Nottingham University Business School

MSc in Business and Management

2015/16

Individual Coursework Coversheet – Electronic

Submission

NAME: Pierfrancesco Bresolini Eibenstein

Student ID: 4257378

MODULE TITLE: Further Qualitative Research Methods

(N14123)

Critically evaluate the role of observational data in qualitative research

and discuss the key characteristics of the process of data collection and

analysis when using observation as main data source.

Table of Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................... 1

1 Ethnography and Participant Observation ............................................ 2

2 Key characteristics and common issues ............................................... 4

Conclusion ............................................................................................. 9

List of References

1

Introduction

In recent years, economies have been characterised by the increasing competitiveness in

the world of business. Given this, a thorough understanding of organisations and how they

function is vital in order to improve effectiveness and efficiency of business. Through the

use of ethnography, academics observe and study behaviours and relations within social

settings. Furthermore, the increasing complexity in the business world and ethics require

knowledge and skills about research methods and ethical principles, in order to apply

them correctly and avoid problems.

Even if the famous quotation states: “the end justifies the means” (Bryman and

Bell, 2015: 140), there are several controversial issues regarding the techniques used and

the results obtained. In fact, ethnography gives the opportunity for “seeing social reality

through the eyes of members of the social setting” (Bryman and Bell, 2015: 456) but, on

the other hand, there are difficulties in gaining access to the field and gathering data. In

addition, there have been instances of ethical issues arising. According to Silverman

(2013), while covert observation poses no access issues and provides high quality data

collection, it could generate certain ethical problems. On the other hand, while overt

observation makes it difficult to gain access and alters the behaviour of people observed,

it is ethically appropriate.

The problem seems to be related to the choice of the specific characteristics of the

method used and it is also important to be aware of the limitations of this research

method. In extreme situations, an inappropriate application of ethical principles could

mean the researcher and the institution represented face legal repercussions (Bryman and

Bell, 2015).

The purpose of this essay is to describe and analyse the main key characteristics of

ethnography as a methodology, with a special focus on observation as a method. The

paper will be divided into two sections. Section one will describe the differences between

ethnography and participant observation, with a focus on the literature theory behind it.

2

Section two will discuss and analyse the main key characteristics, and it will present a

separate paragraph for every different point. A final discussion section is presented before

concluding the paper.

1 Ethnography and Participant Observation

Originally, the term “ethnography” was associated with anthropological and social studies

but it is now also used to describe specific kinds of research conducted both on

organizations and sub-cultures in society (Bryman and Bell, 2015; Silverman, 2013). In

particular, Cassell and Symon (2004) underline the importance of ethnography in research

on organizations.

Authors hold different opinions on the meaning of the terms “ethnography” and

“participant observation”. Indeed, Bryman and Bell (2015) describe how, after 1970,

writers preferred to use the term “ethnography” rather than “participant observation”.

This specification allowed for the two terms to become synonyms of each other. Despite

this, Bryman and Bell (2015), describe the two terms as different concepts, in which

“ethnography” is the methodology and “observation” is the method. Silverman (2013: 49)

states that: “ethnographies are based on observational data in particular social settings”.

From this sentence, we can conclude there is a difference between ethnography and

observation, in which observation is a method used by ethnography, as described by

Neyland (2008).

A definition of ethnography offered by Watson (2011: 205) is “a style of social

science writing which draws upon the writer’s close observation of and involvement with

people in a particular social setting and relates the words spoken and the practices

observed or experienced to the overall cultural framework within which they occurred”.

Practically, ethnography consists of a particular methodology of study, in which the

researcher is involved in the day-by-day life of an organization or a social setting, in order

to thoroughly understand the specific characteristics of it from an insider’s point of view

3

(Bryman and Bell, 2015). To fully understand a specific culture or a group of people, one

needs to spend an extended period of time immersed in that culture (McAuley, 2008) for

“observing behaviour, listening to what is said in conversation both between others and

with the fieldworker, and asking questions” (Bryman and Bell, 2015: 444). Silverman

(2013) states that occasionally there must be immersion over a period of years, especially

in difficult or technical settings such as the medical sector. Ethnography is like a funnel, in

which you gradually increase the focus on the main points in the field (Silverman, 2013).

Ethnography employs many methods for gathering data (Cassell and Symon,

2004). Bryman and Bell (2015) indicate that ethnography could use observations,

interviews and document collection while McAuley (2008) splits ethnography into two

steps: the first is the selection of people and consequent observation or shadowing and

interviews; the second is related to the interpretation and analysis of data gathered. As

previously mentioned, the aim of all these processes “is to reveal the underlying

structures by which behaviour or ways of communicating with each other are produced,

perceived and interpreted by members of the social group and indeed the ways in which

these same behaviours and communications can be misunderstood by other social groups”

(McAuley, 2008: 90). Hammersley (2013) underlines the importance of trust in the

relationship between the researcher and participants. In fact, trust is vital in order to

obtain important and valuable information from the people observed and interviewed.

Cassell and Symon (2004) underline the difficulty of getting people to talk without first

gaining their trust. A practical example of all these aspects is described in Russell’s (2005)

article. In fact, Russell (2005) selected target students for her research and then observed

and shadowed them. After that, she conducted informal discussions and in-depth

interviews. The importance of building and gaining reciprocal trust is frequently underlined

in the article. In Russell (2005), we can see the use of many methods within what

constitutes ethnography, all with the goal of understanding the environment of the sub-

culture, and, in Russell’s case, to understand students’ resistance to schooling and their

school world.

4

2 Key characteristics and common issues

The first significant aspect in qualitative research is access. Given the issue of the amount

vulnerable data and privacy-related concerns in today’s world, it is becoming increasingly

difficulty to gain access to organizations to conduct research (Woodhams and Danieli,

2008). Gaining access is harder especially for investigations into sensitive areas (Johl and

Renganathan, 2010; Silverman, 2013; Browne, 2005) as in Kamenou (2008), in which she

investigates the sensitive topic of work–life balance amongst ethnic minority women. In

all, 20 organizations were contacted but only two took part in the research. In addition,

trying to gain access to a field could be time-consuming, especially if there is a complex

negotiation process behind it (Silverman, 2013). Given this, Easterby-Smith et al. (2015)

suggests the use of personal contacts, sponsors or gatekeepers in order to facilitate

access. The use of personal contacts, such as academics, colleagues, friends or relatives,

is also described by Bryman and Bell (2015).

Easterby-Smith et al. (2015: 117) state: “reciprocity is important”. The theme of

reciprocity is vital in order to obtain permission for access. Bryman and Bell (2015)

described the importance of giving something back to the organisation. It could be in form

of sharing results of the research in order to help the organisations to solve some

problems, such as in Russell (2005), or to give some positive advertising to the company

through the publication of positive results (Bryman and Bell, 2015). Bryman and Bell

(2015: 448) state: “giving something in return, often in the form of their physical, mental

or emotional work”.

Silverman (2013) analyses two types of access: covert, in which people are not

aware of the research because it is not disclosed, and overt, in which there is

transparency and the researcher informs people of the research aims and secures

consent. Evidently, in covert role there is no problem of access and there is no change in

the normal behaviour of the observed people. However, there are several technical and

ethical problems (Bryman and Bell, 2015). In fact, there is the issue of taking notes due

not being able to record or write in front of other people; additionally, you cannot use

5

other methods, such as interviews, to develop your research (Bryman and Bell, 2015).

This situation is particularly dangerous for the researcher in terms of anxiety and

psychological stress that they could feel. Finally, covert observation is usually accused of

being an unethical practice due to an invasion of privacy for the researched as well as not

allowing the researched the opportunity to refuse participation (Bryman and Bell, 2015).

Because of these aspects, the use of this method in the study of businesses is rare.

However, it is vital for studying extreme social settings such as drug dealing (Bryman and

Bell, 2015). In 1959, Dalton published a famous book where some ethical problems arose

in terms of lack of information for participants and not having the freedom to refuse

participation during his study on American managers in the process of interpretation and

engagement of problems (Dalton, 1959).

As mentioned before, one significant advantage of covert observation is how

participant behaviour is not influenced as they unaware of being observed (Bryman and

Bell, 2015). However, in overt observation, such as that in Russell (2005), there is an

influence on participant behaviour due to the disclosure of the presence of the researcher

and the aim of study. However, especially in recent years, as stated by Kuhn and Woog

(2005), ethics is essential. In fact, an appropriate application of ethical principles could

protect researchers and institutions from any legal consequences (Bryman and Bell,

2015). In ethnography and observation there are important ethical principles to consider.

First, it is vital to inform people involved in the research about the aims of it, and then

analyse possible harm or risks for participants. After that, the researcher must collect

signed consents and participation must be voluntary without coercion. The opportunity for

participants to withdraw their consent at any time must also exist (Bryman and Bell,

2015; Silverman, 2013). It is common and simple to preserve anonymity with

pseudonyms or code-names, in order to guarantee privacy and avoiding harm to

participants (Bryman and Bell, 2015), such as in Russell (2005) and in Humphreys and

Brown (2008). The researcher must especially be aware of the risk of identification for

small samples of people or important companies. Thus, the researcher should change the

6

name, location and business of the company in order to retain their anonymity (Bryman

and Bell, 2015). However, people occasionally do not want to be anonymous, but instead

would like their names published in the findings (Silverman, 2013). The respect for

confidentiality becomes relevant here. In fact, trust between the researched and the

researcher is fundamental, and ensuring privacy and confidentiality is a great help in

building that trust (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). Silverman (2013) states that it is also

good practice to destroy tapes and recordings when the study is concluded.

Because “revealing your true interests may influence what people say or do”

(Silverman 2013: 177), the use of deception is widespread in research into management

and there is rarely total transparency about the purposes (Bryman and Bell, 2015).

Deception is “when researchers represent their research as something other than what it

is” (Bryman and Bell, 2015: 144) in order to obtain more natural answers. However, to be

ethically correct, deception should be avoided (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015).

Usually, the focus is on avoiding harm to the researched, but it is also important to

consider the harm to the researcher (McAuley, 2008), so that the risks can be identified

and thus managed and avoided. In fact, ethnography as a methodology requires extended

periods of immersion in the field and it could, therefore, be a problem (Bryman and Bell,

2015; Cassell and Symon, 2004). In Russell (2005), the researcher spends several

months in schools in order to observe student behaviour. As mentioned, having a direct

relationship with people involved in the study, as well as a relationship of trust, could

make it difficult to leave the field. For example, the difficulties for PhD students leaving

the field and returning to their normal life after fieldwork are described by Pollard (2009).

Other authors describe this problem due to strong relationships formed with colleagues

and participants, and the environment (Riemer, 2011; Neyland, 2007; Coffey, 1999). A

long period spent doing the fieldwork and living like the researched could generate the

“going native” phenomena. It could be a problem because the researcher loses their sense

of being a researcher and sees the world through the eyes of their researched without

analytic and critical thinking (Bryman and Bell, 2015). Finally, there is a moral issue when

7

a researcher during his research becomes aware of delicate problems such as child sexual

abuse or use of drugs. The dilemma is: break trust and confidentiality and denounce it, or

respect privacy and confidentiality and not disclose anything (Silverman, 2013).

Furthermore, a situation can become extremely stressful for the researcher, such as in the

case of Russell, where she discovered the use of drugs by students inside the school. She

said: “this initially shocked me and made me question whether I should inform teachers

for the sake of the child’s well-being” (Russell, 2005: 195).

There are four roles in ethnography: complete participant, in which the researcher

is a full member of a social setting and their true identity and aim is hidden; participant-

as-observer, in which they actively participate in the social activity but their identity and

aim are disclosed and everybody knows them; observer-as-participant, in which there is

little contact with people in the field, and they are more focused on interviews rather than

direct observations; complete observer, where there is no interaction with people, and the

researcher sits totally outside the life of the social setting (Bryman and Bell, 2015;

Anderson, 2008a). In addition, Gans (1968) has developed a new classification for

participant observer roles: total participant, in which the researcher is totally involved in a

social setting; researcher-participant, in which they are semi-involved in the activities;

total researcher, where there are observations without involvement in the setting. There

are also different characteristics that a researcher could adopt in their role: consultant, for

a person who is highly-experienced in their field; apprentice, for a young person, with not

so much experience; confidant, a mature person with an impartial role (Bryman and Bell,

2015). A practical example is found in Russell (2005: 181) where she describes herself as

a “young, novice, female, white, northern English ethnographer” and she is an apprentice

in her role. It is important to notice that the choice of these roles change in relation to

many aspects, such as age, personal being, background and aims of the research (Bell,

1999).

Ethnography is based on observations and fieldnotes (Silverman, 2013). Bryman

and Bell (2015: 461) suggest some basic principles regarding field notes, for example,

writing down notes “as quickly as possible after seen or hearing something interesting”.

8

Furthermore, Cassell and Symon (2004) suggest writing in a legible form, in order to be

able to immediately understand them in a second review phase. To fully describe the

situation, everything is important: events, people, time, date, locations, conversations,

impressions, feelings and emotions (Cassell and Symon, 2004). These aspects are also

important for the final step of reflexivity. A tape recorder or video camera could be used.

However, we have to consider that usually these instruments could intimidate people and

alter the quality of data collection (Cassell and Symon, 2004). In addition, the amount of

work increases as the data recorded must be transcribed (Bryman and Bell, 2015).

Silverman (2013) recommends pre-testing if and how the instruments work and also

reflecting on their best location in order to obtain the best possible recording quality.

Lastly, it is important to move from coding to interpretation, and analyse the notes

(Silverman, 2013). Given this, the collective vision afforded by a team of ethnographers

could make for better levels of interpretation and more effective data collection. In fact,

Scales et al. (2011: 23) state that: «two heads are better than one, then four must be

better than two, and so on» and they also state that people with different ages,

backgrounds, ethnicities and experience forming a team of ethnographers, could bring

different methods to the interpretation of situations and people. Gerstl-Pepin and

Gunzenhauser (2002) show the difference between the processes of interpretation for

different researchers forming part of an ethnographers’ team.

Finlay (2002: 532) states that: “Reflexivity can be defined as thoughtful, conscious

self-awareness”. He emphasises: “each person will perceive the same phenomenon in a

different way; each person brings to bear his or her lived experience, specific

understandings, and historical background” (Finlay, 2002: 534). In other words, reflexivity

is an important step in which the author reflects on how their personal being and

personality has influenced their research and analysis process (Anderson, 2008b).

Finally, it is important to briefly analyse the limitations of this kind of method. Van

Maanen (2011) states that we do not have direct access to the truth while Silverman

(2013) suggests that we should be conscious about the limitations of the study. In other

9

words, we make an interpretation of the reality with these techniques, but the reality

could be different from our description (Cassell and Symon, 2004).

Conclusion

Understanding and knowing the key characteristics of a research method is vital in order

to correctly conduct research and minimize risks. This paper describes and analyses these

characteristics with respect to ethnography and its participant observation.

When discussing the key characteristics and common issues of ethnography, it was

concluded that it is important to be aware of some specific elements of this methodology,

specifically ethical issues that could arise from the application of this methodology. These

can be exemplified by the opposite roles of covert and overt observation.

This discussion was conducted using only secondary data through internet

research, and existing case studies, but I personally have never tried to use ethnography.

It would be interesting to personally try to use ethnography and participant observation in

real fieldwork, in order to apply the theories studied and practically understand them. It

should be noted that the other methods that constitute academic research such as

interviews and document analysis are not included in this paper and further work could be

done in this way. This would be interesting in order to make a complete analysis and fully

understand other techniques in qualitative research.

(Total words: 3061)

List of References

Anderson, L. (2008a). Participant Observation. In Thorpe, R., and Holt, R. (Eds.) The Sage

dictionary of qualitative management research (pp. 151-153). London: Sage.

Anderson, L. (2008b). Reflexivity. In Thorpe, R., and Holt, R. (Eds.) The Sage dictionary of

qualitative management research (pp. 183-185). London: Sage.

Bell, E. (1999). ‘The Negotiation of a Working Role in Organisational Ethnography’.

International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2(1), 17–37.

Brewer, J. D. (2000). Ethnography. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Browne, K. (2005). ‘Snowball sampling: using social networks to research

non‐heterosexual women’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,

8(1), 47-60.

Bryman, A., and Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods (4th edition). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Cassell, C., and Symon, G. (2004). Essential guide to qualitative methods in

organizational research. London: Sage.

Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and the representation of identity.

London: Sage.

Dalton, M. (1959). Men who Manage: Fusions of feeling and theory in administration. New

York: John Wiley and Sons.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., and Jackson, P. R. (2015). Management research (5th

edition). London: Sage.

Finlay, L. (2002). ‘“Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of

reflexivity’. Qualitative health research, 12(4), 531-545.

Gans, H. J. (1968). The participant-observer as human being: Observations on the

personal aspects of field work. In Becker, S. H., and Hughes, E. C. Institutions and

the person (pp. 300-317). Chicago: Aldine.

Gerstl-Pepin, C. I., and Gunzenhauser, M. G. (2002). ‘Collaborative team ethnography and

the paradoxes of interpretation’. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in

Education, 15(2), 137-154.

Hammersley, M. (2013). What's wrong with ethnography?. London: Routledge.

Humphreys, M., and Brown, A. D. (2008). ‘An analysis of corporate social responsibility at

credit line: A narrative approach’. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 403-418.

Johl, S. K., and Renganathan, S. (2010). ‘Strategies for gaining access in doing fieldwork:

Reflection of two researchers’. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods,

8(1), 42-50.

Kamenou, N. (2008). ‘Reconsidering work–life balance debates: challenging limited

understandings of the ‘life’ component in the context of ethnic minority women's

experiences’. British Journal of Management, 19(s1), S99-S109.

Kuhn, L., and Woog, R. (2005). ‘Vortical postmodern ethnography: Introducing a

complexity approach to systemic social theorizing’. Systems Research and Behavioral

Science, 22(2), 139-150.

McAuley, J. (2008). Ethnography. In Thorpe, R., and Holt, R. (Eds.) The Sage dictionary of

qualitative management research (pp. 89-91). London: Sage.

Neyland, D. (2008). Organizational Ethnography. London: Sage.

Pollard, A. (2009). ‘Field of screams: difficulty and ethnographic fieldwork’. Anthropology

Matters, 11(2), 1-24.

Riemer, F. J. (2011). Ethnographic Research. In Lapan, S. D., Quartaroli, M. T., and

Riemer, F. J. (Eds.) Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs

(pp. 163-187). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Available from: ˂https://nau.edu/COE/Curriculum-Instruction/_Admin/_Forms/Addressing-

Ethnographic-Inquiry/˃ [09 November 2015].

Russell, L. (2005). ‘It’s a question of trust: balancing the relationship between students

and teachers in ethnographic fieldwork’. Qualitative Research, 5(2), 181-199.

Scales, K., Bailey, S., and Lloyd, J. (2011). ‘Separately and together: Reflections on

conducting a collaborative team ethnography in dementia care’. Enquire, 6, 24-49.

Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research. London: Sage.

Van Maanen, J. (2011). ‘Ethnography as work: Some rules of engagement’. Journal of

Management Studies, 48(1), 218-234.

Watson, T. J. (2011). ‘Ethnography, reality, and truth: The vital need for studies of ‘how

things work’ in organizations and management’. Journal of Management Studies,

48(1), 202-217.

Woodhams, C., and Danieli, A. (2008). Access. In Thorpe, R., and Holt, R. (Eds.) The Sage

dictionary of qualitative management research (pp. 13-15). London: Sage.