3.5.1 Interpretive Methodology
Given the knowledge that I seek to understand lies primarily in observing the experience
and activities of participants, this research requires close contact with their world. In this
situation, the most effective approach towards this end is interpretive methodology
in a natural setting, and which aims at the collection of more qualitative data (Tomkins
and Groves, 1983).
It is common in qualitative study, in particular ethnography, to find that the researcher
enters the field with specific research questions, but at the end of their investigation
returns with a different set of questions (Rosaldo, 1993). This may be due to the
emergent, rather than tightly configured, characteristics of qualitative study (Creswell,
2003, p. 180), i.e. several aspects may emerge at some stage in the research which will
further provide direction for the study. This entitles the researcher to modify the research
questions to better reflect the phenomenon studied.
There are, of course, several weaknesses inherent in the use of interpretive methodology.
It is often time-consuming, especially in the conduct of fieldwork and analysis of data; or
at times it could be relatively unpredictable due to the difficulties in controlling the
progress and end of the study.
Drawing on interpretive methodology, I adopted an ethnographic approach for this
3.5.2 Ethnography
Ethnography can be defined as a written interpretation of culture (Van Maanen, 1988) or
a study of people’s way of life (Czarniawska, 1991, Goldbart and Hustler, 2005).
Traditionally used in anthropology, ethnography is often associated with a long stay in a
foreign land with participant-observation widely accepted as a fundamental concept in
carrying out such studies (Sanday, 1979).
However, ethnography is no longer a privilege of the anthropology discipline since it has
become a research approach employed in many disciplines, especially when the
researcher is interested in studying organisational culture (Comaroff, 2010; Patton, 2002).
Unlike the study of the anthropologist who faces difficulties in understanding the
language and peculiar practices of the foreign native, research into organisational culture
has the advantage of familiarity with the subject’s language and activities (Ahrens and
Chapman, 2006). Nevertheless, it does not mean that conducting ethnography in an
organisation is less challenging than the ethnography conducted by an anthropologist.
One of the common challenges that apply equally to both anthropologist and
organisational ethnographer is to avoid reporting fictions as fact or vice-versa (Van
Maanen, 1979).
To manage this challenge, Van Maanen (1979) suggests a distinction can be made
between an informant's first order accounts of what is occurring in the field, i.e. the
“facts”, and the ethnographer’s second order interpretation, or “theories”, used in making
of activities, mainly through the language used by the participants to label their activities.
The second order is derived as a result of the ethnographer’s understanding of the
contexts in which such labels are drawn, and these understandings are dependent upon
the ethnographer’s continuing socialisation with her subjects in the field. This is not an
easy task as the ethnographer also has to be able to differentiate between “operational”
and “presentational” data from the first order interpretation of the informants. The
distinction is important as the plausibility of the ethnographic interpretation lies in the
analysis of the “operational data”, i.e. “the everyday problematics of informants going about their
affairs” (ibid, p.542), rather than being based on “presentational data” , i.e. data manufactured by the participants in order to maintain or enhance certain aspects of their
activities in the presence of the ethnographer, such as through conscious deception, when
the informants themselves have incorrect knowledge about their own activities or when
the informants are unaware of certain fundamental aspects of their activities (Van
Maanen, 1979).
The aim of both anthropology discipline and organisational studies, therefore, is to
portray culture that requires the ethnographer to hear, to see and not to lose sight of the
type of the data to be gathered in the field, so that facts can be distinguished from fictions
(Van Maanen, 1979). Most importantly, the role of an ethnographer is to write what is
presumably witnessed and understood during their stay in the field. As argued by Clifford
(1986), writing is what ethnographers do in the field as well as on their return to the
“The importance of a thorough grounding in general theory begins to reveal itself when the field worker returns home to write a book about the people he has studied” (p. 243).
Taking these considerations into account, the data in this study was largely collected
through my observation of the interactions, assumptions, rituals and beliefs of the
organisational members in their day-to-day activities. My understanding and experiences
of those events were then translated into text that represents my interpretation of the
organisational members’ construction of their activities (Geertz, 1973). Although theory
is very useful in framing what to observe in the field (Evans-Pritchard, 1976), it can be
argued that its greater significance relates to the process of constructing interpretation, i.e.
when I started to write about the fieldwork, the theory helped me to “structure masses of data
and communicate its significance at the same time as it helps construct that significance” (Ahrens and
Chapman, 2006, p. 836). By doing so, I hope that my interpretation accounts for the data
in a plausible way and with ethnographic authority.
In discussing ethnographic authority, Clifford (1983) distinguishes experience from
interpretation. Experience suggests close contact and participation of the researcher with
the phenomenon studied. The ethnographic authority is based on the feeling, perception
and personal knowledge accumulated by an ethnographer during his stay in the field, to
signify to the reader “I was there” (p.128). Interpretation, on the other hand, views culture
as assemblages of texts. The research experience, the interaction with participants in the
field and the rituals, traditions or activities observed will be recorded in the field notes.
Those events will be translated into meaningful texts that reflect the interpretation of the
researcher rather than the construction of an event from a particular respondent or
However, the overlapping relationship between interpretation and experience can raise
problems, so some researchers combine both styles in presenting their ethnographic data.
Referred to as “impressionist tales”, there is greater focus on the conduct of the
fieldwork, rather than the ethnographer or on the people studied. The researcher who
adopts impressionist tales uses both direct quotations from the participants to depict the
ethnographer’s experience in the field as well as the narratives that reflect the
ethnographer’s interpretation of the activities observed.
Ethnographic interpretation and experience are therefore not merely “the recounting that
would be provided by the actors themselves in a social setting” (Rosen, 1991, p.12) or the
description of the ethnographer’s actions in conducting the fieldwork. Rather, the
interpretation of what happens in the setting is the result of the interplay between the
ethnographer’s experiences, the activities of her subjects and the theoretical perspective,
all of which underpin her interpretation.
The next section will briefly discuss the conduct of the fieldwork, including the role of
the theoretical framework and the fieldwork activities ranging from gaining access to the
organisation to analysis of the data.