Principles for the Conduct and Evaluation of the Research

For qualitative research, and especially that with an interpretive perspective, the need for evaluation is acute due to the criticisms that are in evidence throughout the information systems research community. This section introduces the principles used to guide the conduct, and perform the evaluation of the study. It begins with a description of the major part of the framework. This is the set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive research offered by Klein and Myers (1999). These are then added to as some key principles do not appear to be explicitly covered within the Klein and Myers framework. These are contribution to knowledge and methodological choices. The principles are described here and then used to evaluate the study in section 7.3 of the concluding chapter. These principles were also used to guide the progress of the study as I felt it was sensible to aim to conduct the research in cognisance of the evaluation criteria especially as they contained implicit guidance for the conduct of research.

4.5.1 Principles for the Conduct and Evaluation of Interpretive Field Research

The following principles as per Klein and Myers (1999: 72)15 have been used to guide the study and will be used in its evaluation:

- The Fundamental Principle of the Hermeneutic Circle - This principle suggests that human understanding is achieved by iterating between considering the interdependent meaning of parts and the whole that they form. This principle of human understanding is fundamental to the other principles.

- The Principle of Contextualisation - Requires critical reflection of the social and historical background of the research setting, so that the intended audience can see how the current situation under investigation emerged.

- The Principle of Interaction Between the Researchers and the Subjects -

Requires critical reflection on how the research materials (or “data”) were socially constructed through the interaction between the researchers and participants.

- The Principle of Abstraction and Generalisation - Requires relating the idiographic details revealed by the data interpretation through the application of principles one and two to theoretical, general concepts that describe the nature of human understanding and social action.

- The Principle of Dialogical Reasoning - Requires sensitivity to possible contradictions between the theoretical preconceptions guiding the research design and actual findings (“the story which the data tell”) with subsequent cycles of revision.

- The Principle of Multiple Interpretations - Requires sensitivity to possible differences in interpretations among the participants as are typically expressed in multiple narratives or stories of the same sequence of events under study. Similar to multiple witness accounts even if all tell it as they saw it.

4.5.2 Contribution to Knowledge

Doing research implies that a contribution to existing knowledge should be made (Paul, 2002). Hedrick et al. (1993) state that good research typically requires substantial up front work, which provides an understanding of the problem or issues. Not only does this provide a focus for the research, it also enables the selection of appropriate topics that have not already been investigated and it may facilitate the convergence of activities and interests (Webster and Watson, 2002). Moreover, Campbell et al. (1982) state that good research is likely to be borne out of intuition rather than any logical analysis. Hence, although the literature was used initially to assist in scoping the study, as the research progressed, what were perceived as possible opportunities for obtaining interesting insights, were taken when they arose. More specifically, Myers (1997) argues that a good indicator of interpretive research is that it offers a contribution to the information systems community in respect of whether the author has developed new concepts, applied new concepts or applied a well known theory in a new or unique way. He also suggests that a good marker is research that offers rich insights into the human, social and organisational aspects of information systems development and application or if it contradicts conventional wisdom. Gill and Johnson (1991) also note that good projects will display symmetry of outcomes. That is, whatever the result it will be useful. The research was therefore, conducted with these points in mind.

4.5.3 Appropriate Methodological Choices

Lawler (1985) argues that research must be approached using a method relevant to the area under investigation. At the heart of determining, an appropriate methodology therefore is the required outcome. Does the research project aim to be

inductive or deductive? Inductive studies aim to draw general conclusions from empirical observations whilst deductive studies are concerned with generating conclusions through a process of logical reasoning (Ghauri et al., 1995). Therefore, does the research project want to produce theories or hypothesis (induction) or accept and reject hypotheses (deduction)? An error in methodology is going to lead to the wrong type of outcome. For example, a quantitative survey relying upon hypethetico-deductive methods (Miller, 1991; Sayer, 1992) would be inappropriate for a researcher wanting to generate frames of reference as as with theory building from case studies (Eisenhardt, 1989; Strauss and Corbin, 1994). Although it is necessary to carefully consider which method or methods are appropriate for the area under investigation, caution should be exercised to ensure that this is not the focus of the research effort. It has already been noted that an over zealous attitude in this area can adversely affect research outcomes. Moreover, Buchanan et al. (1988) propose that a preoccupation with theoretical and epistemological aspects of research can be disabling and may result in research not even beginning. The methodology should be a facilitator of the research process. Several authors state that rarely do the rhetoric of research methods reflect the reality (Pettigrew, 1985; Paul, 2002).