Significando tanto un nombre como una cosa

The analytic techniques selected for this study were individual case studies and cross-case synthesis. Data collected enabled within-case analysis of each individual case, and a range of cross-case syntheses. The process of within-case analysis was necessary before cross-case comparisons could be undertaken. A description of within-case analysis procedures undertaken to build an explanation about each case follows

3.6.1. Within-case analysis

As described earlier, NVivo software was used to manage and code data. An Interim Case Outline based on the conceptual framework, the research questions and a series of sub-questions derived from research questions, was developed to guide data analysis (Appendix 3.10.). Miles and Huberman (1994), advise that development of an Interim Case Outline is an effective way to focus and streamline data collection and analysis, particularly for multiple case studies, where comparability across cases is critical (p.84). The Interim Case Outline was written to review findings, look at the quality of data supporting the findings and as a first attempt to derive a coherent, overall account of each case (Eisenhardt, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

In addition to the Interim Case Outline, data coded into Microsoft Word and Excel documents were examined for similarities and variations in responses within each case.

The combination of descriptive and numerical interpretations offered a means to survey large quantities of data ordinarily lost in intensive, qualitative research. “It gives the reader a chance to gain a sense of flavor of the data as a whole. It provides researchers with a means to test and to

revise their generalizations, removing nagging doubts about the accuracy of their impressions about the data” (Silverman, 2006, p.52).

3.6.1.1. Prism One: Listening competency analysis

Stakeholder expectations and perceptions of organisational listening competence were explored by comparing the findings of an initial case within the conceptual framework of listening competency (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2009, p.130). Each individual case study’s interview transcripts, field notes, documents and archival records were compared to literature reviewed to explore evidence of contradictions, and to see whether the data extended knowledge in some aspects of the literature. During the analysis stage, data from each individual case was examined for similarities or contradictions to data from the other case studies.

As a result of findings during the process of within-case analysis, theoretical orientations were revised. For example, the a priori coding scheme developed for listening competency, initially incorporated ‘qualities’ associated with the effective listener based on the conceptual framework of Coakley et al’s (1996) QEL taxonomy, presented in chapter 2. A posteriori coding allows ‘a posteriori context-sensitive’ categories to emerge from the transcripts (Schwandt, 1997). In this study new ‘qualities’, not included in Coakley et al’s (1996) QEL taxonomy, evolved as data interpretation progressed. The outcome of this iterative process was the development of a list of

‘Qualities associated with the Competent Listening Organisation’ (QCL taxonomy), presented in Chapter four.

3.6.1.2. Prism Two: participatory communication analysis

Data from each case was re-examined to compare interview transcripts, field notes, documents and archival records with theoretical constructs from participatory communication literature.

Data was compared with the extant literature to examine whether results were similar to the literature, contradicted literature or extended knowledge in some aspects of the literature.

Analysis considered whether data from individual case studies was similar or contradicted data from other cases. Within-case analysis of each case as a separate entity, allowed tentative themes, concepts and relationships between variables to emerge case by case. This iterative process continued, to compare the emergent framework with the evidence from each case, to assess how well or how poorly themes, concepts and relationships matched case data.

3.6.1.3. Listening competency and participatory communication

Within-case analysis compared results viewed through the prisms of listening competency, with results viewed through the prism of participatory communication, for each individual case.

Within each case, emergent relationships between stakeholder and manager perceptions of listening competency were compared with stakeholder and manager perceptions of participatory communication. Data analysis considered whether results confirmed or contradicted each other.

Within each case, results were examined to determine whether findings extended knowledge in listening and participatory communication literature. This process was repeated for each individual case. Results from the within-case analysis are presented in Chapters four and five.

3.6.2. Cross-case synthesis

An outcome of within-case analysis is an intimate familiarity with each case, as a stand-alone entity “the process allows the unique patterns of each case to emerge before investigators push to generalize patterns across cases” (Eisenhardt, 2002, p.18). Using the logic of replication, the following cross-case syntheses were conducted:

• intra-organisation comparison;

• inter-organisation comparison;

• cross-cohort comparison.

3.6.2.1. Intra-organisation comparison

The intra-organisation comparison involved comparison of data from the three cases within each organisation. Data from organisation A’s three cases was combined to provide a whole-of-organisation perspective. The process was repeated with data from whole-of-organisation B’s three cases.

In addition to the presentation of whole-of-organisation results, the intra-organisation comparison explored similarities and variations in results within the three cases from organisation A. This procedure was repeated with data from cases B1, B2 and B3 (Appendix 3.7.). Results from the intra-organisation comparison are presented in Chapter six.

3.6.2.2. Inter-organisation comparison

Another form of cross-case synthesis, inter-organisational comparison between the two participating organisations, was conducted. The inter-organisation comparison involved a comparison of whole-of-organisation A results with whole-of-organisation B results. The purpose of this comparison was to consider similarities and variations in results between the two organisations and to examine similarities and differences as regards stakeholder expectations and perceptions within the context of organisation-stakeholder engagement events (Appendix 3.8.).

Results from the inter-organisation comparison are presented in Chapter seven.

3.6.2.3. Cross-cohort comparison

The final cross-case synthesis conducted in this study was a cross-cohort comparison between the two cohorts, stakeholders and managers. Data from the six stakeholder cohorts was collated and compared with responses from the six manager cohorts. The cross-cohort comparison explored variations and similarities between stakeholder and manager cohorts’ expectations and perceptions of organisational listening competence, within the context of organisation-stakeholder events (Appendix 3.9.).

Expectations data from the six stakeholder cohorts was collated to present expectations of organisation listening competence from a ‘stakeholder perspective’. Expectations data from the six manager cohorts was collated to provide an overall perspective of managers’ levels of accuracy in understanding stakeholder expectations.

Stakeholder perceptions of organisational competency were collated to present perceptions of organisational listening competence from a ‘stakeholder perspective’. Data from the six manager cohorts’ self-perceptions of their listening competency was collated and interpreted. Results from the cross-cohort comparisons are presented in chapter 7.

3.7. Summary

The current study’s purpose was to explore the listening competency of two organisations during organisation-stakeholder engagement events with their respective stakeholders An exploratory study using qualitative research methods seemed most appropriate to answer the research questions. Case study research methodology was selected “to understand the case in depth, and in its natural setting, recognizing its complexity and context” (Purdy, 2004, p.150).

The participation of two organisations, involving six case studies within both metropolitan and regional Australian contexts, provided opportunity to conduct a multiple-case study, where the instrumental case study was extended to cover several cases, to learn more about “the phenomenon, population or general condition” (Stake, 2000, p. 437). Six organisation–

stakeholder engagement events were the units of analysis in this study.

The analytic strategy was to allow theoretical orientations guide development of a case study protocol, indicating what data was to be collected and case study analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2009, p. 130). Data was gathered from four sources: interviews, observation, documents, and archival records. A theoretical sampling strategy was employed to select interview participants. A pilot study comprising one case study from each organisation assisted in the refinement of research design, field procedures and questions in the two interview protocols.

Data from the six individual cases was managed, coded and analysed using NVivo software, and Microsoft Word and Excel documents. A priori and a posteriori coding was undertaken.

Listening, service quality and participatory communication literature guided development of a priori coding structures. Within-case analysis involved three separate stages of analysis:

• data from each case was examined within the framework of constructs from listening competency literature;

• data from each case was re-examined within the framework of constructs from participatory communication literature;

• within each case, listening competency results were compared with participatory communication results.

Service quality literature provided a descriptive framework for collection and analysis of data to consider possible causes of gaps between stakeholder expectations and perceptions of organisational listening competency (Parasuraman et al, 1985, 1988; Zeithaml et al, 1990).

Within-case and cross-case synthesis were selected as suitable analytic techniques for this study (Yin, 2009, p.156). Case study data was initially analysed by building an explanation about each case, termed within-case analysis. Each individual case consisted of a “whole” study. A replication approach to multiple-case research was taken in this study (Yin, 2009, p.141). Each case study’s conclusions were considered to be the information needing replication by the other five case studies. Both individual cases and multiple-case results were the focus. The following cross-case syntheses were conducted:

• intra-organisation comparison;

• inter-organisation comparison;

• cross-cohort comparison.

Within-case results are presented in Chapters four and five. Intra-organisation comparison results are presented in Chapter six. Results from the inter-organisation and cross-cohort comparisons are presented in Chapter seven. Chapter eight provides theoretical context by relating the descriptions, interpretations and analysis back to the conceptual framework described in Chapter two. Chapter nine discusses the contributions this study makes to the theory and practice of organisation-stakeholder communication.

CHAPTER FOUR: ORGANISATION A WITHIN-CASE ANALYSIS

Data from Organisation A’s three case studies was examined individually to build an explanation about each case, termed within-case analysis. In this research project, within-case analysis involved three separate stages of analysis:

• data from each case was examined within the framework of constructs from listening competency literature;

• data from each case was re-examined within the framework of constructs from participatory communication literature;

• within each case, listening competency results were compared with participatory communication results.

The context and results for case studies, A1, A2 and A3 respectively are presented. Presentation of case A1 results includes a detailed explanation of data collection and analysis. As data collection and analysis methods were identical for each case, a summary of case A2 and A3 results is presented.