Chapter 4 Methodology and Methods
4.7 Establishing trustworthiness through crystallisation
Flick (1998) states that good qualitative research is characterised by the use of a set of procedures that are open-ended and rigorous at the same time and that embrace the complexity of the social setting explored.
4.7.1 The idea of crystallisation
I aimed at living up to Flick’s (1998) statement by applying Richardson’s (2000b) idea of crystallisation as a lens through which to look at the world. Whereas the concept of triangulation focusses on exploring the world from three sides (Denzin, 1978) the view through the crystal offers us an infinite number of views on the social life under exploration. The crystal exposes an infinite variety of shapes, substances and angles depending on how one holds it up to the light. According to Richardson (2000b) and Janesick (2000) through crystallisation researchers are able to
recognise the facets of any given approach to social life. In this research a number of research methods supported the crystallisation process. Semi-structured
interviews (Rubin and Rubin, 1995), autoethnography (Ellis and Bochner, 2000), diary writing (Richardson, 2000b), emotional recalls (Ellis and Bochner, 2000), documentary analysis and the passing back of transcripts and the ‘interpretation of the interpretation’ (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2000) by research participants (Kvale, 2000) added additional shapes to the crystal.
The concept of crystallisation also enabled me to give women the same attention that men have received. I aimed at contributing original knowledge to the theory bases in the area of knowledge creation and gender in organisations by providing original insights to knowledge creation processes within a knowledge-intensive organisation. By including the research participants into the reflexive approach (Janesick, 2000) and presenting different views through the crystal I tried to offer relatively solid illustrations (Watson, 2003) of experiences of knowledge creation processes and original interpretive insights (Cunliffe, 2008) from the data presented.
Figure 4.7 below offers an overview of the different shapes of the crystal offered by this research.
Figure 4.7 The crystal
Developed from Richardson (2000b)
Rubin and Rubin (1995)1; Ellis and Bochner (2000)2; Richardson (2000b)3; Ellis and Bochner (2000)4; Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000)5; Janesick (2000)6
In this research my major concern was not to ‘mirror the world’ out there (Riessman, 1993) or to find the ‘one truth’ (Warren and Hackney, 2000; Watson, 2000). Through offering different views through the crystal I aimed at achieving transparency and trustworthiness (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Riessman, 1993) instead. In order to assess the trustworthiness of this research I drew on Lincoln and Guba (1985) and their concept of naturalistic inquiry. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985)
trustworthiness can be achieved by meeting the criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The following sections will assess this research against these criteria.
4.7.2 Credibility
I aimed at establishing the reader’s confidence in the credibility of the research process and the research outcomes, the interpretations of the research participants’
accounts, by assessing them through informal member checks (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). First, I digitally recorded the interviews and transcribed the interview verbatim to ensure that I was not making any interpretations during the data collection
(Patterson, 2011). I then asked all research participants to review and comment upon the transcript of the interview. I also invited two of the research participants to
‘interpret my interpretations’ (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2000). I provided them with an electronic version of the interpretations and asked them to assess the
interpretations in terms of whether they resonated with it. In case they did not I asked them to provide me with their alternative views and interpretations of the account, if they were prepared to offer this. A few weeks after both had received my interpretations I met with each of them in an informal setting to receive their
feedback and to discuss it. Lincoln and Guba (1985) support the importance of these member-checks by stating that when the research participants assess their accounts’ interpretations as ‘adequate representations’ of their own realities then this contributes to the research’s credibility.
Starting from an early point of the interpretation process onwards I have discussed my research experiences and initial interpretations with a former colleague who was not a participant in this research on a regular basis. He is an outsider to the
organisation explored now but has worked as a consultant for Monday as well as for InterConsult. Hence, he was able to ‘interpret my interpretations’ from an insider position and encouraged me to go back to the interpretation a number of times in order to improve the coherence of my interpretations. However, since he had been an ‘insider’ of the organisation as well I needed to be aware of maintaining the anonymity of the research participants in our discussions.
I have engaged in peer debriefing (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) in two main ways. The communication with my supervision team throughout the research process provided me with the opportunity to discuss aspects of my research and the research process and presented me with the opportunity to look at aspects of my research from different angles encouraged by my supervisors. Also, I have made presentations about my study in the research community. I have presented at the annual
postgraduate research conference, at a summer research school and at a doctoral workshop. I also published a paper on outcomes of this research in relation to Communities of Practice (Pastoors, 2006). These occasions have been helpful to receive feedback and to reflect upon my research process. By incorporating this feedback I was able to further enhance the credibility and persuasiveness of my study (Hardy et al., 2001; Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
4.7.3 Transferability
This case study research acknowledges that the social and contextual nature of it makes transferability of its outcomes strictly speaking not possible (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). However, readers can decide about the transferability of this study to their context. Transferability is usually determined by readers in relation to the degree to which the study outcomes resonate with their context and experiences
(Ellis and Bochner, 2000). The readers’ resonance can be supported by providing
‘thick descriptions’ (Denzin, 1989) of the stories and narratives produced in the semi-structured interviews.
The purpose of this research is not to develop theoretical generalisations about knowledge creation processes from the interpretation of the interview accounts of the research participants of this study. What it does aim at instead is offering original knowledge to the area of knowledge creation by providing original insights to
knowledge creation processes within a knowledge-intensive organisation. I aimed to achieve this by offering relatively concrete illustrations (Watson, 2003) of
experiences of knowledge creation processes by the research participants, and interpretive insights (Cunliffe, 2008) from the data presented.
The transferability of the research outcomes can also be assessed by their ‘utility’
(Watson, 1994) in terms of their influence on management practice and whether they provide a basis on which future research on knowledge creation and its
gendered nature can be conducted and generate new insights. I consider the ‘utility’
of this case study research to be in contributing in-depth insights into experiences of knowledge creation processes in a knowledge-intensive organisation. However, ultimately, the reader needs to decide about the degree of ‘utility’ of the insights.
4.7.4 Dependability and confirmability
According to Lincoln and Guba (1985, p.317) both dependability and confirmability can be understood as an ‘inquiry audit’ which assesses the ‘fairness of
representation’ of the research. Credibility cannot exist without dependability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The dependability audit considers the ‘process’ of the research inquiry by focussing on how choices made over the data collection and the interpretations of these data are documented (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The
confirmability audit is concerned with examining the product of the research inquiry in terms of how the interpretation and theorisation can be linked to the original sources (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
This chapter contributes to the ‘audit’ of this study by providing detailed information about data collection methods applied in this research and justifies their selection. It also offers a detailed account of the interpretation processes employed (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) and the reflexive approach taken in this research. Subsequent
chapters will add to the ‘audit’ by illustrating how I arranged the data into themes and how I analysed those themes against existing and emerging literature. The
thesis then concludes by reflecting on the research process and my role in this research.
In order to increase the persuasiveness of this research I passed back my interpretations of the research accounts to research participants which made the research product accessible to others. I also considered alternative interpretations of the interview accounts and supported my theoretical claims with extracts from the research participants’ accounts (Riessman, 1993). The link I made between my interpretations and specific events illustrated by the research participants in their accounts increased the confirmability of this study (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
The actions taken to achieve credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability are summarised in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8 Trustworthiness criteria
Developed from Lincoln and Guba (1985), Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000), Ellis and Bochner (2000), Denzin (1989), Riessman (1993)
Trustworthiness criteria Actions taken
Credibility Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and passed back to research participants
Informal member-checks with two research participants
Peer debriefing with supervision team
Peer debriefing by presenting my work to the research community
Peer debriefing by the publication of a paper on my research outcomes in relation to Communities of Practice
Debriefing with a former ‘insider’ of InterConsult Transferability Selection of the case study research strategy
focussing in-depth on individual experiences of organisational elements impacting on knowledge creation processes
Offering ’thick description’ (Denzin, 1989) in Chapter Five
Informal member-checks with research participants Dependability/confirmability Offering details on data collection method
Offering details on interpretation and theorising processes
Linking interpretations to events illustrated in the research accounts
Supporting theoretical claims by interview extracts
Informal member-checks made the research product available to others
Considering alternative interpretations
Being reflexive on the research process
The reflexive approach of this research, which is another vital shape of the crystal and can increase the dependability of this study, is introduced in the next section.