Critical View on Articles about Research Methods - Book Report/Review Example

CRITICAL REVIEW 2006 CRITICAL REVIEW Darke, P., Shanks, G. and Broadbent, M. (1998). "Successfully completing case study research: combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism," Information Systems Journal, Vol. 8(4): pp. 273-289. The article by Darke, Shanks and Broadbent (1998) focuses on a wide range of issues pertaining to specifics of case study research. 1. The authors fail to provide their own definition of case study research, but this can hardly be considered a weakness: suggesting a comprehensive definition of case study research is not listed as one of the purposes. Instead, Darke and colleagues present a detailed account of the most important aspects of case study found in the literature. Yin's (1994) definition is employed as the basic one: "[case study is] an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident' and it relies on multiple sources of evidence" (p.13). They summarize several distinguishing characteristics of this enquiry: the focus on in-depth understanding of a phenomenon and its context; the use of combined data collection techniques such as interviews, observation, questionnaires, and document and text analysis; the possibility to employ the multimethod approach in data collection and analysis: qualitative and quantitative methods may be used together, though the nature of case study research is qualitative; The authors draw a highly useful distinction between the case studies used as teaching devices and case studies which aim to develop or test theory or hypothesis. However, the choice of sources used to illustrate this difference might have been different: Darke et al seem to rely exclusively upon Yin (1994), while this distinction is perfectly highlighted by many other authorities in the field of qualitative research. Thus, Stake (1994) also distinguishes between the same two types of case study, but does it in a more clear way and employs much better terminology, namely: the instrumental case study and the intrinsic case study. The instrumental study is defined as an attempt "to provide insight into an issue or refine the theory, while the case [itself] is of secondary interest; it plays a supportive role, facilitating our understanding of something else." (Stake 1994: 237). The intrinsic case study is, on the contrary, defined as: "...not undertaken primarily because the case represents other cases or because it illustrates a particular theory or problem, but because in all its particularity and ordinariness, [the] case itself is of interest The purpose is not to come to understand some abstract concept or generic phenomena...The researcher temporarily subordinates other curiosities so that the case may reveal its story (p.237). Apparently, Drake's et al attempt to distinguish between the two types of case study research lacks such clarity, while the terminology adopted by the authors seems to be less suitable then the terminology employed by Stake (1994). The authors also identify the key differences and similarities between the method of case study and another popular method of qualitative enquiry, namely the field study. The similarity is that both methods make the researcher deal with the phenomenon in its natural context. The difference is that the level of knowledge the research has prior to the research: Darke et al admit that the case study research implies less prior knowledge of the variables and constructs than the field study (p.275). The authors also note that the difference is slight: sometimes a case study researcher may also have much knowledge about the variables to be studied. Darke et all do not mention that the concept of field research (also termed 'fieldwork') is not fully comparable to the concept of case study. The issue is that field research stands as the opposite to laboratory research that is conducted in an artificial setting. Therefore, the examples of field research may be participant observation, interviewing, surveying or case studies. On the other hand, case studies often involve field research, but they can also be based on surveying, interviewing or observation (Klein and Myers, 1999). Such complex interrelationship between the two research methods makes it difficult, if possible at all, to identify a clear set of similarities and differences. Since the authors discuss qualitative methods, providing the basic description of the qualitative research paradigm might be useful, but it is missing. Presence of such description would help the reader understand the value of the case study research within the broader context of qualitative research. Qualitative methodology represents a distinct research paradigm that ensures the researcher' immersion in the context of his study, makes him an active participant of the study. Qualitative framework utilizes a naturalistic approach seeking to understand phenomena in a specific context, such as "real world setting [where] the researcher does not attempt to manipulate the phenomenon of interest" (Patton, 2001: 39). The broad definition of qualitative research is "any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification" (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 17). Qualitative research reveals findings observed in the real world context where the phenomena being studied unfold naturally (Patton, 2001). 2. The authors do not list the questions that, in their opinion, lend themselves well to case study research, although references to these questions are made throughout the paper. Thus, they claim that in identifying the suitable research questions for the case study approach, it is important to make sure that "the questions are appropriate in terms of their interest, significance and value for both the research and practitioner The research questions must also be questions that are actually able to be answered in a useful way" (p.280). Again, providing an insight into the basics of qualitative methodology might help the reader better understand the nature of questions appropriate for the case study research Thus, Hancock (1998) observes that qualitative research in general "is concerned with finding the answers to such questions as: why, how, in what way" (p.8) On the other hand, the explanation of the different ways in which the case study research can be carried out is very solid and comprehensive. Thus, Darke et al rely upon their analysis of the literature to demonstrate that case research can be carried out taking an interpretive or a positivist perspective; can be either inductive or deductive; can take advantage of both qualitative and quantitative methods; can deal with one or several cases; can be structured or unstructured; can involve a combination of various methods and techniques. The differences in the use and design of various case studies are mapped rather clearly. The positivist perspective rests upon the founding principles of realism - a broad philosophical term denoting several theoretical movements that all reject the impractical and visionary approaches in science. Although the form of this denial varies, realism emphasizes that objects in the world that surrounds us do not depend of our perception; nor they depend upon what people think about them (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Consequently, Darke et al claim that positivist research is "concerned with the empirical testability of theories in order to discover the general principles or laws which govern the natural and social world" (p.276). The positivist perspective implies that the researcher is neutral and objective, while the inquiry itself is value-free. The assessment criteria used by the positivist researchers are similar to those used in the quantitative research: replicability and generalizability. By contrast, the interpretivist paradigm is rooted in the traditional philosophy of idealism which is the opposite of the realism. Proponents of the interpretivist perspective argue that there is no mind-independent reality; the world and objects that surround us are dependent on human perception and exist only in the form of concepts, social constructs and ideas. The antirealist perspective discards the realist belief that there is a single social reality or truth directly accessible to the researcher and absolutely independent of the research process (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Consequently, the interpretivist position rejects the notion of value-free research, while replicability and generalizability are not on the list of interpretivist assessment criteria. While the positivist and interpretivist paradigms remain dominant in modern research, the third paradigm, critical postmodernism, increasingly challenges them. This paradigm is a combination of the critical theory and postmodern philosophy: the material world is full of structured contradictions hidden by various ideologies; the researcher can objectively perceive the world only upon the condition that the implicit ideological biases are removed (Gephart, 1999). None of these three approaches is inherently inferior to the other: they are used depending upon the research objectives set by researchers (Lee, 1991). Thus, the positivist case research methodology may potentially be used to test the theory that negative peer associations affect the level of juvenile delinquency in Watford. The interpretivist case research methodology may be utilized to evaluate the usability and content of online databases in public libraries of Watford. And finally, the critical approach may be effectively used by the researcher attempting to reveal the underlying contradictory nature of the recognized assumption that the existing social practice of communicating via mobile phones positively affects business opportunities. 3. It might be incorrect to simply state that Van Maanen's research would have benefited from the case study approach. As any other research method, the case study has its own strength and weaknesses. If used properly, this method can really benefit the research, while ill-advised unjustified use of the case study approach is likely to ruin the researcher's efforts. Therefore, the only way to understand whether Van Maanen's research would have benefited from the case study approach is to determine appropriateness of this method to the research purposes formulated by the author. The only thing that can hardly be questioned in this regard is the fact that following the case study guidelines would have definitely made Van Maanen's study different from what it is now. The nature of these differences may provide some insight into appropriateness of the method the author employs. Poorly structured writing of Van Maanen seems open to criticism for non-scientific tone, in particular due to absence of any evidences of rigour. The case study approach would make the author follow a rigid structure. The requirements to provide a background for the study, a literature review, and a plan of actions and/or detailed explanation of data collection and analysis techniques could make the research look more scientific. However, when it comes to the underlying nature of Van Maanen's research, it does not seem to differ greatly from that of a typical case study. As Darke et al claim, the case study approach implies such characteristics as in-depth understanding of a phenomenon and its context, the use of combined data collection techniques such as interviews, observation, questionnaires, and document and text analysis, and the possibility to employ the multimethod approach in data collection and analysis (p.13). Van Maanen's study also seeks to provide the reader with in-depth understanding of the organizational culture at Disneyland: the culture is the context, while the employees' behaviours and reactions are the phenomenon. The research also employs combined data collections techniques such as participant observation, interviewing and text analysis. Moreover, Van Maanen's narrative ethnography ensures availability of very rich and robust data thus allowing the reader to grasp every minor detail or characteristic of the phenomenon being studied. The case study approach would probably force Van Maanen to focus upon certain kind of data while omitting the rest. The dilemma is obvious: the case study approach has the potential to make Van Maanen's study more structured and rigorous, but at the same time the richness of data is likely to suffer which will make the study less interesting and appealing. As a highly qualified researcher, Van Maanen must be fully aware about this dilemma, which suggests that his choice of the method other than the case study better fits the purposes of his research. Van Maanen, J. (1991). The smile factory: Work at Disneyland. In: Forst et al (Eds.). Reframing organizational culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage: pp.58-76 Van Maanen's (1991) piece of writing represents a bright example of the ethnographic research method being used to study organizational culture. Consequently, Van Maanen's account of work at Disneyland has the strengths and weaknesses characteristic to this well-known form of qualitative research. 1. Van Maanen's study provides the reader with rich and highly detailed data without taking it out of the context where it has been gathered by the author. Apparently, his goal is to answer the question typical for ethnography: "What is the culture of that group of people" The answer is presented in the form of a detailed account of the group's life within the Disneyland culture. The author identifies a wide range of organizational requirements the Disneyland employees face at their workplace and proceeds with the explanation of how these requirements are attached to the motivations, beliefs and behaviours of the employees. Although the author himself admits that he has "drawn from [third-party] materials" (p.76), reading the story convincingly demonstrates that the primary source of data was Van Maanen's personal participation in the organizational culture being studied. From the very beginning the description is so vivid and absorbing that the reader literally touches upon the famous culture of Disneyland. This impression is achieved largely due to smart use of interesting citations, presence of highly illustrative fragments of employees' direct speech, coherent flow of the narration and absence of irrelevant discourses. Van Maanen seems to mention each and every detail pertaining to the organizational culture of Disneyland: it is impossible to provide such an exhaustive description after a casual visit or on the basis of third-party studies. Personal long-term participation of the author in the organizational culture being studied is the only reasonable explanation, which is confirmed in the concluding paragraphs: "This account is drawn primarily on my three-year work experience as a "permanent part-time" ride operator at Disneyland during the late 1960s" (p.76). The flow of narration is also very natural which demonstrates the narrator's comprehensive knowledge of the subject of his study. The main weakness of Van Maanen's account is the fact that the meaningfulness and validity of his findings fully depend upon his skills, qualifications and discipline as researcher. This weakness is implied by the nature of qualitative research which adopts a specific view on the concepts of validity and reliability used to evaluate their research (Kuhn, 1970). Thus, traditional quantitative definitions of these concepts (widely employed to assess, for example, statistical research) do not apply to the qualitative research paradigm (Glesne and Peshkin, 1992). Therefore, qualitative researchers tend to develop their own concepts of validity or adopt other assessment criteria that are more appropriate in each particular case. The examples of such criteria are quality, trustworthiness, rigor and some others (Dingwall et al, 1998; Davies and Dodd, 2002; Golafshani, 2003). In fact, the only way to carry out evaluation of Van Maanen's study, other than providing a personal subjective response is to compare his findings with the findings revealed by other authors whom examined the organizational culture of Disneyland. The fact that Van Maanen has spent much time as an employee within the context of organizational culture being studied add another objectivity-related consideration. 2. Van Maanen's personal long-term involvement in the organizational culture of Disneyland raises certain concerns about the objectiveness of his account of its practices. Moreover, the author clearly acknowledges that his views are not in line with the views adopted by the management of Disneyland: "I must note finally that this is an unsponsored and unauthorized treatment of the Disneyland culture and is at odds on several points with the views set forth by management" (p.76). Some of these 'odds' are obvious even to those readers whom do not have any knowledge of the subject. Van Maanen smartly avoids labelling any of the practices being studied as negative, useless or harmful: the reader will not find a single use of words 'bad', 'poor', 'adverse' or their synonyms in the text. At the same time, his deprecation of the organizational culture being studied is implicitly demonstrated in every part of the story. The reader may have an impression that Van Maanen's primary goal is not to provide an insight into the organizational culture of Disneyland, but to show its rigidity, suppression of the employees' identities and natural emotional experiences, the constant feeling of being watched, physical and emotion 'robotization' of the employees, etc. However, this impression may be misleading: the following brief overview of the organizational science helps understand why. Since the emergence of organizational science in the late 19th century, the scholars have been sharing two dominant views on the nature of organizational culture. Advocates of one attitude such as Frederick Taylor and Harrington Emerson (the School of Scientific Management) believe that organizational culture is just one of the means exercising greater control over employees. Proponents of the second approach (the Human Relations School) such as Elton Mayo, Abraham Maslow, and Douglas McGregor argue that that organizational culture should develop and motivate the employees without excessive and rigid control (Schultz, 2002). Both approaches have enough followers and opponents in the modern organizational theory and practice. Organizational culture depends on traditions and historical context of a company, and impacts the behaviour of employees. Strong organizational culture can shape company's general effectiveness and provide its long-term success through forming compliance and loyalty of the employees and making them more productive (Markowitz, 1996). Evidently, this is exactly the case of Disneyland. Yet, modern researchers are facing a difficult dilemma: whether organizational culture needs to be strict and rigid in order to provide excessive control over the employees or, on the contrary, be flexible in order to raise people's productivity through their motivation and development The most important questions in this regard are the following: do employees need extra control to provide more organizational compliance and demonstrate greater productivity (1) or they require all-round motivation, stimulation and development instead of all-pervading control to become successful at work (2) Unfortunately, there is no single approach to evaluation of the effectiveness of organizational culture: these questions remain unanswered up to date. As a result, labelling Van Maanen's study as prejudiced or biased does not seem correct: it is rather an account of a highly strict and rigid organizational culture written by a proponent of the view that that organizational culture should develop and motivate the employees without excessive and rigid control. Besides, the overwhelming majority of present-day experts believe that strict and rigid organizational culture demotivates employees, makes them more passive and, hence, negatively affects organizational effectiveness (Schultz, 2002). Given this trend Van Maanen's description does not seem to lack objectivity: he timely and reasonably highlights those issues in the organizational structure of Disneyland which have been repeatedly and, probably, intentionally overlooked by the 'authorized' studies. From this perspective, knowing of Van Maanens experience at Disneyland only adds validity to his findings. 3. In my opinion Van Maanen's account of the Disneyland organizational culture can be considered an example of good research due to several reasons. Firstly, the methodological framework of qualitative research employed by the author for his study is absolutely congruent with the purpose of his study: to portray "such matters as the stock appearance (vanilla), status order (rigid), and social life (full), and swiftly learned codes of conduct (formal and informal) that are associated with Disneyland ride operators" (p.59). Evidently, the quantitative methodology is not applicable in this case: studying the phenomena, which is difficult or impossible to quantify, is not possible within the quantitative framework. The main issue that limits applicability of this framework is the so-called 'decontextualization' when models built using quantitative data do not take into account many variables that act in the context of research (Patton, 2001). By contrast, the qualitative approach provides the researchers with rich and robust data explaining the participants' experiences, perceptions, motivations, etc The use of the qualitative methodology is absolutely justified by the purpose of study and the nature of findings: Van Maanen expresses an interest in understanding the experiences of the employees with strong emphasis on the specific cultural context; the study involves in-depth exploration of the issue which is not possible using the quantitative methodology; the type of reasoning used by Van Maanen is inductive, not deductive: he does not seek to test a hypothesis or theory, but he uses the collected data to draw several findings characterizing the organizational culture of Disneyland. Secondly, the choice of ethnography as the method of qualitative research also seems fully justified. The basic goal of ethnographic research is to provide the reader with the story of life of the group being studied and also to identify the cultural beliefs and meanings members of that group attach to their behaviours and lifestyle (Patton, 2002). Doing so the author contributes significantly to our understanding of the cultural aspects of life within organizations. Data collection techniques employed by Van Maanen within the qualitative methodology are also appropriate to the purposes of his study. Interviewing coupled with participant observation allowed him to obtain diverse and reliable enough data to ensure in-depth description of the subject being studied. And finally, absence of the evidences of conventional rigour does not seem to be the factor that diminishes validity and reliability of Van Maanen's study. As it has been mentioned in the previous discussion, the qualitative research is evaluated using a specific set of criteria. Therefore, the author's reflections, which seemingly form the basis of his study, are not as irrelevant and non-scientific as one might think. While in many cases such reflections may seem out of place (especially in scholarly journals or handbooks), they do help the researcher avoid losing important data that may be overlooked or underreported if he follows the conventional rigour requirements (Davies, and Dodd, 2002). Despite certain drawbacks (largely associated with the qualitative research methodology) and lack of conventional rigour evidences, Van Maanen's study, in my opinion, is a good piece of research, while the findings identified by the author can be considered valid and relevant. Bibliography: 1. Berg, B. (1989). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 2. Darke, P., Shanks, G. and Broadbent, M. (1998). "Successfully completing case study research: combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism," Information Systems Journal, Vol. 8(4): pp. 273-289. 3. Davies, D., and Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor, Qualitative Health research, 12(2): 279-289 4. Gephart, R. (1999). Paradigms and Research Methods, Research Methods Forum, Vol. 4 5. Guba, E.G. and Y. S. Lincoln (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 105-117 6. Hancock, B. (2002). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Trent Focus Group. 7. Kirk J, and M. Miller (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. London: Sage 8. Klein, H. K. and M.D. Myers (1999). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, 23 (1). 67-94 9. Lee, A.S (1991). Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research, Organization Science, 2, 342-965 10. Markowitz, L. (1996). Employee Participation at the Workplace: Capitalist Control or Worker Freedom Critical Sociology, Vol. 22 (2), pp. 89-103 11. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc 12. Schultz, D. and Schultz, S. (2002). Psychology and Work Today: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8th Edition. New York, Prentice Hall 13. Stake, R.E. (1994). Case Studies. In: Denzin, N. K and, Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 14. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc 15. Van Maanen, J. (1991). The smile factory: Work at Disneyland. In P. Frost et al. (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture: 58-76. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 16. Yin R.K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods, 2nd ed. Sage Read More