Primeras teorías de los mass media. Efectos totales

According to Crotty (1998, p.71) symbolic interactionism and phenomenology

‘contrast sharply with each other’ in their attitude to ‘towards culture as our inherited meaning system’. Symbolic interactionism treats culture as the

‘meaningful matrix that guides our lives’, whereas phenomenology treats culture with a ‘good measure of caution. While culture offers us an entry point to a ‘comprehensive set of meanings’, it ‘shuts off an abundant font of untapped significance’ (Crotty, 1998, p.71)

According to Grey (2009, p.22) Symbolic Interactionism grew in the late 30’s out of the work of American pragmatist John Dewey and the social psychologist George Herbert Mead. The central theme of symbolic interactionism is that

‘human interaction with the world is mediated through the process of meaning making and interpretation’ (Grey, 2009, p.22).

The essential tenets of symbolic interactionism according to Grey (2009, p.22) are as follows:

• People interpret the meaning of objects and actions in the world and then act upon those interpretations

• Meanings arise from the process of social interaction

• Meanings are handled in, and modified by an interactive process used by people in dealing with phenomena

According to Crotty (1998, p. 72) in order to do them justice these tenets need to be set against a backdrop of pragmatist philosophy. The characteristic idea of pragmatist philosophy is that of ‘efficacy in practical application’ (Crotty, 1998, p.74) or in other words we accept the theory that will be of greater practical use.

According to Mead our ‘very personhood is attributed to social forces that shape us and our behaviour’ (Crotty, 1998, p.74). In developing his theory Mead outlined a developmental process that children pass through as they master ‘socialisation and internalisation skills’ (Manning and Smith, 2010, p.45). During this process children pass through a critical passage from ‘play stage to game stage’ during which they take on the role of ‘significant others’

such as parents that have a ‘concrete existence’ for them (Manning and Smith, 2010, p.45). Later within the game stage of development, where they understand the different roles played by members of the group they begin to play the role of ‘generalised others’ that exist only in ‘abstract form’ (Manning and Smith, 2010, p.45). In doing so children’s activities become ‘structured by rules and bounded in space and time thereby preparing them for the practical constraints of adult life’ (Manning and Smith, 2010, p.45). A central premise of symbolic interactionism thus becomes that of ‘putting oneself in the place of others’ (Crotty, 1998, p.75). Methodologically researchers have to study a subject’s ‘actions, objects and society from the perspective of the subject themselves’ (Grey, 2009, p.22).

According to Crotty (1998, p.75)

‘This role taking is an interaction. It is a symbolic interaction, for it is only possible because of the ‘significant symbols’ that is language and other symbolic tools – that we humans share and through which we communicate. Only through dialogue can one become aware of the perceptions, feelings and attitudes of others and interpret their meanings and intent’

In practice this means ‘entering the field setting and observing first-hand what is happening’ (Grey, 2009, p.22). From this perspective symbolic interactionism has embraced the methodology developed within cultural anthropology that is ethnography.

4.6 Methodology

According to Crotty (1998, p.7) research methodology describes our ‘strategy or plan of action, which shapes our choice and use of particular methods and links them to desired outcomes’. Within this framework the methodology of choice for the author has been highlighted as ethnography. Within this context research methods are described as ‘concrete techniques or procedures we plan to use in order to gather and analyse our data’ (Crotty, 1998, p.6).

Included within the methods section are highlighted techniques utilised by the author to undertake this research such as participant observation, unobtrusive data collection methods, interviews, and focus groups. Included in the methodology section within Crotty’s (1998) framework however is the term

‘case study’ which appears to be interchangeable with the term ethnography in a great deal of the literature. The following review will then consider this dichotomy in more detail, within the context of the researcher’s position as an employee past and present of both of the organisations under investigation.

4.6.1 Ethnography

In their study investigating the social consequences of educating young people who have endured chronic illness White, Drew and Hay (2009, p.21) initially consider ethnographic and case study methodologies to be ‘interchangeable’.

A brief review of the literature (Cresswell, 2009; Bryman, 2008) reveals that the definitions of ethnography and case study share many similarities and it is understandable that confusion can easily arise.

According to Cresswell (2009, p.13) case studies are a strategy of inquiry, in which the researcher ‘explores in depth a program, event, activity, process or one or more individuals’. Cases are then ‘bounded by time and activity, and researchers collect detailed information using a variety of data collection procedures over a sustained period of time’. The term case study is sometimes extended to include the study of just ‘two or three cases for comparative purposes’ (Bryman, 2008, p.402).

Reflecting on Guba and Lincolns (2005) paradigmatic positions (White, Drew and Hay, 2009, p.21) consider case study research ‘to belong to the conservative end of the qualitative continuum in post positivism, while ethnography spans the ‘critical theory’, ‘constructivism’ and ‘participatory paradigms’. This post positivist interpretation is supported by Stake (2005, p.460) who considers case study to belong to part of ‘scientific methodology’.

Case study analysis is only differentiated from other qualitative strategies by

‘bounding the case’ (Stake, 1978, p.7), or ‘conceptualising the object of study’

(Stake, 2005, p.461).

Alternatively ethnographic research is a strategy of inquiry, in which the researcher studies an intact cultural group in a natural setting over a prolonged period of time by collecting, primarily observational and interview data.

By definition an ethnographer is then someone who ‘immerses him or herself in a group for an extended period of time, observing behaviour, listening to what is said in conversation, both between others and with the fieldworker and asking questions’ (Bryman, 2008, p.402). The term ethnography has an additional meaning over and above ‘participant observation’ in that it ‘frequently refers to both a methodology of research and the written product of that research’ (Bryman, 2008, p.402). According to White, Drew and Hay (2009, p.22) ‘sociologists who use qualitative techniques such as ethnography or participant observation, which are time consuming and cannot be delegated to research assistants, almost invariably choose the case study method’.

By focusing predominantly on the ‘presence of the researcher in the research’, rather on the ‘material and information provided by the participants’ (White, Drew and Hay, 2009, p.24) the author considers his methodological stance to be more akin to an ethnographic than case study approach. In no small part this is considered appropriate in his role as Haematology manager at both Organisation X and Organisation Y and latterly as Head of Diagnostics at Organisation Y. In that respect ‘immersion’ (Greenhalgh and Swinglehurst, 2011, p.2) within a social setting for an extended period of time is inevitable.

Opportunities to engage with staff and observe the cultural aspects of each organisation are considered to be a fundamental part of the managerial role.

From this privileged position the author also had unlimited access to current and historical documentation relating to both organisations.

In addition the author also developed a relationship with the private sector

‘partner’ of both Organisation X and Organisation Y. The primary supplier provides both organisations with the majority of equipment and reagents to undertake the pathology tests as part of a managed service plan (MSP). This long-term relationship (10 years) is a novel undertaking, which is dependent on transferring a degree of organisational risk from user to supplier in return for tax exemptions. Practically speaking the relationship is by necessity much closer than that normally observed between designer/supplier and user than has previously been investigated within the literature. As a result this factor allows a unique opportunity to investigate the supplier/user interface.

Within the UK, NHS Pathology services have been that target of a prolonged modernisation programme since the late 90’s (Great Britain. Department of Health, 2002; 2004). This drive to influence organisational structure, culture and technology gained further momentum following the review of pathology services by Lord Carter in 2006 (Great Britain. Department of Health, 2006) and the subsequent review in 2008 (Great Britain. Department of Health, 2008). In his role as a founder member of formerly the TeesPath and latterly the N.E. Path pathology modernisation groups and Chair of the N.E. Path Haematology modernisation subgroup, the author also had access to data and has played a participant/observer role within the modernisation programme.

This unique position was used within this research to reveal the influence of such a programme on the two independent primary organisations Organisation X and Organisation Y under investigation.