Data sources

Yin (2009) cautions against the use of a single source of evidence in this type of study. Selecting two or more from the six possibilities identified:

Allows an investigator to address a broader range of historical and behavioural issues. However, the most important advantage presented by using multiple sources of evidence is the development of converging lines of inquiry…thus any case study finding or conclusion is likely to be more convincing and accurate if it is based on several different sources of information, following a corroboratory mode. (Yin, 2009, pp.115-6, emphasis in original).

Yin (2009) identifies six possible data sources (see Appendix 2, p. 146 for a summary of each). However, to address the research questions three of the six possibilities were selected. Each is described in the following sections.

2.3.4.1.1 The interview.

According to Yin, (2009, p. 108) “interviews are an essential source of case study evidence because most case studies are about human affairs…well-informed

interviewees can provide important insights into such affairs or events”. Interviews are characterised by their length, depth and structure (Veal, 2005), and enable the researcher to explore more deeply than is possible in other types of methods, such as the survey. The interview format encourages participants to talk, respond to lines of questioning as they arise and explain their answers. While there are several different interview formats, semi-structured interviews allow “the extended comment from respondents [and] is the essence of the method” (Veal, 2005, p. 128). Unlike other interview formats such as the structured interviews, the semi-structured interview allows a degree of flexibility. The semi-structured interview is especially valuable in cultural research as an interpretative tool where the objective is to understand and explain the meanings of socially and subjectively constructed realities of respondents.

While it is generally accepted that the interview is an important part of case study research, Yin (2009) identifies a number of potential limitations. As a “verbal report” (p. 108) the data may be subject to bias, poor recall and poor or inaccurate

articulation. Interviews may also be affected by reflexivity, where the participant provides an appropriate response to satisfy the interviewer, but which may not be true or accurate. Additionally, as Veal (2005) reports, interviewees‟ responses may be

influenced by their desire to be seen as helpful and friendly, or be exaggerated to increase their involvement in positive events and activities and correspondingly reduce their involvement in negative events and activities. The problems described here can be addressed by incorporating one or more data sources into the case study method, where data collected from alternative sources can be used to collaborate or refute interview data.

2.3.4.1.2 Direct observation.

Observation of participants in their workplace is a data collection method used to reveal behaviours including physical actions and interactions, non-verbal behaviours (such as body language and tone of voice), how activities are enacted, and proxemics. This type of data collection in organisational culture inquiries has attracted a number of labels, including “fieldwork” (Jones, 1991) and “clinical research” (Schein, 2004).

There has been some debate about where the researcher should position themselves in relation to the subjects they are investigating. Researchers adopt either an emic or outsider perspective, or an etic or insider perspective; however, advantages and disadvantages are associated with both. There is no definitive answer to this dilemma with Martin (2002) suggesting:

It is difficult to find a balance between emic and etic methods…a culture study can become too emic or etic…losing both the rich detail of an

ethnographic account and the statistical precision of a careful quantitative study (p. 238).

For the organisational cultural researcher using observation methods, it presents another methodological quandary to be aware of.

While Veal (2005) notes that direct observation methods give rise ethical considerations - subjects are often unaware they are being observed - such concerns are countered by the perceived advantages of the method. First, knowledge of an observer may cause the subjects to change their behaviour and thus threaten the credibility of the study (Veal, 2005; Yin, 2009). Furthermore, the researcher is not able to manipulate or influence the subjects‟ behaviours when they are unaware the observation is taking place. Second, Veal (2005, p. 122) argues that the method provides an opportunity to present a “perspective on a situation that is not apparent to the individuals involved”.

Many behaviours are enacted unconsciously. Even careful use of other research methods, such as an interview or survey, would not reveal these behaviours, as the subject may not be able to articulate their actions in a particular situation. Third, it may be the only possible method available to a researcher that can uncover behaviours that subjects feel reluctant to talk about openly. Finally, it is “reality”, that is, it covers events and interactions in real time (Yin, 2009), and importantly provides context for the case under investigation. Thus, direct observation methods are capable of providing valuable data about a wide range of the enacted manifestations of culture.

2.3.4.1.3 Material manifestations.

Material manifestations, such as the condition of buildings, nature of artwork, style of published documents or design of work spaces are the symbolic representations of culture and are capable of “tell[ing] us much of what we know about organisations.

As the tangible, sensory, felt experiences in organisational life, symbols are a way to understand the organisations they reflect” (Rafaeli & Worline, 2000). Material manifestations have been described by some as superficial, according to Martin (2002),

but nonetheless contribute to, and are inseparable from, the deeper meanings and interpretations that organisational members attribute to them.

These symbols represent an important dimension when deciphering the cultural milieu that exists within an organisation and provide depth to a study by allowing the researcher to include “interpretations of formal policies, structures, informal practices,

rituals and organisational stories, as well as extensive descriptions of the material environments in which people work” (Martin, 2002, p. 45). Moreover, symbols are the

material manifestations of organisational life and “help organisational members and observers integrate their experiences into coherent systems of meaning” (Rafaeli &

Worline, 2000, p. 76). As a direct product of the wider organisational culture, material manifestations provide for the contextualisations and “thick descriptions” Geertz (1973) (Geertz, 1973) argues are necessary to provide deep understandings of the cultural milieu they represent.