Step 3 – theory of uniqueness

The title of this research introduces the aim of this research, which is to study the phenomenon that arises when a knowledge-based organisation is able to handle knowledge creation without using deliberate KM. Although research based on qualitative study was

77

considered as too subjective and hence weak (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009; Bryman & Bell, 2007), it was valuable to this study.

A common question is how a single case study can be a representative of all the other cases (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Yin, 2009). In this regard, Yin (2009) explained that research is seldom based on a single data gathering method or single experiment. In multiple case studies, a generalisation (theory development) is undertaken by the dint of using different cases; similarly, a single case study can be generalised by the dint of using different data gathering methods (Yin, 2009). This generalisation is applied ‘to theoretical proposition and not to populations or universe’ (Yin, 2009, p. 15).

Triangulation is possible with the use of different data gathering methods and is undertaken through the hermeneutic reflection process (Saunders et al., 2009; Yin, 2009). As more than one data gathering method was used to conduct the study, the value of the validity and the findings of this research were enhanced (Yin, 2009).

As already mentioned, the semi-structured interviews are highly subjective (existential) because they explain or interpret human experience in relation to different questions. Similarly, the participant observation was used by way of a subjective lens to interpret the existent reality in the organisation under scrutiny. It is believed that because of the qualitative character of the data gathering methods, the value of the findings and the theory of this research were increased.

The hermeneutic analytic process provides extensive data regarding the phenomenon under scrutiny and is the theoretical foundation for this research. Hence, the theory of research is developed as follows:

78 Figure 11. Theory of uniqueness

Hermeneutic phenomenology is about understanding the phenomenon as a whole (Torraco, 2005) and not generalisation. Hence, the elements of the research cannot be extracted and identified as unique to this phenomenon, as explained in Figure 11. This concurs with van Manen’s (1990) notion that writing in phenomenological research means creating ‘signifying relations’ (p. 132) between patterns and can called theory. He also highlighted that writing and re-writing means ‘to write myself’ (p. 132) (i.e. interpretation), and it is not about generalisation because of the unique lived experience used for the

analysing and interpretation processes (phenomenological hermeneutics) (van Manen,1990).

In other words, the researcher’s bias, lived experience, cultural background, education, and so forth, which makes the person unique as an individual also makes the analysing and

interpretation of the findings unique. Through the researcher’s subjective and unique perspective, the interpretation becomes unique; hence, appropriately named the ‘theory of uniqueness’ (van Manen, 1990).

In this regard, the text is created to summarise the key elements of the findings mentioned, and brief explanations are added so as not to dissolve the important relations between the research findings and is therefore called the ‘theory of uniqueness’.

79 7.3 Quality of Research

The qualitative aspects of reliability and validity are legitimately mentioned in much of the research literature. Yet, experts and authors still discuss whether the quality criteria of quantitative research should be adopted or re-created (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Because of this ambiguity and for the sake of clarity, the qualitative aspects used for quantitative research are introduced first followed by an alternative approach, which became more popular for

qualitative research.

The qualitative aspects in quantitative research are generally divided into reliability and validity.

Reliability refers to the reproducibility of findings by using the same research methods and context (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Holloway & Wheeler, 2002; Robson, 2002).

Clearly, this is easier for a quantitative study than for a qualitative one because the

pre-knowledge and prejudice used to interpret the data is unique for each researcher (Holloway &

Wheeler, 2002), which is why quantitative studies are considered more reliable than qualitative (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002).

Validity is defined as one of the most important research criteria (Bryman & Bell, 2007) and is about ‘being accurate, or correct, or true’ (Robson, 2002, p.170). It depends on the chosen tools and methods and whether they really allow for data gathering regarding the planned outcome (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002).

On the other hand, the alternative criteria for qualitative research are often considered vital in the current literature (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Daymon & Holloway, 2011; Holloway

& Wheeler, 2002). The alternative criteria, divided into trustworthiness (Holloway &

Wheeler, 2002) and authenticity (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Daymon & Holloway, 2011), should replace validity and reliability because the social world and the highly subjective truth

80

regarding a phenomenon cannot be proved with the same qualitative aspects used for quantitative study (Bryman & Bell, 2007).

The first aspect of the alternative quality approach, trustworthiness, contains the following four sub-criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Daymon & Holloway, 2011). The aim of credibility resonates very strongly with the essence of validity, which ensures that the meaning of the social world under scrutiny is understood in a correct manner (Bryman & Bell, 2007). A participant should be able to relate their experience to the research findings (Daymon & Holloway, 2011).

Transferability is, as the term indicates, about how the findings are transferable (Bryman &

Bell, 2007; Daymon & Holloway, 2011). A possible way to achieve transferability is to

‘provide a narrative that is sufficiently descriptive (‘thick’ description)’ (Daymon &

Holloway, 2011, p. 85). This allows the reader to understand the whole research situation (social-world) and connect the findings with their own experience (Daymon & Holloway, 2011) or rather refer the findings to their organisation. Dependability indicates the reliability character and should ensure that the reader is able to prove the findings about the description of the analysis and decision-making process (Daymon & Holloway, 2011, p. 86), which includes elements like rigorous data recording (whole research), research notes, interview data, decision making, research problems, and so forth (Bryman & Bell, 2007). An audit process is used to achieve dependability (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Daymon & Holloway, 2011).

However, difficulty in undertaking this process may be the reason why this criterion is seldom used, as the plethora of data, which mostly emerges through quality research, makes such an audit extremely difficult (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Confirmability shows clarity about how the research findings emerged. Hence, it is essential to represent the link between the raw data and final findings of the research. A reader is then able to establish if and how the

81

findings draw on the raw data or if those are constructed based only on the researchers’

personal beliefs (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Daymon & Holloway, 2011).

Authenticity, the second qualitative aspect is about the ‘careful documentation of the process of research and the decisions made along the way’ (Daymon & Holloway, 2011, p.

84). It also contains strategies, which not only guarantees that the revealed ideas and insights are recorded as they are meant by the research participants and not deflected, but also that the research is a fair process, which allows to understand the participant and the reader of the research in their social setting (world) better so that they can improve it (Daymon &

Holloway, 2011; Holloway & Wheeler, 2002).

The foundation of quality assurance in this research draws on the two core principles of transparency and systematicity discussed by Meyrick (2006). He summarised the myriad of research quality criteria necessary to be followed during the different research steps and drew on the two core principles to be applied to the different research methods and elements to achieve good quality research. Essentially, transparency refers to clarity and explains the importance of a clear and transparent documentation and explanation of the research process, which contains elements, such as why the research is undertaken, details of the samples, why the questions are asked, and why changes are made. Systematicity, on the other hand, refers to the description of used methods, data collection, and analytic process. (Meyrick, 2006;

Tappen, 2011).

In this regard, to ensure high quality in research, the following quality methods are chosen for this research: chain of evidence, triangulation, database (Yin, 2009), and thick description (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002).

The chain of evidence allows others to follow the research process from the research question to the theory until the end (Yin, 2009), as already been presented in section 4.4,

82

‘Process of Research’. Because of the complexity of this research, the process of each method was specified precisely in each section to ensure systematicity and transparency.

The principle of triangulation (Yin, 2009) is also used, as already introduced through the hermeneutic circle. Yin (2009) explained that case studies which use multiple sources are rated higher in quality because the same phenomenon is measured from different

perspectives, and it leads to a more extensive picture. Hence, the gathered data through the interviews and participant observation allows the understanding of the same phenomenon from different perspectives. The transcribed findings are analysed and reflected by the dint of the hermeneutic process. Each data gathering method represents a part of the whole

(phenomenon). The different types of findings enable a better understanding of the phenomenon.

Databases to manage and record gathered data (Yin, 2009) are an important part of dependability and transparency. Additionally, a database is not only suitable to record or manage data, but it also allows tracing back meanings and arguments for an ‘independent inspection’ (Yin, 2009, p. 119). Due to this, an appropriate software is used that records and opens data as a project. With respect to reliability, this is vital because it allows marking each meaning in a document with a quote number. The quote numbers are combined with a

document number (i.e. interviewee number), for instance, ‘(I11/Q32.3)’, or a document name, such as ‘Observation’, ‘Memo’, ‘Interview_transcribed’, or ‘Observation/Q25.2’, as a

reference to create a distinctive link between the interpreted text and the findings established.

However, it is important to emphasise that an interviewee cannot be identified through the number assigned because it displays only the number of the transcribed document. This was explained to each interviewee to show how anonymity is fully guaranteed.

The following Table 7 summarises the tools and methods used in this research.

83 Table 7

Database: Used Methods and Tools

Method Raw data

notes Atlas.ti File/data base

Semi-structured interviews

tape recorder,

notes Atlas.ti File/data base

Thick description in qualitative research allows for transferability, which goes hand in hand with generalizability in quantitative research. That is, a study is most useful if it is generalizable and if a researcher can then transfer these generalizations to different contexts or different studies. If the reader cannot follow or ‘transfer the insights gained from the research to the other settings’ (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002, p. 262), then the research might be considered weak or not useful. Hence, a detailed and rich (thick) description of the research process, the methods, how and why the findings emerged, the decision-making process, and how the participants see the phenomenon of this research should allow the reader to understand the findings in their context and enhance its transferability to other situations (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002).

Against this backdrop, member checking (Robson, 2002), also known as member validation (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002), is relevant. Member checking relates to the control of raw data, which is essential but also a very time consuming and difficult undertaking. As shown in the section 7.2.1.1, ‘Semi-structured interviews’, although this option was offered to the interviewees, they refused and found it unnecessary because of the interpretive nature of the research context and use of data and the presence of the compliance manager in the background, who accompanied the researcher throughout his research to ensure that no sensitive data was published.

84

Ethical considerations are of similar importance to the qualitative aspects of this research and will be introduced in the next section.

7.4 Ethics

Ethical principles are considered an essential element in social research and is also very important in this research; however, it puts a researcher in a difficult position, as ethical considerations demand that illegal situations be reported to the police, which may in turn hinder the research (Robson, 2002).

In this research, the golden rule of ethics, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ (Zikmund, Babin, Carr, & Griffin, 2013, p. 88), which stems from the Bible (see Luke 6:31 or Matthew 7:12), is used. In this regard, Jackson (1987) explained (as cited in Myers, 2010) that if researchers are unsure whether their actions are in line with the ethics of their research, then they should put themselves in the position of the observed persons

(Myers, 2010). Hence, they can feel how it is to take notes on or collect information about the activities or behaviour of the observed person (Myers, 2010).

Drawing on the University of Gloucestershire’s handbook of research ethics, it is important to highlight the importance of ethics to this research. Hence, the following steps are defined to assure ethical agreement, drawing on the ‘general responsibilities towards research participants’, as mentioned in the Handbook of Research Ethics: A Handbook of Principles and Procedures provided by the University of Gloucestershire (University of

Gloucestershire, 2008).

85 Table 8

Ethical Steps of Data Gathering Methods Data The ethical responsibility of the researcher includes ensuring that ‘the physical, social and psychological well-being’ (University of Gloucestershire, 2008, p. 4) of participants is not negatively affected by the research. Hence, the research steps are chosen by considering the organisational precondition in order to not disturb the participants during their daily work.

Before undertaking the participant observation, the researcher explained the aim of the observation and research to the participants. The introduction contained, for instance, which kind of data will be observed (behaviour and action) and that data, such as position or department will be noted, but personal data like name will be omitted. If during the

observation an employee approached, the researcher is introduced as a researcher for a

project and then asked the employee for consent to observe. The participant is a volunteer and is the contact person in this organisation; this relationship is a unique possibility and very useful in obtaining a deeper insight. However, the participant is asked for permission to record and use the data. Regarding this point, the interviewees and the participant were asked if they wanted to verify and sign the date. All of them denied this and explained that due to the research topic, the process shown, and due to the compliance manager of the organisation under scrutiny, who would control the final outcome, this would not be necessary.

86

The interviewees for the semi-structured interviews were volunteers, who were

selected and approached first through the compliance manager. The researcher then contacted the interviewees directly to set an appointment to provide a brief introduction to the research, if they wished. At the appointment and before starting the interview, the researcher went through everything to clarify the questions of the interviewees, if there were any. He also highlighted that no names would be recorded and that the interviewees would be anonymous.

To ensure that the main questions or the areas of interest were in line with the ethics, they were, as already shown through the process, tested by others. These questions and areas were also discussed with the compliance manager for the approval that the questions are in line with the ethical understanding of the organisation. Finally, after transcribing the data, the transcripts were given to the interviewees to verify the content, which they then affirmed and signed for further use in this research.

87