1.VanMaanen1979a

8/13/2019 1.VanMaanen1979a

1/8

Reclaiming QualitativeMethods for Organiza-ional Research: Prefaceohn Van MaanenEditor

THE TERRITORY IS NO T THE M APThe label qualitative m etho ds has no precise me aning in anyof t he social sciences. It is at best an umbrella ter m cover-ing an array of interpretive techniques which seek to de-scribe,decode, translate, and othe rwise come to term s w iththe meaning, not the frequency, of certain more or lessnaturally occurring phen ome na in th e social w orld . To oper-ate in a qualitative mode is to trade in linguistic symbols and,by so doing, attem pt to reduce th e distance betw een indi-cated and indicator, between theory and data, between con-text and action. Th e raw materials of qualitative study aretherefore generatedin vivo close to the point of origin.Althou gh th e use of qualitative metho ds does not prohibit aresearcher's use of the logic of scientific empiricism, thelogic of phenomenological analysis is more likely to be as-sum ed since qualitative researchers tend to regard socialpheno men a as more particular and ambiguous th an replica-ble and clearly define d.The data developed by qualitative methods originate when aresearcher figuratively puts brackets around a tem poral andspatial domain of the social world. These brackets definethe terri tory about whic h descriptions are fashioned. Thesedescriptions are essentially idiographic maps of th e territory,which must then be read and interpreted by the investigatorif any nomothetic statements are to result from a givenstudy. Doing description is then the fundamental act of datacollection in a qualitative study. But. the map cannot be con-sidered the territory simply because the map is a reflexiveproduct of the map maker's invention. The map maker seeshimself quite as much as he sees the territory. There arehowever better and worse maps and qualitative researchersseek to construct good ones by moving closer to the terri-tory the y stud y in the physical sense as we ll as in th e intel-lectual sense by minimizing th e use of such a rtificial distanc-ing mech anism s as analytic labels, abstract hypo theses , andpreformulated research strategies.Oualitative methodology and quantitative methodology arenot mutually exclusive. Differences betwe en th e tw o ap-proaches are located in the overall form, focus, and empha-sis of study. As demonstrated by several of the researchaccounts in this issue, qualitative methods represent a mix-ture of the rational, serendipitous, and intuitive in which thepersona experiences of the organizational researcher areofte n key events to be unde rstood and analyzed as data.Ouaiitative investigators tend also to describe the unfoldingof social processes rather than the social structures that areoften the focus of quantitative researchers. Moreover, nomatter what the topic of study, qualitative researchers incontrast to their quantitative colleagues claim forcefully toknow relatively little about what a given piece of observedbehavior means u ntil the y have developed a description of

8/13/2019 1.VanMaanen1979a

2/8

Reclaiming Q ualitative Me tiiodsFrom this perspective, qualitative methods are rather similato the interpretive procedures we make use of as we goabout our everyday life. The data we collect and act upon ineveryday life are of the same sort a qualitative researcherexplicit ly attem pts to gather and record. Such data are symbolic, contextually embedded, cryptic, and reflexive, standifor no thing so m uch as their readiness or stubbornness toyield to me aningful interpretation and response. W he ncrossing the street, for exam ple, the sight of a ten-ton trucbearing dow n on us leads to an imm ediate and presumablyprudent action. We do not stop to f irst ask how fast thetruck is traveling, from where did it come, how often doesthis occur, or wh at is the driver s intention. W e m ove. Ourstudy o f th e truck involves little m ore tha n a quick scan, aglance up the road w hi ch reveals to mo st of us a menacinsymb ol of such pow er tha t a speedy, undeliberated re-sponse is mandatory. It is the aim of qualitative researcherto identify such symbo ls and, as a wa y of assessing theirmeaning, to record th e pattern of responses these symbo lelicit.This example also suggests that the linking of sign and signif ied, representation and conduct, proximal and distal,awareness and phenomenon in social research is alwaysdependent upon an interpretive framework. And, when agiven interpretive framework becomes firmly accepted andmo re or less set by a researcher, analytic formu las can beestablished and focusing devices put into place such thatth e inve stigator is able to engage in quantitative study. It isin this sense that quantitative and qualitative work are con-nected. But, if one is to consider for example the almost25-year history of/ASQ, such linkages are rarely made ex-plicit when a study is eventually published. Perhaps,Gresham s Law is at wo rk in organizational studies w he reithe programmed research is driving out the unprogrammeThere are however a number of organization theorists be-ginning to question the wisd om of allowing Gresham s Lawto take its course unque stioned. There is a grow ing concerabout where quantitative techniques are carrying us. Forexample, questions have been raised about the extent t ow hic h our metho ds are guiding our theory and concern habeen expressed about the degree to which our procedureshave become so ritualized that the necessary connectionbetw een measure and concept has vanished. Since quantit ive m etho ds have held an almost mon opolistic grip on theproduction of knowledge in the f ield, any serious reflectionregarding current organization theory must at some pointconsider the value of alternative m ethod s.Several unresolved but interrelated and crucial problems oorganizational inquiry currently exist which are both epis-temological and methodological in nature. First, there is arather curious and troubling distance b etw ee n th e gener-

8/13/2019 1.VanMaanen1979a

3/8

grmwing.Third, our date maniputeticm techn ique s have be-com e increasingly complex, m athematical ly sophisticated,and gcwerned by strict assum ptions, but, paradoxically, ourinterpretive frameworks which make such data meaningfulhave gro w n looser, m ore open-ended, f luid,and contingent.Fourth, there is an increasing distrust among organizationalobservers of the claims made for such analytic conve-niences as th e form al intervie w, th e paper-and-pencil sur-vey, the lab study, the use of official statistics, records,docum ents and th e l ike. Indeed, there seem s to be ratherwidespread skepticism surrounding th e ability of con ven-tional data collection techniques to produce data that do notdistort, do violence to, or otherwise falsely portray thephenomena such methods seek to reveal. In particular, theoverw helm ing role played by the survey instrum ent in or-ganizational research has led some observers to suggestthat th e field is becoming simply the study of verbally ex-pressed sentim ents and beliefs rather than th e study ofconduct. To further refine our data analysis techniques,however, is not to improve the quality of th e data wh ich is,in th e final analysis, at issue.Given this abbreviated list of commonly voiced concerns, itis w or th pointing out as a final prefacing m atter that the re issom ething of a quiet reconstruction going on in the socialsciences and so m e o f th e applied disciplines. It is hardlyrevolutionary, but a renewed interest in and felt need forqualitative research has slowly been em erging amon gsociologists, educators, urban planners, psych ologists, publicinterest lawyers, welfare administrators, health care person-nel,political scientists, labor economists, and others. Therehas come of age the significant realization that the peoplewe study (and often seek to assist) have a form of l ife, aculture that is their own and if we wish to understand thebehavior of these people and the groups and organizationsof w hic h the y are a part, w e mu st first be able to bothappreciate and describe their culture. As a society, w e havebecome increasingly aware of th e fact that w e l ive, wo rk,and play in multicultural surroundings. Moreover, within thissociety at least, it is becom ing clear tha t the origins of manyof these cultures are not coupled conceptually to matterssu ch as geography, ethn icity, or so da class but aregrounded in organizational experiences. Whether we are ex-amining the organizational worlds of middle managers,tramps, stockbrokers, high school principals, police officers,production workers, or professional crooks, we are certain touncover special languages, unique and peculiar p roblem s,and,more generally, distinct patterns oif thought and action.What this rather profound realization means for our ownscholarly work in the organizational areas is an essentialtheme that runs through each of the articles presented inthis special issue.

8/13/2019 1.VanMaanen1979a

4/8

Re ^N iniiig Q uidttctive MIetliodsw h ic h the y had wc ked. But, since the number o f paperssubmitted far exceeded the journal space available (evenw he n exparKied to a ful l issue), w e w ere faced w ith th ediff icu lt task of furthe r specifying and making explicit ourstandards for what would constitute a worthy contr ibution thi s area. Unlike quantitative approaches, there are fe wguidelines to foltow when assessing the soundness of agiven qualitative techn ique. Moreove r, there is, as this issuattests, a large and increasing number of rather specificqualitative me tho ds available for use in organizational re-search.Yet, w ha t was m ost dif ficult to deal w ith w as th efact that the papers we received each represented some-thing of a unique meshing of p roblem, theory, me thod , anthe person(s) standing behind itall.To say one paper w assomehow more valuable than another required the furtherelaboration of th e so m ew hat loose and inarticulate standarw e began w ith last M arch.Four criteria eventually em erged as th e review ers attem pteto decide what papers would be most appropriate for thisspecial issue. First, we tried to eliminate those paperswhere prescription dominated description. Second, welooked fo r the practical importan ce of a given paper to or-ganizational researchers. That is, we tried to eliminate thospapers that appeared to be primarily epistemological orme thodological in favor of th ose papers w hic h i llustratedthe actual use of qualitative methods. Third, we wanted toachieve a disciplinary mix am ong th e papers pub lished. Thintent was to demonstrate the uti l i ty of qualitative methodto a variety of distinct, discipline-based problems. And,fourth,w e tr ied to select papers that presen ted novelthemes in organizational studies. This fourth criterion pre-sented something of a dilemma since many qualitativemethods (e.g.,content analysis, participant observation, costitutive ethnography, the construction of l i fe histories,semiotics, conversational analysis, etc.) are by definitionquite novel to organizational research since they have beeso infrequently em ployed in the area. Our resolution here(and it is not with ou t am biguity) wa s to examine the findinuncovered by th e m eth od discussed in a paper and judgewhether or not such findings would be relatively predictabgiven wh at is currently kno wn about organizations and th el i fe that goes on within th em . Essential ly , wha t we we reafter wa s at least a partial answer to the que stion: W ha t cw e learn about organizations that w e do not already know the use of a particular qualitative method?Looking at th e thirteen papers of th is volume collectively,three s om ew hat distinct them atic groupings can be dis-cerned.The first and most heavily represented set of arti-cles addresses the use of what Peggy Sanday calls in thelead article, ethn ogra phic paradigm s. That there are m ulple ethnographic paradigms is perhaps the crucial point of

8/13/2019 1.VanMaanen1979a

5/8

selection of substantive topics t o pursue in a given s tudycannot be disembodied from the actual research processitself. Donald Light then suggests in the next paper that thestructure of organizational life invariably lies well beneaththe surface in a given research s etting. To begin to de scribewhat such structure looks like requires that the investigatordevelop careful descriptions of the daily routines and con-cerns of the members of the studied organization over alengthy period of time. Structure, from Professor Light'sperspective, is a label for various social processes w hi ch , inhis research on professional training, are virtually imposs ibleto comprehend over the short run or by simply relying onthe publicly articulated and rationalized understandings pre-sented by the members of the organization. Michael Piore,in th e follow ing paper, makes a similar point. Essentially, t heauthor calls for w ha t amo unts to a n e w econo mics , onethat view s the eco nomy (both at th e macro and microlevels) as a social process. Since the qualitative tradition ineconomics has largely disappeared from view. ProfessorPiore's comments on the role played by direct, firsthandinvolvement in his own highly respected research has par-ticular interest. Andrew Pettigrew, in the next to last paperof the set, also displays an interest in unscrambling socialprocesses. In his case, however, the social process of con-cern is that of leadership. By examples taken fro m his cur-rent research project. Professor Pettigrew demonstrates thecrucial importance o f taking a qualitative stance towa rd th ekey even ts, figure s, and transition p oints in an educationalinstitution as a wa y of understanding how organizational cul-tures are shaped and reshaped over time. Henry Mintzbergcloses out this first set of papers with a crisp summary ofthe assumptions that underlie his own extensive researchon the management of organizations. Direc t resea rch isthe tag tha t he uses to capture the critical aspects of hism eth od and, in large me asure, the points he articulates pro-vide a rather comprehensive synopsis of the methodologicalpositions taken by the authors of the preceding papers.The second set of papers represents methods less domi-nated by ethnographic, observational, and on-site, in-depthinterview techniques alone. Instead, these papers succinctlysuggest that the quantitative versus qualitative distinctiondrawn among social science methods is often an arbitraryand oversimplified distinction. Authors of papers in this setdemonstrate that quantitative indicators ranging from thecrude to the sophisticated can and do emerge from th e useof field methods and the direct observation of organizations.M atth ew Miles argues that i t is a mistake to think tha tqual-i tative researchers are somehow against measurement.Horeover, as Professor Miles demonstrates in his discussionof fieldwork crises, researchers should develop quantitativeindicators wh er e p ossible. By so doing, they can guardagainst the entropic tendencies that are involved in team

8/13/2019 1.VanMaanen1979a

6/8

Reciaiiiting Qualitative M ethodsfamiliarity w it h a research setting as a means of buildingseveral quantitative indicators of what to outsiders mightseem to be rather impressionistic and ill-defined concep tsClosely related to the multiple methods explored by Profesor Jick as a way o f handling m essy research topics.Charles McClintock, Diane Brannon. and Steven Maynard-Moody in the next selection argue for a more systematicapproach for constructing case studies. In this paper, am eth od based on th e logic of survey analysis is describedthat seems to have considerable potential for producing, inth e autho rs' view , th ick and generalizable analyses. Thefinal paper of this set is by Kirk Downey and Duane Irelandand deals with the relative advantages and disadvantages both quantitative and qualitative methods. The authors heshow that the supposed analytic match that is ideallysought between problem and method invariably leaves considerable latitude for th e use of both quantitative andquali tative technique s. Taking the assessm ent of an organiza-tion's environm ent as an illustrative substantive d oma in. Pfessors Do wn ey and Ireland sh ow how it is possible and, many cases, clearly desirable to assess an organization's evironment in qualitative terms. Moreover, they suggest thmany researchers in this area may we ll have been push edinappropriately (and perhaps prem aturely) to wa rd th e quantification of environmental concepts without giving due cosideration to the meaning of the concepts they measure.The th ird and concluding set of papers presented in thisissue is distinguishe d solely by the novel the m es exploredby the authors. Unlike the previous two groupings of papethe authors of the papers in this third set share neither asimilar approach to data collection nor a similar stance to-ward data as they are produced. What these three papersdo share however is a fresh outlook upon the legitimatetopics of organizational inquiry. The writings that appear inthis set are not only rich with tightly drawn and worked ouexam ples, but are full of th e su btle ironies that challenge to think more clearly about organizational research. The firpaper is Gerald R. Salancik's seductive plea to tickle, pro-voke,and otherwise stimulate organizations to see what, anything,will occur. Professor Salancik essentially calls fothe application of a natural experimentation model in organzational study. This can be accom plished, for examp le, ret-rospectively throu gh close inspection of the artifacts of or-ganizational research such as the non-response of organiztional members to survey questionnaires. Some of the previously overlooked assum ptions and implications associatew it h t he use of uno btrusive measures in organizational re-search are spelled out in th e follow ing paper by EugeneWebb and Karl Weick. Arguing that while research designand analytic techniques have become far more complex inrecent years, the task of data collection still plods along threlatively parochial self-report path with researchers devo

8/13/2019 1.VanMaanen1979a

7/8

the orie s tha t interest Peter Man ning in the concludingarti-cle of t his issue. Taking deadly aim at th e correspondencetheory of truth whereby the independence of the observerand the observed is assumed. Professor Manning displayshow the language chosen to represent a given social worldserves also to constrain and perhaps prefigure t h e analysisof that wo rld. Since language or style s of discou rse canbe seen t o sh ape organizational analysis, the authorsuggests that the researcher's own use of language be-come subject to methodological concern. Althou gh theanalysis of d iscourse has long been a key m eth od of l iterarycrit icism, its use in social analysis is particularly pertinent andoverdue since suc h analysis involves no t only the interpreta-tion of a natu ral te x t (social behavior) but th e creation ofanother text as w ell throug h th e descriptive accounts o fsocial behavior gene rated by the researcher.The special issue is brought to a conclusion by slightly alter-ing the standard format of the book review section. First,Chris Argyris, in a review essay of a recent policy-makingstudy, outlines what he considers to be the basic proce-dures to be employed w he n using theory to develop andtes t generalizations inferred from qualitative data. In es-sence. Professor Argyris's remarks take issue with the con-ventional wisdom suggesting that there are good reasonsbehind the research stigma attached to the case study. Fol-lowing th is essay, four bo oks, each m ore or less dealingwith qualitative methods, are reviewed in l ight of their pos-sible contribution to the theory and use of such methods inorganizational research.In closing, it m ust be said that th e inten t of t his issue is toencourage th e fu rther deve lpme nt of qualitative study as away of increasing the diversity of the field, thus increasingthe sources of insight and discovery. We wish to encourageadditionally a more penetrating and reflective approach toth e study of organizations than has been the case to date. Ifthis special issue sharpens the dialogue among observers oforganizations and helps to create an increased awareness ofthe methodological options available to them, our purposeswill have been achieved.

8/13/2019 1.VanMaanen1979a

8/8