Research Exemplars

Watson’s (2001) ‘In Search of Management’ and Marshall’s (2002) ‘Women Managers Moving On’ are two exemplars that demonstrate similar philosophies that I adopted for examining men’s decision-making practices as owners. In both studies, the researchers are heavily engaged with the participants of the study and are also directly involved in the construction of the research findings even though they use different methods for data gathering. I examine each of these studies in turn to demonstrate which aspects of each study’s methods I incorporated to ensure that I engaged in my own research in the ‘involved-constructionist’ research domain (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008).

The first exemplar of research that uses the ‘involved-constructionist’

paradigm is Watson’s (2001) research of manager activities in an organisation that has undergone a series of change initiatives in attempting to formulate a ‘progressive’

122

management corporate culture. Watson (2001) uses ethnography to “add to the general body of knowledge about the human and social world and, at the same time, inform the practical understanding” (p.6) about how managers engage with contemporary organisational practices. Watson also realised that by using ethnography as his method of study he would be fully engaged with the organisation and its senior managers because he would also be a participating manager for the organisation for a year’s time. This meant that he needed to fully recognise that he was influencing those he was researching (Watson, 2001). The heightened self-awareness described as

‘reflexivity’ is an important aspect to the involved constructionist perspective because it helps to understand how a researcher’s presence in a study may influence its shaping of knowledge claims (Marshall, 1995). Watson (2001) believes that the deep

involvement between a limited number of subjects in the firm also allows for

“generalising about processes managers get involved in and about basic organisational activities” (p.7). However, my goal is not to adopt the objective, or positivist, view of generalising findings as an example of an underlying social ‘truth’ behind

organisational decision-making.

The purpose of this study is to challenge hegemonic masculine organisational theories and assumptions by investigating men’s individual experiences navigating between organisational expectations involving decision-making and domestic expectations. Investigating these experiences may help understand some of the

processes behind individual decision-making that may be shared by other individuals. Providing ‘thick descriptions’ or detailed accounts of individual decision-making processes demonstrates the transferability of their experiences and helps in proposing alternative organisational decision-making theories (Madison, 2005). Using the long interview method to build an involved-constructionist perspective of men’s decision-

123

making is similar to my second exemplar’s goal of attempting to understand how and why some female managers choose to leave highly competitive ‘masculinised’ organisations (Marshall, 1995).

The long interview method’s intention was to create an environment where the subjects of this study could share their experiences with me through the process of storytelling. The process of engaging in a conversation during the interview process is an example of how to allow people to engage with and construct perceptions of their work-life experiences. Watson (2001) describes the process of engaging in

conversation with other people as part of the process to create a dialogue between the individual and their culture or social beliefs. This perspective highlights the function that the interviewer has in the construction of an individual’s ‘reality’ during the storytelling process because their engagement with the interviewer process creates an environment in which the interviewee has to “negotiate reality with others through a cultural medium of discourse” (p.25) (Watson, 2001).

Marshall’s (1995) study of women managers choosing to leave male-

dominated organisational cultures in search of a different lifestyle or balanced life is an excellent example of how a researcher can collect the personal stories of her subjects while being engaged with the construction of knowledge. Furthermore, Marshall uses reflexivity to recognise that her assumptions about possible reasons for women leaving their management positions may not only limit how she engages her subjects, but may also limit who she selected in the study (Mason, 2002). This

recognition of assumptions allowed her to let the inquiry process inform her about the topic which she believes increased her knowledge claims. For example, Marshall (1995) was able to expand her criteria for sampling from leaving the workplace to spend time at home to leaving work because they felt they had to regardless of reason.

124

This shift in criteria allows me to let the inquiry process inform me about the topic instead of controlling the process of discovery (Mason, 2002).

The process of reflexivity in the analysis process is a large part of the construction of knowledge for Marshall’s studies. Unlike Watson’s account of his studies, Marshall (1995) elaborates her use of self-reflection during the sample selection, interview and analysis processes. For example, Marshall (1995) states that she continued to reflect on her assumptions throughout the research process by initiating conversation with both practitioners and academics in order to encourage both positive and negative feedback. Marshall’s (1995) process of feedback elicitation prompted the realisation that she “could appreciate theory and action in gender-related areas as ever-evolving” which allowed her to explore and construct her findings as “a kaleidoscope of potential interpretations”. I also believe that this high degree of self- awareness through reflexivity is essential in negotiating the complexities of interaction between men and masculinities, organisational decision-making and work-family conflict.

Using conversation with my colleagues and supervisors as a method of self- reflection has already proven fruitful in organising and framing the way in which I unknowingly viewed men’s involvement in the domestic sphere. For example, my assumption that men would only enter the domestic sphere though the outside pressures of shifting masculine expectations based around the changing discourse of fatherhood was challenged by one of my supervisors armed with numerous references to support an alternative viewpoint. This opposing view made me realise that there are men who may want to be more involved in the child rearing process out of the desire to be involved rather than the pressure to be involved. This recognition of my assumption about the reasoning behind men’s choice to become an involved parent

125

shifted how I engaged with the interview process (Mason, 2002). I believe that allowing subjects to construct their own stories regarding masculinity, organisational decision-making and work-family conflict without me seeding ideas about ‘masculine pressure’ resulted in a much more full representation of individual ‘realities’ in their organisational decision-making processes.