My fieldwork was an outcome of a reflexive and iterative process, in which I developed as a researcher. My gradual learning shaped and evolved the research process, including the questions, the research design, my position as a researcher and the findings of the research.
In this section, I reflect upon my role as a researcher and explain how my assumptions influenced the research – before the fieldwork started, during the interview process and while I carried out my data analysis. This "self-conscious analytical scrutiny of the self as [a] researcher" is defined as reflexivity (England, 1994, p.82) and it is in line with my social constructionist position, proposing that reality is socially constructed through the actors' interactions (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). This notion of reflexivity is viewed as "a resource which helps researchers recognise their own creative input" in the generation of data, thus enabling them to construct new interpretations (Johnson & Duberley, 2000, p.188). As argued by Haraway (1988) and Cunliffe (2011), not only the experiences and perspectives of the researcher, but also those of the research subjects influence the process of research and analysis. Therefore, the researcher should reflect upon their role in constructing meaning and "truth claims" (Cunliffe, 2003, p.985), and also recognise the inevitable power dynamics between the researcher and the research subjects (Cohen &
Ravishankar, 2012).
During the research process, having ongoing contact with an "insider" within the industry had a crucial role in providing me with deeper and broader insight into the participants' perspectives and shaping the research (Adler & Adler, 1987). The insider was my husband who has sixteen years of work experience in the videogames industry both as a developer
101
and publisher. At the outset of my fieldwork, I was a complete stranger to the videogame development process, but I gradually developed my knowledge of the settings and approached the interviews with more familiarity and confidence (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007). Through the insider's help, I familiarised myself with names, technical lexicon and jargon. The insider also facilitated access to some participants, helped me in the sampling process to identify some key informants and also provided continuous discussions on the issues being investigated. Through his personal contacts, I had the opportunity to attend videogame events and socialise with the videogame developers/producers in a less formal and more relaxed set-up. This built up my confidence to engage in conversations with my interview subjects in a less intimidating environment, thus preparing me for my interviews.
The insider also had a significant role in evaluating my findings and assessing the credibility of my claims. This was especially beneficial to my research, because he had worked both as a developer and a publisher and could provide insight from both perspectives. While I cannot deny the insider's role in educating me within the industry, I was aware of the impact he might have had on my perspectives and I continuously questioned whether my assumptions and my research were influenced by his/our preconceptions and biases (Calás & Smircich, 1991, p.664). In order to address this limitation, the findings were discussed and validated by four participants in the study – two developers and two publishers. With these participants I conducted extensive interviews of over two hours in different sittings and at different times to discuss my findings. Two of the above also reviewed the data analysis chapter.
According to Maykut et al. (1994), "the qualitative researcher’s perspective is perhaps a paradoxical one: it is to be acutely tuned-in to the experiences and meaning systems of others ... and at the same time to be aware of how one’s own biases and preconceptions may be influencing what one is trying to understand" (p.123). At the beginning of the research, the focus was on knowledge management in intra-organisational cross-boundary work. This had evolved, as a result of the literature on knowledge management and, indeed, the discussions I had with my insider. But later in the research, this focus gradually shifted to inter-organisational dynamics, due to the themes that emerged from the interviews. Interestingly, the roles my insider had undertaken in the videogame industry were in capacities that were more involved in the intra-organisational dynamics and less
102
aware of inter-organisational politics. This change of direction in my research from intra-organisational to inter-intra-organisational processes obviously limited the impact that the insider's pre-conceptions and biases had on the research findings.
During the course of my interviews, I reflexively studied the data generated, my role as an interviewer and the dynamic between myself and the participants. As a result of this, I improved and modified my interview techniques, interview questions and research focus.
The videogame industry was a male-dominated community, where I found it very difficult, especially at the earlier stages of the interviews to create a relaxed and friendly atmosphere for my interviewees. I felt the participants had more power in leading the conversation, in which they kept providing me with cliché responses. I was aware that my background as a non-British academic woman influenced the dynamic between me and the participants (Cohen & Ravishankar, 2012). This dynamic, however, changed, when I found myself more in control in discussions at later stages of the interviews. For instance, I realised that using academic language might be alienating for the participants. Instead I consciously used jargon and name-dropping in order to put the participants at ease and at the same time gain some credibility in the interviews. In order to create a more balanced power dynamic between us, I gave the participants the flexibility to move between topics or discuss issues that they were willing to, and, instead, carefully steered the conversations towards the topics that were on my agenda. Utilising semi-structured interviews to generate data allowed me to have this freedom to be explorative and elicit better outcomes from the interviews (England, 1994; Haraway, 1988).
The last consideration in the aim to be reflexive during my interviews was my probing technique and its potential impact on my research. As I became more familiar with the industry and as a result of the emergent themes, I shifted the focus of my research to knowledge processes across inter-organisational boundaries. The topic centred around the publisher-developer relationship that seemed to be highly sensitive. So in order to encourage the participants to disclose some information about this issue, I had to ask probing questions and become really engaged in the conversation. This method resulted in accessing richer and deeper data. However, I was aware that this might have influenced the participants' accounts or have put more emphasis on certain topics. I addressed this
103
problem when I analysed the data – I asked the insider and four of my participants to review and validate my findings and results.
I remained reflexive during my data analysis process and considered how different actors in my research and their perceptions and biases affected the way I interpreted my data. In order to develop a deeper understanding of my respondents' accounts, in addition to the participants’ perspectives, I attempted to record their manners, body language and other cues in their environment in a post-interview document (Jackson, 2012). I did this to create a context for what the participants had said. However, I was aware that these details would not necessarily provide me with an unadulterated account of their thoughts and experiences, and these were only one observation of the participants’ account. Therefore, I consciously looked for more details, patterns and inconsistencies across different perspectives, thus I did not take the participants' perspectives for granted. This required constant reflection on my position as a researcher, my research focus and techniques. As stated earlier in this chapter, my data coding and analysis started when I was carrying out my fieldwork, while I re-read/re-listened to my interviews, notes and transcripts. As a result of this continuous re-assessment, new themes emerged, I enhanced and improved my interview techniques, and my research took new directions.
I believe personal reflexivity has been a valuable tool that has enriched my "research process, method and outcomes" (Finlay, 2002, p.225). This reflexive practice has given me the awareness of how my position, perspectives and relationship with the research subjects can influence the course and direction of research, thus enabling me to identify and respond to the limitations of my research and as a result generate rich data from a complex and rather inaccessible setting.