Quienes Somos

When commencing my research, it was important to establish my view of the reality I planned to study, defining what it meant ‘to know’ (Etherington, 2004). As the researcher, I had a view of how my beliefs linked to my research design. However, because of the complex relationship between philosophy and research, I found it helpful to consider the theoretical assumptions underpinning my research, addressing the ontological, epistemological, methodological and axiological aspects separately.

50

Beginning with the ontological question of whether social entities are objective and exist externally to social actors (Bryman, 2008), I believed I brought my own perspectives, biases, previous training, and pre-existing knowledge to the research (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). I could not therefore take the ontological position of objectivism where the social phenomena to be investigated existed beyond my ability to influence them. Further consideration of objectivism in relation to an organisation clarified my standpoint. If I believed my organisation to be an object with rules, regulations and standard procedures for getting work done, and a social organisation applying pressure to individuals to conform to its requirements, I could expect employees to apply rules and follow procedures. Thus, I would exhibit a position of objectivism, however, based on my experience, I believed my organisation did not operate that way. It was more aligned to the views of Salaman and Thompson (1973) who stated that rather than organisational order being pre-set and beyond influence, it is worked at with rules being less imposed and more like general understandings. These understandings are arrived at by negotiation between interested parties with individuals being involved in the social construct of reality (Silverman, 2013). My experience of the homeworking policy and how rules manifest themselves suggests continual negotiation rather than strict imposition, supporting my constructivist ontological standpoint.

Assessing the formal communications to establish the official position on homeworking required an assumption about the level of reality such documents would provide. Atkinson and Coffey (2004) assert that documents have their own ontological status, representing only documentary reality which cannot be extrapolated to the social reality of the organisation. My purpose in reviewing the communications was to establish the official view, however I recognised this took an ontological objectivist position of seeing the organisation as an entity with a view. The review therefore accepted the communications for what they were, material written for a specific purpose and not necessarily a reflection of reality. Their content does

51

however serve as a reference point against which to compare individuals’ views gathered in the research.

The methodology used in research relates to the key philosophical concepts of the nature of knowledge and knowing (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Therefore, having considered my ontological position, the next section addresses my epistemological beliefs or my relationship with the research and findings, and whether I believed what I learnt to be independent of me as the researcher (Bailey, 2007).

My research explored the phenomena of employees’ feelings about the expectation of homeworking, and was therefore undertaken from a phenomenological viewpoint. I believe reality is socially constructed rather than objectively determined. My task therefore as the researcher was not to gather facts and measure frequencies of occurrences, but to understand the social world by examining the constructions and interpretations individuals place on their experience of the world (Bryman, 2008).

As a senior HR manager in the organisation being studied, it was impossible to approach the research believing the phenomena I was seeking to understand were independent and unaffected by my behaviour as a researcher. There were several factors which meant I could not be completely objective and undertake research which was free of my personal values. I had a relationship with participants as co-workers in the organisation, I managed a team, some of whom home worked and some remained office-based. I therefore had views and prejudices about the subject being researched and could not be completely objective and deliver objective research findings (Snape & Spencer, 2003). Appendix 8 summarises the elements of the phenomenological paradigm and methodology for this research.

52 3.3 Methodology

This section addresses the link between the preceding theoretical framework and the chosen methodology. Bryman (1984) recognised within research theory the philosophical and technical aspects of research are often tackled simultaneously and possibly confusingly. More recently a body of literature on research methodology has developed which views methods as derived from the philosophical stance adopted. Thus, the epistemological approach influences the preference for a method, but not always, there is also the pragmatic approach which considers what is realistically achievable. The methodology describes my philosophical stance, data collection techniques, research design and sampling; in other words, the whole research strategy and approach as described in subsequent sections.

The methodological approach used sits within the interpretive paradigm and is appropriate to my ontological and epistemological beliefs, viewing the world as socially constructed, in contrast to the natural world. I aimed to investigate the subjectively meaningful experiences of my participants (Snape & Spencer, 2003). I wanted to understand how the organisation defined the expectation of homeworking, and how employees interpreted that expectation. To do this I used a qualitative approach involving focus groups and interviews to gather information. The attraction of qualitative research methods was that they are naturally more fluid than quantitative methods, allowing the discovery of unanticipated findings, and providing flexibility for research plans to alter to accommodate such findings (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Snizek (1976) analysed journal articles and found methodological techniques could not easily be extrapolated from the epistemological assumptions of the researcher. Rather, they tended to be concerned with completing a research project in a way most appropriate to the matter at hand. Taking a similarly pragmatic approach, I decided interviews were the most

53

appropriate method for data collection. Creating a questionnaire or undertaking quantitative analysis would have required assumptions about participants views, or identification of questions from existing literature. Along with my own beliefs, assumptions and understanding of the world, I had preconceptions about what others may think (Bailey, 2007), therefore interviews were chosen to allow participants to cover areas I considered unimportant.

Literature on homeworking as an expectation is sparse, therefore there are no theoretical assumptions or findings to be tested or proved or disproved. Where there is minimal existing literature, interviews provide a flexible method of providing insights into how participants view the world (Bryman, 2008; Robson, 2011). I sought to avoid making assumptions about individuals’ perceptions instead giving them the opportunity to share their opinions within the boundaries of my research area. Semi-structured interviews provided flexibility to guide the direction of the discussion, together with the opportunity to pursue new and interesting issues raised by interviewees.

This understanding of the world features in the consideration of my axiological stance on this research. Whilst questions on the ontological and epistemological approach deal with the nature of truth, axiology focusses on values and ethics (Mingers, 2003). A question for me as researcher was what role my personal values should play in the research? Should I be the disinterested scientist, valuing knowledge gained for its own sake (Heron & Reason, 1997), or be emotionally engaged in the research, viewing knowledge gained as leading to transformation or positive change?

As a PhD researcher, it would be unusual to expect nothing to happen with my research. I did not view it as an end per se, but expected it to contribute to developing theory and moving the field forwards. I also hoped it would positively impact the organisation informing future

54

policies. I considered whether it was feasible for my research to remain value free by ignoring my opinions about the views of participants. I expected to be surprised by some views, and agree with some and not others. Being part of the organisation, I could not be completely disconnected, thus the influence of my values and characteristics, as for example a manager and homeworker, on my learning from the research would reflect in my findings. I therefore adopted an interpretive axiological approach, focussing on social relationships asking what employees do and feel, and how they understand the world.