Statement of reflexivity 30

In doing research there is an implicit assumption that the researcher is investigating something ‘outside’ of himself of herself. For instance, in this dissertation there might be an assumption that I, as a researcher, am engaged in an investigation of an ‘objective’ phenomenon—the phenomenon of provision of accommodation in a hotel setting—which is traditionally conceptualized as the ‘object of research.’ But, all researchers and in particular ethnographers are to some degree connected to, or part of, the object of their research (Davies, 2008). In fact, in the practice of ethnography the relationship between the researcher and the researched is quite intimate and long term. Moreover, in

ethnography, the researcher is the main instrument of research (Yin, 2011). As a result, the concerns about doing an ethnography that maintain adequate ‘objectivity’ in the produced text and constructed theories may have an even greater scope.

Since the ethnographer cannot enhance the rigor of research by removing or even distancing the instrument of research (i.e., himself or herself) from the researched, there is an invitation to reflexivity, i.e., the acknowledgements of privileges and biases throughout the research process (Alvesson, Hardy, & Harley, 2008). Here I provide a brief statement of reflexivity about my prior experiences with, and perspectives on, the ‘object of research’ aimed at exposing the awareness of possible biases and preconceived ideas that may have played a role in constructing this dissertation.

Conducting this study was not an arbitrary choice. It has roots in my educational and professional background. I began my university education in physics, in particular astrophysics. Initially I was drawn to the abstract and objective nature of that field of science. I was attracted to the grand nature of physics aimed at explaining the universe of things. Yet, soon I was awakened to the limitations of the discipline. Eventually I was convinced that physics was simultaneously highly abstract and highly contextual: the theories of physics required a context (a setting) to be understood and explained; and the contexts themselves were only understood by their physics, i.e. the theories of physics. This dialectic has influenced my conceptualization of knowledge—and science at large— as the tension between the universal and the particular, between theories and contexts, or between abstractions and complexities. This is reflected in this dissertation in three forms. First, the phenomenon of my interest is itself a tension between the realities of service interactions (as complex settings) and the managers’ organizing work (as abstract ‘theories’ and structures). Second, as described in this chapter, the methodology of choice, ethnography, is arguably a tension between the etic (theoretical) and emic (contextual) accounts of reality. Lastly, the presentation of the text, i.e. this dissertation, is also a tension between the rich nuances of the data and the structured analysis or theories.

My professional background and my history as a management consultant, also

contributes to my choice of conducting this study. After completing the MBA program, I began working as a consultant in the airline industry. My role as a consultant involved numerous interactions with the senior executives of airline companies. In one particular event, in a discussion between a senior consultant and the CEO of a large North

American airline, I encountered a statement by the consultant that “a clear and

comprehensive product philosophy is missing which hinders a continuous quality

development along the service chain for all service classes” (emphasis added). There

seemed to be an ambiguity in the meaning of products or services within the industry. This ambiguity was so common that for the most part the combined term “products and services” had dominated the documentations communications and role definitions in firms. Tht ambiguity was not limited to the airline industry. In my doctoral program, I continued to encounter the ambiguity of “products and services” in the management and

strategy literature. Initially, my interest was in disentangling the ambiguities and in arriving at clear boundaries between products and services. Later, this gave way to the curiosity surrounding the risks of confounding the two concepts. First, why do we, as strategy researchers, persist in lumping products and services in one category and

consider our models of management universal across the both products and service firms? Second, if there is a substantial distinction, how would that have an effect on our

theorizing and understanding of organization? In this study, my goal has not been to address these concerns, but the structure of my inquiry has arguably been influenced by them.

By exposing my beliefs, perspectives, as well as my past experiences, I am not claiming to have conducted ‘objective’ research free of subjective biases. Rather, my aim is to convince the reader of the rigor involved in the research, in particular in the choices of the ‘object of research,’ the methodology, and the analysis. In short, I do not consider this study as a discovery of truths about an objective reality. Instead, I position it as a

construction of a social reality (Alvesson et al., 2008). In doing so, the purpose of this statement becomes the exposition of the foundation of this construction, with the hope that it demonstrates rigor and trust in what has been constructed.