CHAPTER 3. METHOD CHOICE
3.6. Interviews in multi-method approaches
3.6. Interviews in multi-method approaches
Both case study method and ethnographic approaches are presented among core methods in organizational setting (Cassell & Symon, 2012); however, in journal publications in the fi eld one may fi nd rather case studies than ethnography (although ethnography may be implemented in many organizational contexts (Yanow et al., 2012). Both – case study and ethnography – may be based on one method (e.g. interviews in case study (Buchanan, 2012; Perry, 1998) or observation in ethnography (Malhotra & Birks, 2007), or include multi-method designs (e.g., Yin, 2009 or Yanov et al., 2012).
Neither case study method nor ethnography has a uniform defi nition (Thorpe & Holt, 2008). Mostly, the defi nition depends on a given research context (e.g., phenomenological approach or article goal). For instance, in Yin’s (2009) defi nition the case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth within its real-life context especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (p. 15), what is completed by second part of defi nition about (a) coping with situation in which more variables are under consideration than data points, (b) relying on multiple sources of data which need to be triangulated, and (c) drawing advantages from prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis (p. 16). In the article about case studies for Ph.D. thesis in marketing, Perry (1998) defi nes case study research methodology as based on interviews that is used in a postgraduates thesis involving body of knowledge (Perry, 1998, p. 786) and accepts the scope of applications presented in the fi rst part of Yin’s defi nition. However, some authors (Buchanan, 2012; B. Lee et al., 2007) fi nd Yin’s defi nition as far too narrow and not including many case studies. Slightly different defi nition than this of Yin is presented by Jean Hartley (2004). According to her case study research consists of a detailed investigation, often with data collected over a period of time, of phenomena, within their context. The aim is to provide an analysis of context and processes which illuminate the theoretical issues being studied (p. 323). In turn, Naresh Malhotra and David Birks (2007) by case study in the market research context understand a detailed study based upon the observation of the intrinsic details of individuals, groups of individuals and organizations (p. 159). Thus, their defi nition underlines different aspects of the method under consideration.
Similarly, defi nitions of ethnography also refer to many different aspects of this method. Among repeating features are methods of data gathering,
people or their behaviors as unit of analysis and process of meaning making. Dvora Yanow et al. (2012) who is implementing ethnography in organizational setting defi nes it as a research process involving fi eldwork methods engaging the extraordinary-in-the-ordinary with a particular sensibility towards often more hidden or concealed meaning making processes, reported in a particular form of writing that places both author and reader at the scene, in the thick of things, through actor-centered and context-sensitive analysis and theorizing grounded in layered data (p. 332). Peter Brewer (2004) – also in organizational context – describes ethnography as a style of research that is the study of people in natural settings or ‘fi elds’ by means of methods which capture their social meanings and ordinary activities, involving the researcher participating directly in the setting, if not also the activities, in order to collect data in a systematic manner but without meaning being imposed on them externally (p. 312). The narrower defi nition is proposed by Naresh Malhotra and David Birks (2007) who defi ne ethnography as a research approach based upon the observation of the customs, habits and differences between people in everyday life (p. 161) in the context of marketing research.
The main characteristics of case study and ethnography are presented in Table 3.4 with omitting different origin of both methods. As one may see, the list of sources in both techniques is rather similar. In both methods interviews are one
of the implemented methods of gathering data. However, in the case study
method interviews are considered as the leading method of gathering data or even the only implemented method, while core method of ethnography is observation. Moreover, case study may also be part of the mixed-method design by including some quantitative elements (despite that case studies are considered as mainly qualitative approach) (Thorpe & Holt, 2008). Also both of multi-method inquiries are devoted to examining the phenomena in its natural setting.
One of key differences lies in a subject of analysis. In the case study method “a phenomenon” is the subject of analysis and probably any issue can be turned into a case (Thorpe & Holt, 2008, p. 38) including industry, company within industry, one of departments, any process or individuals, whereas in ethnography the social world and its meaning for people is the main issue under consideration. Nevertheless, some units of analysis may be similar, e.g., organizational culture, values. There are also differences in epistemological approach, a way of analysis and reporting. In the case study method, one may fi nd both deductive and inductive approaches to theory building, while in ethnography theory is driven from data. Among variety of analytical strategies to case study, one may fi nd both inductive and deductive strategies tending to defi ne the “real” state of phenomena and more subjective as well, while in ethnography context sensitive and actor centered approach is dominant. Finally, in the case study method, results are reported in the more objective way (e.g., within neo-positivist or realistic approach), whereas more subjective approach in ethnography is applied. Thus, these inquiries overlap to some extent without sharp boundaries between them in some aspects.
3.6. Interviews in multi-method approaches
Table 3.4. Characteristics of multi-method inquiries involving interviews
Case study Ethnography
Design Multi-method (one method/source or diversity of one type methods, e.g. only qualitative) or mixed method (both types of methods, i.e. qualitative and quantitative) design
Multiple design (one or diversity of qualitative methods)
Methods/ sources
Interviews (both individual and focus groups), documents, archival records, direct observation, participant observation,* physical artifacts and others (ethnography, fi lms, photographs, videotapes, “street” ethnography, psychological testing, life histories etc.**)
Observation or participant obser- vation (covert/overt, structured/ unstructured), interview, diaries, studying of material artifacts such as organizational documents (an- nual reports, correspondence, internal memos, cartoons /jokes/ photos on the offi ce doors, bulle- tin boards, WebPages) or personal documents (e.g., albums, trash), registration of behaviors (photo, video), assisted work
If one method, mainly interviews or secondary data
If one method, mainly observation or participant observation
Defi nition A variety of defi nitions A variety of defi nitions Subject of
analysis
Case “An orientation towards the social world – actors, (inter-) actions, settings” (Yanow et al., 2012, p. 331), with central focus on hidden and concealed meaning and meaning making processes and understanding people’s interpretation of events
Social world, social groups, orga- nization culture and its meaning for phenomena participants Phenomenon within its real-life
context
In the setting of everyday life
Epistemo- logical approach
Primarily deductive or inductive; examination of particular theoretical proposition or theory driven from data
Mostly theory is based on data (the grounded theory approach)
Analysis Wide range of strategies More or less objective, intersubjective or subjective
Actor-centered and context- sensitive analysis
Reporting Mostly objective approach Mostly both author and reader are visible
Source: own elaboration based on: Buchanan (2012), Hartley ( 2004), B. Lee et al.(2007), Thorpe & Holt (2008), Yanow et al. (2012), Yin (2003).
* More about participant observation one may fi nd in Brannan and Oultram (2012). ** For longer list of methods (in case study research often called “sources”) see Buchanan
Due to prevalent role of the case study method over ethnography in literature on the qualitative methods in management and economics sciences, this inquiry is more recommended for papers and MA and Ph.D. thesis in management and economics sciences. That is why in further part of this chapter I develop only the implementation of interviews in the case study method.
KEY POINTS
Interviews are implemented in two multi-method inquiries: case-study and ethnography, with the former being more respected in academic environment due to its more objective and more positivist bias.