a language is not only utilised in a
denotative literal sense, but also in a
conotative/symbolic sense.
 Epistemological position – semiotics has, as its
objective, to identify codes as well as patterns in a
system of signs, in order to comprehend the
construction and communication of the particular
system
 The existence of multiple senses. Semiotics tries to
“penetrate” into the different layers of meanings. To
uncover the deep structure of meaning.
 Methodology: to select data representative of the
problem in a “closed way” with a view to apply a
synchronic (static, distinctive and self-sufficient)
perspective. Uses a mapping approach as well.
Semiotics
Limitations
“Stuck in the middle”
 Positivists – how do you validate the
conclusions if you do not have a definite
methodology?
 Poststructuralists and postmodernists – they
are too focused on finding characteristics
and fixed structures. Also, it is over formalised.
Defining the Case Study
‘an empirical inquiry that:
– Investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real life context:
when
– The boundaries between the
phenomenon and context are not clearly
evident; and in which
– Multiple sources of evidence are used’
(Yin, 1989)
Case Inquiry is . . . . . . . . .
 An object of study (Stake, 1995) ‘the case’;
example
 A qualitative methodology
(Merriam, 1988)
 An exploration of a ‘bounded system’ over
time through detailed, in-depth, multiple
source, contextual data’
(Cresswell, 1988)
Critique of the Case Study Approach
Regarded as an undeveloped field
Soft research
The Easy Option
Limitations of the Case Study
Gaining access (to and within
organisations)
Triangulation of all data
Time-consuming
Lack of universality
Types of Case Study
1. Intrinsic Case Study
– Focus on uniqueness of case (inductive
approach to data analysis)
2. Instrument Case Study
– Illustration of an issue (deductive, theory-laden)
3. Collective Case Studies
4. Comparative Case Studies
Case Study Selection
Case Research is not sampling
research
Primary function is not to
understand other cases
Case Study Demands
Time
Access issues
Ethics
Organisation of data
Focus
Objectivity and selectivity
Interview skills
 Eisenhardt (1989) advocates within-case analysis
followed by a cross-case pattern search or
explanation building. Eisenhardt suggests that this
process is facilitated by the selection of pertinent
categories, followed by a search for within-group
similarity and inter-group differences. These
categories can be those suggested by the literature
or can simply be chosen by the researcher.
 The major themes discovered through the crosscase analysis are then compared with both similar
and conflicting literature in an attempt to build
theoretical consistency. Eisenhardt refers to this
stage as “enfolding literature”. This process helps
to build internal validity and shape the theoretical
contribution of the findings.
Cross-case
analysis
Select
Cases
1
Case
Individual
Reports
Modify
theory
Design
process
of data
collection
2
Cases
Design
process
of data
collection
Case Study Process
Individual
Reports
Theoretical
implications
Other
cases
Individual
Reports
Report on
cross-case
analysis
Summary Assertion
In social science research
the case method is valid,
relevant and useful.
Action Research
 When you want to achieve understanding and
change at the same time
 Some important information is not obtainable
unless something is given in exchange to the
examined object. Social change perspective
 The participation in a process of organisational
change and the implementation of the change
 It is the social question which orientates and
legtimatises the definition and
conceptualisation of the problem
 Model of relationship : client-researcher
In researcher-dominated, the researcher
determines the research question or
hypothesis, the way data will be
collected, the analytic method, and how
the conclusions will be shaped. In
participative research, the population to
be served or helped determine these. In
the former, the primary learning is
achieved by the researchers and their
audience; in the latter, the primary
learning is achieved by the participants
and their constituencies.
It is interesting that we call
those people in a traditional
research study “subjects”, while
we use the term “participants”
in action research.
The term “participant”
suggests the relative
proactivity and spontaneity
allowed in PAR, while the term
“subject” suggests the control
and constraint provided in
more traditional research.
In PAR, the participants, their
issues, their action, and their
learning are highlighted, and
become the centrepiece of the
action/study.
From its early origins, AR has
been researcher-dominated
rather than participative.
Mode 2
 Mode 1 distinguishes between fundamental
and applied, a theoretical core and
application / key consumer = academia
 Mode 2 emphasises knowledge produced in
the context of application, constant flow
back and forth between the theoretical and
the practical, more socially and politically
accountable knowledge production process
Characteristics of Mode 2 Knowledge Production
 Knowledge produced in the context of
application
 A transdisciplinary approach
 Heterogeneous and dynamic research
teams
 A socially accountable and reflexive process
 A broad range of quality controls
Mode 2 research
 Dual approach to knowledge production
 Integrating “discipline” knowledge and
world of practice
 Integrating well-founded knowledge and
knowledge of use
 Double hurdle – embeddedness in social
science and worlds of policy and practice
Five Key Features of Mode 2
Research
Management
1. The research problem is framed in the
context of application
2. Research is transdisciplinary
3. Diffusion of outcomes occurs DURING the
process of production
4. Research is undertaken by a
heterogeneous group with mixed skills and
experience
5. It is a more socially accountable
knowledge production process.
(After Pettigrew: 1995)
Mode 2 Research
 Objectives:




i) to combine academics and practitioners in order to define
the problem and methodology to adopt in a particular
context. To make academic language accessible to
practitioners.
ii) to construct an organisational model and explicative
“laws”.
iii) to construct or test theory that can be replicated in time
and space
Focus on how theory is tested and how this theory related to
other existing theories.
Data is aggregate in a fashion to develop theories
Knowledge is “consumed”subsequently to its “Production” . . .
A type of Action Research
Mode 2 Research
 Pluralistic ideology encompassing a large variety of
interests as much as they exist in a specific reality.
 Knowledge is transmitted in a large variety of
locations and in different contexts, being
simultaneously consumed and produced
 The main objective is to construct a theory, methods
and instruments from the interaction with reality in a
particular context, involving several “agents” from
different areas and backgrounds
 Constant flow back from the theoretical and practical
sides with implementation of results (constant
recycle)
Cognitive Mapping
 To understand how people (in
organisations) think, pattern their
experience into knowledge and utilise this
knowledge to organise themselves and
others
 Used to represent oneself, the others, the
situations and (organisational) events
 How action (in an organisation) is based on
thinking, meaning and knowing
 There is an analogy with the human brain
MEMETICS
MEMES are
 Chunks of memory – chunking
 Discrete or meaningful cultural units
 Memetics has also used mathematical modelling
 Has been applied to the study of the evolution of
language, culture and human behaviour
 This method of analysis tries to explain the origin,
causes and functioning of cultural and mental
events of human populations
 The “MEME” concept is based on a neologism
created by Richard Dawkins (1976) that translates
any unit of cultural transmission or unit of imitation
MEMETICS
 Memes are memory units, bits of information stored
in the brain, therefore, memes affect behaviour and
may help explain the human phenomenon of
imitation behaviours.
 Examples, of MEMES are ideas, actions, expressions,
informations, thoughts, theories, practices, habits,
songs, technologies, proverbs, inventions and stories
 MEMES as cultural artefacts and observable
behaviours. It leads to a quantitative analysis to
provide a greater empirical evidence
 MEMES are independent of the physical entity to
which they belong (the individuals)
MEMETICS
 MEMES propagate by replication through imitation
processes (copying observed behaviours)
 Words as much as discourse can be seen as MEMES.
The most elementary MEME is the word. The
success of any MEME is measured by the number of
copies that it can achieve
 MEMES are portions of information transmitted
amongst individuals that as they are being
replicated through time, they transform themselves.
Only the best ideas survive . . .
 The replication of MEMES cannot happen without
their mutation
 Inertia can be incremented via the transfer of
MEMES through Memenomics in order to preserve
the memorisation of the MEME before transmission
MEMETICS
 MEMES are considered nodes of semantic memory
 Possible methods – observation, ethnographic
research and discourse analysis
 Contains concepts related to the theory of Evolution.
Evolutionary transfer of information based on the
concept of MEME
 Attempts to explain learning formats and the
maintenance of cultural values (cultural evolution)
 Scientific theory of conception of change or just a
collection of philosophical assumptions without the
production of empirical results?
Biographical History Approach
 Studies the relationship from an entity’s
formation through to its represent status
 Merlin (1992) outlines the process through which
a biographical history may be used to capture
the evolution of (for example) a company with
the context of internationalisation. This method
consists of a thorough examination of all the
events, episodes and epochs that have
contributed to a company’s evolution thus
enabling the researcher to capture all key details
relevant to the history and consequent outcomes
of the object of study.
Research Multidisciplinarity
Theoretical / Paradigmatic
Research Triangulation
Data
(Cross-Sectional designs)
Investigators
Methodological
/ Time Frames
/ Sources
4 Categories of Research Triangulation
(3 reference points to check an object)
(Navigation/surveying)
Theoretical (theories) - involves borrowing models
from one discipline and using them to explain
situations in another discipline. This can frequently
reveal insights into data which had previously
appeared not to have much importance.
Data refers to research where data is collected
over different time frames or from different sources.
Many cross-sectional designs adopt this type of
research.
4 Categories of Research Triangulation contd …
(3 reference points to check an object)
(Navigation/surveying)
Investigator(s) - is where different people collect
data on the same situation, and the results are then
compared. This is one of the advantages of a multidisciplinary research team as it provides the
opportunity for researchers to examine the same
situation and to compare, develop and refine themes
using insights gained from different perspectives.
Methodological - the researcher uses both
quantitative as well as qualitative methods of data
collection. These are extremely diverse and include
questionnaires, interviews, telephone surveys and
field studies. Triangulation is not an end in itself, but
an imaginative way of maximising the amount of data
collected.
Theoretical Triangulation involves the use of several
different perspectives in the analysis of the same set
of data.
Data triangulation attempts to gather observations with
multiple sampling strategies.
Investigator triangulation is the use of more than one
observer in the field situation.
Paradigmatic triangulation – it is too easy for a variety
of theories to represent the same paradigm, thus not
providing the triangulation expected, without explicit
consideration of the paradigm behind a given theory.
In all of these ways – as well as through data and
investigator triangulation – the researcher recognises
the limitations of any given research procedure and
moves towards an integration of knowledge.