Zooming in and zooming out: doing qualitative longitudinal research in the UK and US’

Warwick Business School

Zooming in and zooming out: doing qualitative longitudinal research in the UK and US’

Jacky Swan

25rd November 2011


What I will talk about

The challenges of the research context knowledge intensive work across nations

Example research study Doing the research


- Much theory on KIFs/globalization

- Analysis/findings

- A review of the academic literature on qualitative

research

- A recipe for doing qualitative research

- The challenges of working across a 6-person team!

- The many trials of publication….

I won’t talk about


Researching Knowledge-Intensive Organizations – The Context The Evolution of Biomedical Knowledge: Interactive

Innovation in the UK and US Jacky Swan, Sue Newell, Maxine Robertson, Mike Bresnen, Anna

Goussevskaia, Ademola Obembe Research Policy (2007), 36, 529-547.

Research Context: Biomedical innovation – creation and application of scientific and technological knowledge to improve the delivery of human healthcare and the treatment of disease (Rasmussen, 2005) Novel therapeutics

Main Question: What processes at the institutional and project levels facilitate or impede the development of knowledge for biomedical innovation


Networked/Interactive Innovation The locus of innovation is ‘the network of inter-organizational

relationships that sustain a fluid and evolving community’ (Powell et al. 1996). university scientists, hospital clinicians, biotech, large pharma, clinical

research organizations, investors (e.g. VCs), regulators Innovation highly knowledge-intensive & NON LINEAR Emergence (of knowledge, problems, unanticipated events) is

the norm (Dougherty & Dunne, 2011) Knowledge evolves in an open-ended, ‘inherently indeterminate’

manner (Tsoukas, 1996). Outcomes and potential applications of new discoveries are unknown

(or even unknowable) at the start (Dougherty, 2007; Pisano, 2006) Poses significant challenges for research


Why the US and UK? Global knowledge-intensive industry (global pharma

and regulation) US & UK both ‘Liberal Market’ economies (Whitley,

2000) Both world class in R&D & market leaders in biotech Both highly professionalised with similar regulatory

frameworks But national/institutional differences

availability of human resources, access to technology, access to finance (Casper,2000,Casper & Kettler, 2000), healthcare systems


Institutional Differences Summarised As… US more supportive than UK of ‘integrative’ and

‘relational’ capabilities (Owen-Smith et al, 2002) Integrative capabilities - the ability to integrate

knowledge by moving back and forth between basic science, commercial and clinical development

Relational capabilities - the ability to collaborate with diverse organizations

What is the impact project level?


Zooming In and Zooming Out (Cf Nicolini, 2009)

MICRO MACROInnovation projects national differencesKnowledge integration Institutional theoryPractice theory

ZOOMING OUTZOOMING IN

MESONetwork dynamics


Research design 3-year study Zooming In – Longitudinal case studies of

innovation projects (N =10)Early stage development of novel therapeutics Interview, materials, & observation of project

practices Zooming Out

Interview based survey of key stakeholders groups involved in early-stage biomedical innovation (N=97)

Secondary data sources


Example: project meetingsI walked into the boardroom at around 11.58 pm and saw MH (Clinical Director). I introduced myself. She asked if I was doing a presentation. I said no because the agenda is full. She said that it was always full. The Project Manager chaired the meeting. Items on the agenda were timed to as little as 2-minute slots. Every item was almost exactly on time and many conversations were cut off. As I was chatting with the scientist afterwards she confessed her antipathy at having to stick to such ‘ridiculous’ schedules. “We never have time to talk about what is really happening. We should just tear up these stupid gannt charts”

What did I learn about?time compression/commodification, the absurdity of project

management tools in emergent contexts


Formal Criteria for design and evaluation (National Science Foundation Report)

Mastering of literature Hypothesis development Selection of method

Collection of data Analysis Hypothesis (dis)confirmed

conclusion


Doing QR - an iterative process (just like the innovation processes being observed!)

General question

Initial Data Collection

Preliminary interpretation

Focused observation

Further Interpretation & Theorizing


“You learn something (‘collect some data’), then you try and make sense out of it (‘analysis’), then you go back and see if the interpretation makes sense in light of new experience (‘collect more data’), then you refine your interpretation (‘more analysis’), and so on. The process is dialectic, not linear.” (Agar, 1996, p. 62)

Formal criteria cannot be applied directly Research fails if it is formulaic (Feldman) In your project, you need to innovate and be

imaginative. You can’t just apply a method!


Zooming Out - Challenges Where to start/who to speak to esp in non-

home countryAdvice from SABResearcher’s networks influence network analysis!

Learning while asking questionsBoth expert and novice

Mundane matters matter Confidences & confidentiality Relative importance of the research


Handling Cultural Norms & Expectations We both speak English but… Access in US actually easier

Reflects the inst differences (integrative capabilities) Credibility institutionally based More legalistic/formal in US

But non disclosure agreements made conversations more open

Expectations of ‘payback’ also differed Some advantage in being a ‘foreign’ researcher


Zooming In - Challenges Locating bounded areas of practice/projects

where work/interactions are so fluid Emergence means projects disappear and

reappear Innovation defined post-hoc (same process can

be described as a mistake!) Challenge of observing/discussing when you

lack contributory expertise (Evans and Collins)


Zooming in Challenges (Contd) Post-hoc rationalization is natural to sensemaking in

fluid situationsLongitudinal research helpsParticipants don’t always like what you say!

Paradox of national ‘comparative’ researchMyth of matching (cases and data sets)Not a problem if your position is interpretivism

(Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2000) Creating knowledge/insights = Drawing new

distinctions (cf Tsoukas) not comparing along prefixed dimensions


Practical Tactics Practiced interactive innovation

SAB in both countriesFeedback workshops (esp in non home country)

Having a US-based researcher Study leave period Started with more than we needed (because

projects disappear and reappear) Travelled in packs (or 2 anyway)!


Practical Tactics (Contd) DIY – do your own fieldwork (or at least some of

it!) Work with the institutionalised practices

E.g. used NDAs in the US Expect to be ‘lost’ Sort the mundane stuff early Go with the flow & follow the practices

opportunistically Throw away your project management tools!

It is not a linear process


Resources (2) Langley, A. (1999) 'Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data', Academy of

Management Review, 24(4): 691-710 Barley, S. (1990) ‘Images of Imaging: Notes on Doing Longitudinal Field Work,

Organization Science, vol. 1 no. 3 220-247 Heracleous, L. (2006) A Tale of Three Discourses: The Dominant, the Strategic

and the Marginalized, Journal of Management Studies, 43(5) 1059-1087 Spradley, J. 1979. Ethnographic Interview. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming In and Out: Studying Practices by Switching

Theoretical Lenses and Trailing Connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391-1418.

Barley, S. R. (1986). TECHNOLOGY AS AN OCCASION FOR STRUCTURING - EVIDENCE FROM OBSERVATIONS OF CT SCANNERS AND THE SOCIAL-ORDER OF RADIOLOGY DEPARTMENTS. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78-108.


Resources (3) Bailey, D. E., Leonardi, P. M., & Chong, J. (2010). Minding the Gaps:

Understanding Technology Interdependence and Coordination in Knowledge Work. ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, 21(3), 713-730.

Pettigrew, A. (1990) Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice,Organization Science, 1 (3), 267- 292

Pettigrew, A. (1997) What is Processual Analysis?, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13 (4), 337-348

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990) Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria, Qualitative Sociology, 13 (1), 3- 21

Zooming in and zooming out: doing qualitative longitudinal research in the UK and US’

Documents

Transcript of Zooming in and zooming out: doing qualitative longitudinal research in the UK and US’