The case study approach proposed by Yin (1994) is rooted in positivism. Yin (1994) emphasises that this approach is well suited to research questions that focus primarily on the ‘how and why’ form. Influence over behavioural events is not required, attempting to ascertain casual relationships between particular phenomenon and context. He suggests that many critics do not believe the case study method as methodically valid, with those who conduct case studies often allowing
“equivocal evidence or biased views to influence the direction of their findings and conclusions” (Yin, 1994, p. 9).
Acknowledging such criticism, Yin (1994) proposes adopting a scientific approach that thoroughly tests and substantiates data using natural science methods of experimental design. Through embracing reliability and validity testing, ‘problems’ associated with case studies can be overcome. Many researchers (e.g. Eisenhardt, 1989; Leonard-Barton, 1990) promote the use of natural science methods when designing and analysing case studies, highlighting that constructs such as external validity and reliability are of importance if the theory development is proposed. Positivist approaches to case study design and research believe that organisational reality consists of dependent variables and independent variables and that the relationships between them can be tested, leading to the verification of the hypothesis. This approach tends to fundamentally discount the idea that the world (including the research world) is socially constructed, which is the characteristic of the constructivist paradigm (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998).
Those qualitative researchers who strive to achieve such an objectivistic, scientific approach, are labelled by Alvesson (1995) as ‘data collectors’. He differentiates this research approach and an interpretative approach, in which personal frames of reference and values are allowed to influence the interpretation of data. He denotes this second group of researchers as ‘interpreters’. Burrell and Morgan (1979, p. 28) describe the interpretative paradigm as seeking “explanation within the realm of individual consciousness and subjectivity, within the frame of reference of the participant as opposed to the observer of action”. They add that
“in its approach to social science it tends to be nominalist, anti-positivist, voluntarist and ideographic5. It sees the social world as an emergent social process which is created by the individuals concerned” (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, p. 28).
The main emphasis of the interpretivist approach lies in the researcher’s own subjectivity in the analysis, arguing against claims that biased views intrinsically lead to invalid research findings. Alternatively, interpretative research acknowledges that there are some organisational phenomena that cannot be empirically validated but at the same time can be understood in an interesting and meaningful way. In short, Alvesson (1995) finds that the interpretative approach focuses on developing hypotheses and theories rather than testing and verifying them. Alvesson (1995, p. 42) states explicitly that the interpretative approach recognises
“there is no such thing as ready-made data waiting to be collected up by the researchers ingenuous research methods ... The researcher’s frames of reference language and other elements in the prestructured understanding strongly affect that which he or she sees, how it is interpreted and how it initially becomes a research text.”
' The ideographic approach stresses the importance of developing “first hand knowledge of the subject under investigation" (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, p. 6).
In addition, Deetz (1992, p. 66) supports this claim and states that
“theory is a way of seeing and thinking about the world. As such it is better seen as the ‘lens’ one uses in observation than as a ‘mirror’ of nature”.
Deetz (1992) suggests that in theory development, researchers can never hope to develop a ‘true’ representation of reality as they can only rely upon their subjective observation.
Deetz (1992, p. 70) argues that the positivist approach, with its emphasis on hypothesis testing, dependent and independent variables, etc., helps create only applied and highly specific knowledge, based on the researcher’s own “arbitrary structuring of the world”. He adds that it fails to direct our attention to significant aspects of reality. Stacey (1996) finds that teams and groups in intensive information processing and knowledge discovery processes are necessarily complex chaotic environments, not well suited to traditional quantitative methodologies. Provided that interpretations are well supported by empirical evidence, supporters of the interpretative approach suggest that it provides for an analysis that permits conceptualisation, rather than strict definitions. It aims not to generate one worldview of ordering reality within the context studied, but it facilitates multiple representations of the organising and ordering of events, which offer scope for alternative thought and courses of action. As such the interpretative approach aims to encourage critical debate around the area studied rather than offering any answers.
The analyses of the cases will focus on many aspects of organisational ‘reality’ and phenomena such as knowledge sharing. These phenomena, I suggest, can only be understood and analytically represented by adopting the interpretative approach.
These are not aspects of organisational reality that can be tested or measured accurately. Nor can they be categorised in verifiable, objective terms, particularly within the organisational context studied. These phenomena can only be subjectively perceived by those who experience them. Hence their potential influence on the processes of knowledge creation within any social group can only be subjectively interpreted. Their influence cannot be subject to testing and verification against an externally defined social reality. Even more tangible organisational attributes, such as team configuration, cannot be reduced to crude objective variables, existing as stable, discrete, definable entities. Individuals need not necessarily agree, for example, on the level of trust existing within a team. This again can only be subjectively perceived. It is the work of the researcher to gather empirical material from a variety of sources and, acknowledging one’s own subjectivity, interpret the level of trust within the team, using the multiple sources o f evidence to justify that interpretation.
Rather than attempting to demonstrate that the approach chosen satisfied such criteria as internal and external validity or reliability, which is the characteristic of the positivist paradigm (Yin, 1994), this research is similar to the constructivist paradigm. It assumes a critical ontology and a subjective epistemology. The data analyses will therefore be essentially critically reflective. The aim is to develop an analysis that, whilst aiming to establish criteria such as trustworthiness, credibility, confirmability and transferability as suggested by Denzin and Lincoln (1998), also reflects tensions, unresolved issues and contradictions that intrinsically represent organisational ‘reality’.
The way in which the research was designed, especially the way in which cases were identified and selected, is discussed together with how access to the cases was negotiated and granted. Consideration is given to the temporal perspective of the research and reference is made to the lack of substantive, empirical research in the field generally.
In addition, the number of respondents who would be involved, relative to the range of variables under investigation, was small (approximately 15 in each case) which made a more standardised statistical treatment of the data impossible. To explore particular themes, open-ended questions became the appropriate means of obtaining the requisite data. A more pragmatic reason for employing the case study approach was that full familiarity with the types of circumstances encountered could not be assumed. An openness and awareness of the peculiarities o f the practical design process were deemed essential. It was also recognised that the range of possible situations could not be adequately anticipated, given the lack of familiarity with circumstances found in construction. In other words, an understanding of the full context of social interaction seemed to be of central importance (Van Maanen, 1988).
An explorative case study would enable the researcher to examine assumptions in the literature while remaining open to new explanations and evidence. It is “an explicit attempt to interpret the narrative but also to link emerging conceptual and theoretical ideas inductively derived from the case both to stronger analytical themes within the case and wider theoretical debates in the literature” (Pettigrew, 1990, p. 280). Bell (1987, p. 7) points out that the strength of the case study method is in allowing
“the researcher to concentrate on a specific ... situation ... and the various interactive processes at work. These processes may remain hidden in a
large-scale survey but may be crucial to the success or failure o f systems or organisations.”
Bell (1987, p. 7) concludes that “a successful study will provide the reader with a three-dimensional picture and will illustrate relationships, micropolitical issues and patterns o f influence in a particular context”. Bryman (1989, p. 172) has a similar finding that “case studies should be evaluated in terms of the adequacy of the theoretical inferences that are generated. The aim is not to infer the findings from a sample to a population, but to engender patterns and linkages o f ... importance”.
The main focus of this research is to explore the underlying processes o f knowledge creation in a multidisciplinary project team setting, together with determining the interrelationships of these processes and their contributory factors. Taking into account the explorative nature of the study and the complexity of the issues, a more holistic approach has been adopted towards the study of specific phenomena. As a result, two in-depth case studies were used to obtain as thorough a picture as possible of the attributes and practices affecting knowledge creation in multidisciplinary project teams.
Similar to Bresnen’s (1986) research into project organisation and matrix management in the UK construction industry, the present research adopted a longitudinal approach to study the processes of knowledge creation in each case. In contrast to the longitudinal approach, a cross-sectional approach could produce a snapshot view, neglecting change and development, which were o f paramount importance in this study. In addition, as suggested by Bresnen (1986), the methodological consideration related to the recurring nature of the research problems favoured the longitudinal approach, minimising the issues associated with regulating
points of entry in inter-case comparison as well as an excessive reliance upon retrospective commentary. As a result, based on such methodological and pragmatic considerations, this study chose a more dynamic longitudinal study over a static cross sectional approach. The following section will highlight the research design.