Pastoral Educativa y compromiso.

The validation of the theoretical account can be assessed on the basis of how well the research followed the principles of the interpretive research paradigm. This

150

assessment can be made based on the seven principles suggested by Klein and Myers (1999) to both guide interpretive research as well as to conduct post-hoc evaluation. These principles are summarized in table 7. These principles were incorporated in the research design in several ways.

The fundamental principle of the hermeneutic circle suggests that all human

understanding is achieved by iterating between the meaning of parts and the whole that they form. This principle is fundamental to all the other principles and was incorporated by the examination of how the temporal, spatial and contextual dimensions contribute to each case and across cases as well as a consideration of the interplay of all three dimensions. The combination of insights revealed by each case into a cohesive description of patterns of technology use, and their relationship to effectiveness also gave support to this principle.

The principle of contextualization requires that critical reflection of the social and historical background of the research setting takes place so that the intended audience can

see how the current situation under investigation emerged. This was fulfilled by a critical

and detailed examination of the social, historical and technical background of the organizations to which case participants belonged (the business context), as well as that of each case participant (the personal context).

The principle of interaction between the researchers and the subjects requires

critical reflection on how the research materials (“data’) were socially constructed through the interaction between the researchers and participants. This was adhered to by close involvement with the informants and by viewing them as interpreters and analysts in their own right. In interacting with them I encouraged them to think about and make

151

sense of their own use of the nomadic computing environment as part of the data collection process and was acutely aware of the informants’ own interpretive and analytical processes in their interaction with me. Aspects of this interaction were included in the data collected and reported.

The principle of abstraction and generalization is tightly linked to the principles

of the hermeneutic circle and contextualization. This principle requires relating the

idiographic details revealed by the data to theoretical, general concepts. This was achieved in three ways. Firstly, a logical chain of evidence (Miles and Huberman 1994) was constructed within each case by: (1) establishing the discrete findings, (2) relating the findings to each other, (3) naming patterns identified and (4) identifying constructs. Secondly, analytic generalization (Miles and Huberman 1994) involved generalizing findings from each case to theoretical propositions of the nomadic computing environment framework. Thirdly, since a multiple case analysis was performed, case-to- case generalization was undertaken by generalizing from one case to the next based on the underlying theory.

The principle of dialogical reasoning required sensitivity to possible

contradictions between the theoretical preconceptions guiding the research design and actual findings (the story which the data tell), with subsequent cycles of revision. This principle also guided a critical assessment of my own assumptions. While not discounting the assumptions of the conceptual framework which guided data collection and analysis, this process in fact resulted in the uncovering of related phenomena which aided in theory building.

152

Table 7 - Summary of Principles for Interpretive Field Research

PRINCIPLE OVERVIEW 1. The Fundamental Principle of the

Hermeneutic Circle

This principle suggests that all human understanding is achieved by iterating between considering the interdependent meaning of parts and the whole that they form. This principle of human

understanding is fundamental to all the other principles. 2. The Principle of

Contextualization

Requires critical reflection of the social and historical background of the research setting so that the intended audience can see how the current situation under investigation emerged.

3. The Principle of Interaction Between the Researchers and the Subjects

Requires critical reflection on how the research materials (“or data’) were socially constructed through the interaction between the researchers and participants.

4. The Principle of Abstraction and Generalization

Requires relating the idiographic details revealed by the data interpretation through the application of principles one and two to theoretical, general concepts that describe the nature of human understanding and social action.

5. The Principle of Dialogical Reasoning

Requires sensitivity to possible contradictions between the theoretical preconceptions guiding the research design and actual findings (The story which the data will tell) with subsequence cycles of revision.

6. The Principle of Multiple Interpretations

Requires sensitivity to possible interpretations among the participants as are typically expressed in multiple narratives or stories of the same sequence of events under study. Similar to multiple witness accounts even if all tell it as they saw it. 7. The Principle of Suspicion Requires sensitivity to possible “biases” and systematic

“distortions” in the narratives collected from the participants.

The principle of multiple interpretations required sensitivity to possible

interpretations among the participants as typically expressed in multiple narratives or stories of the same sequence of events under study. This principle related specifically to multiple witness accounts of the same event within the literal replication group at HomeLender and was not related to cases outside that group.

Finally, in employing the principle of suspicion, sensitivity to possible biases and

systematic distortions in the narratives collected from the participants was required. In

analyzing the different cases I was sensitive to the biases and distortions in the narratives collected from participants. I was also sensitive to the possibility that an interpretation of events as more patterned and congruent than it really was might occur and ensured that

153

this did not occur by making sure findings were grounded in the data and could be supported by the coding process. I was also sensitive to elite biases ensuring that data from articulate, well informed, high status informants was not given more weight than less articulate, lower status ones.