methods for data collection 95

This research combines the use of in-depth interviews, ethnographic observation and documentation as methods for data collection.

According to Silverman and Marvasti (2008: 147), ‘there are no right or wrong methods. There are only methods that are appropriate to your research topic and the model with which you are working.’ As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the research aims to explore three issues in the field of OL research that still require further development. The exploratory nature of the present research requires that the data collection should not be limited to a particular survey instrument or a set of variables (Reynolds 2000). Instead, the unique features of a qualitative research approach allow this study to gather data from different sources using a combination of multiple methods as mentioned above, which is a form of ‘methodological triangulation’ according to Mason (2006:25). The reason for each choice of data collection method is provided below.

96| Page

3.4.1

-

Initially, I used semi-structured on the first few interviewing occasions as it has a relatively open structure and the capacity to present the research topic from the perspective of the interviewees. Moreover, it has the capacity to shed light on how and why they have come to this particular perspective (King 2004).

However, after undertaking the first few interviews, a semi-structured interview style was replaced with an in-depth interview approach, a traditional type of unstructured interview (Fontana and Frey 2003). This was done to elicit rich, detailed material for in-depth understanding of the local context or complex issues within which the research phenomenon was located (Lofland 1971). The change in interview approach was necessary because the initial interviewing experience revealed that following the predesigned structure could limit the chances of capturing the richness of information and emerging perspectives from ‘the insider’s point of view’. One of the key issues in this study is to ‘capture’ learning involved in the organisation under examination from the ‘insider’s point of view' to attain a ‘deep’ understanding of their work practices and the local context where these practices were embedded. This type of focus of inquiry requires a more flexible and open-minded method for data collection. In-depth interview is an appropriate method for this particular research need. As Fontana and Frey (1995; 2000) note, unstructured interviewing attempts to

97| Page understand the complex behaviour of members of society without imposing any a priori categorisation that may limit the field of inquiry. I will further elaborate on this point in Section 3.6.3 – Collecting Evidence.

The in-depth interview style also matches the epistemological stance adopted in this study, namely, that there are multiple ‘versions’ of reality of the social world. In this respect, the study does not view interviews as a means for providing the ‘mirror reflection’ of the reality existing out there. Instead, interviews are used exclusively as an interaction between the interviewer and interviewee, who mutually create and construct narrative versions of the social world reality, following Silverman’s view (1997). Moreover, this study echoes Miller and Glassner’s caution (1997) that interview is only meaningful within the context in which it occurs. Accordingly, this research chose to use the interview method to gather data in order to gain insights within the interview context rather than to discover the world existing beyond the interview accounts.

3.4.2

E

Ethnography is the study of people in naturally occurring settings or ‘fields’ by means of data collection methods that capture their social meanings and ordinary activities. These methods involve the researcher directly in the setting, if not also the activities, enabling them to collect

98| Page data in a systematic manner (Brewer 2000). According to Delamont (2004), participant observation, ethnography and fieldwork are all used interchangeably… they can all mean spending long periods watching people, coupled with talking to them about what they are doing, thinking and saying, and are designed to see how the participants understand their world.

In respect of the rationale for collecting data through observation, this study follows two lines of thought. Firstly, as Silverman (2006) argues, one advantage of observational research lies in its ability to shift focus when new interesting data become available. Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) explain this advantage further by indicating that ethnographic research has a characteristic funnel structure, which is progressively focused over its course. This progressively focusing structure allows the research problem to be developed or transformed over time, and the research scope to be clarified and delimited over the course of the research. Thus, the observation method may generate opportunities for the researcher to discover initially foreshadowed problems. The second purpose of combining observational data is to enhance or complement interview data. In this respect, observational data can help the researcher to understand in more detail the complexities of many situations directly by seeing events, actions, norms, values, etc. from the perspective of the people being studied (Silverman, 2006).

99| Page fieldwork access, limited timeframe and resources, it was not possible for the researcher to conduct a proper systematic ethnographic study as described by the above authors. Nevertheless, the researcher aimed to take whatever opportunities were available for undertaking a degree of small-scale ethnographic observation in both research sites.

In terms of recording observations, Silverman (2006) indicates that Emerson et al. (1995) suggest five sets of questions which researchers should attempt to answer when making field notes. These questions, which are followed in the present study, are listed in Table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2 five sets of questions concerned with field note-taking

1. What are people doing? What are they trying to accomplish? 2. How exactly do they do this?

3. How do people characterise and understand what is going on? 4. What assumptions do they make?

5. Analytic questions: what do I see going on here? What did I learn from these notes? Why did I include them?

3.4.3

In addition to using the interviewing methods and observations for data collection, this study also collected data from documentation. I aimed to gather relevant naturally occurring data on both background information of the industry and the case companies. I collected background

100| Page information of the theatre industries through a search of the relevant literature on creative/cultural industries, archives and documentation produced outside the case companies and available in the public domain. My purpose in collecting such information was familiarisation and the gaining of generic understanding of the context before conducting the actual fieldwork (Duffy, 2001).

Background information on the case companies was collected by gathering various kinds of written documents produced internally by the case companies (e.g. company strategic plan, annual report, meeting minutes, etc.), depending on emerging research needs and availability of the desired information. As Silverman explains, textual data consists of words and /or images that have become recorded without the intervention of a researcher. In terms of the purpose of taking account of textual data, this study follows Silverman’s (2006) suggestion that researchers should not criticise or access the data in terms of objective standard. Instead, they should treat them as reorientations, the effects of which should be analysed. This enables the researcher not only to use these internal texts produced by the case companies as background material, but also to approach the documents for ‘what they are and what they are used to accomplish’ (Coffey and Atkinson 2004: 58).