CLASIFICACIÓN GENERAL DE BICICLETAS

As noted above, a ‘defining feature of case studies’ (Candappa, 2017, p.

181) is the use of multiple sources of evidence. This enables the researcher

to gain evidence from a range of perspectives which can contribute to an in-depth understanding of the case. I chose to use interviews, direct

observation, the analysis of texts and the use of logs for the participants to complete.

6.1 Interviews

I chose to use ‘semi-structured’ interviews (Robson, 2002, p. 270). This enabled me to use a standard list of topics but also gave me flexibility to adapt my questions in terms of sequence and wording, as appropriate to the interviewee or the situation. Using Powney and Watts’ (1987) distinction between ‘respondent interviews’ and ‘informant interviews’, these were

‘respondent’. I remained in control but my aim was, as far as possible, to place the interviewee in the position of the expert. I began the interviews with a small number of relatively closed questions to elicit personal information such as ‘How long have you worked here?’ These were used to obtain background information but also to put the interviewee at ease. They were followed by broader ‘Grand Tour’ questions (Spradley, 1979) such as, ‘Can you tell me what writing your job involves?’. I used these to encourage the interviewees to shape their own responses, providing their own perspectives on the writing they undertook rather than ones shaped by the interview guide. However, my interview guides (appendices 2.1-3) did include a range of probing questions and prompts to use, as necessary, if responses to the broader question were not forthcoming or were particularly brief. Some participants struggled with the vocabulary needed to discuss different aspects of writing and when asking ‘What do you think is most important thing to get right when you are writing at work?’ I felt it necessary to provide

a list of options as a prompt. With hindsight I believe this may have made it more difficult to answer the question in some cases and have influenced the responses.

I included one or two more structured questions. In the interviews for the scoping study I used a five point Likert-type scale question, asking each manager to choose one response to the question, ‘How would you respond if someone asked how important writing is for your business?’ In my more in-depth interviews with owners and employees in the four case studies I asked all interviewees to choose from five possible responses relating to their judgement on the amount of time they spent on writing at work. My guides also included notes to myself relating to matters such as an introduction to the research, the consent form and permission to use the tape recorder.

Interview guides (see appendices 2.1-3) were prepared for the following;

 an initial interview with each owner as part of my scoping exercise

 a more in-depth interview with the owner (For the four case studies)

 an interview with each employee (For the four case studies).

Interviews with owners for the scoping study lasted between 15 and 30 minutes and were undertaken in the workplace. Notes of these were

recorded on the interview guide as the interview took place and checked as soon as possible afterwards to ensure as full a record as possible.

For the case studies, I interviewed the owners again, at greater length and undertook an interview with each of the employees, with the exception of one of the two part-time assistants in the garage who declined to be interviewed.

One employee in the florist’s shop, who was uneasy about being interviewed, took part in a joint interview with a colleague. All interviews were undertaken in the workplace, usually in a room or space made available to provide some privacy and enable me to make a recording. Interviews lasted between 20 minutes and one hour. They were all recorded and transcribed by the researcher, with the exception of two where detailed notes were taken and written up as soon as possible after the interview⁹. A transcription of a sample interview is included in appendix 5.

Parts of some of these interviews took the form of what Ivanic referred to as

‘talk around texts’ (Ivanic and Weldon, 1999; Lillis, 2009). These focused on a specific text, allowing the participant to talk it through and explain the reasons for the way it had been written. These not only enabled me to gain a more detailed understanding of the ways in which particular texts were used and why they had been written in a certain way but also to obtain the

participant’s perspective on the texts.

In addition I undertook follow-up interviews with the owners and with certain employees. Some of these were arranged in advance and recorded; others were more impromptu, undertaken when the opportunity arose while I was on the premises. In these cases, notes were made, at the time or as soon as possible after the event. These further informal interviews enabled me to follow up queries that arose as a result of observation or earlier interviews and clarify details where necessary.

9 In one case the recorder failed. In the second the environment was very noisy.

6.2. Observation

Observation was used in three of the cases. My focus was firstly on ‘writing events’, occasions when a participant was engaged in activity that involved writing, however brief, and occasions when previously written texts were consulted or used in other ways. I also made notes on the work practices and on the premises and, in particular, examples of writing found around the workplace. I was not a participant in the activity but neither was I purely an observer.

Field notes were recorded during the observation, wherever possible, or as soon as possible afterwards. These were ‘informal’ as opposed to ‘formal’¹⁰ (Robson, 2002) and used a narrative approach rather than coded schedules.

Because of the nature of the premises in which I was observing and the need to stand or move around I used a small notebook to record the notes. These were typed up as soon after the observation as possible and at this time observations were separated from records of conversations with participants, initial thoughts on analysis or memos to self.

Observation was difficult due to the nature of the premises which, in the case of the florist’s shop and the hairdressing salon, were small and consisted of interconnecting rooms. I had to take care not to get in the way of either customers or workers and there were, inevitably, long periods when no writing was taking place. I undertook three periods of observation at the florist’s shop, totalling about 7 hours in all. These were undertaken at

10 According to Robson (2002) ‘informal’ approaches to observation are less structured, allowing the researcher ‘considerable freedom in what information is gathered and how it is recorded.’ In comparison ‘formal’ approaches are closely structured and the researcher has only to attend to ‘pre-specified aspects’ of a phenomenon.

different times of the day and when different members of staff were at work.

In the hairdresser’s salon it was not possible to find a place to sit or stand without being in the way or making clients feel uncomfortable. I therefore used my own appointments to observe activity. I had fourteen appointments between my first interview in May 2012 and December 2013, each taking one hour. I made notes following four of these but kept research memos relating to specific observations noted during others. I spent parts of two days in the garage workshop.

I did not attempt to observe the builder. It would have been difficult and possibly dangerous to have attempted to shadow him during the day. His work was undertaken in other people’s properties or in his van. There would also have been very long periods when he did no writing at all. I was,

however, familiar with the nature of his work having employed him to do work in my own house and garden and this experience provided a useful

background against which his lively narratives of writing events could be set.

Much of his writing was undertaken in the evenings at home. I interviewed him and his wife twice at their house and so was able to gain an

understanding of the context for this.

6.3. Texts

The texts from which I drew data were not documents of the type more usually used in case study research, as for example the documentary records used in the classic case study ‘Middletown’ (Lynd and Lynd, 1937).

These were everyday texts the participants had written in the course of their recent work. They included texts I was shown in the course of the interviews

or observed being used. I asked permission to photograph a sample of texts for more detailed analysis. In particular, I tried to obtain copies of texts that had been discussed with the participants as part of my interviews.

6.4. Logs

In order to obtain evidence of how much working time was taken by writing and check this against the participant’s perceptions, obtained by use of the Lickert-type scale question, discussed earlier, I attempted to use logs of writing activity. I customised these to the particular workplace, using the writing tasks identified in interviews, and asked the participants to record the frequency with which they undertook these over the period of one week. I produced logs for the florist’s shop, the hairdressing salon and the builder.

Although agreeing to complete these, in each case, multiple requests were made before the completed logs were provided and it was clear that these had not, in all cases, been completed regularly or accurately. I therefore decided not to use a log with the garage. Instead, I attempted to create a record of the writing activity in the workshop and office during one day.

6.5. Personal experience

As a resident of Eastmarket for nearly 30 years, I came to the fieldwork with some familiarity of the four businesses, from the perspective of a customer. I continued to be a customer during the period over which the fieldwork was undertaken and, during this time, drew on specific experiences as a

customer in my case studies.