comm4074: assignments: 5-page organizational analysis

COMM 4074Organizational Communication Spring 1999

RESEARCH PROJECT: ORGANIZATIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY

ASSIGNMENT: THEORY AND METHODJUSTIFICATION

DUE: April 22, 1999, 3:30p.m.

FORMAT:

COVER PAGE MUST BE INCLUDED; give the reader a title that "frames" their experience of your paper
Typed, double-spaced, page numbers included. Staples only, no paper clips or report covers.
NO NAMES on the front of the paper. Name on back of the paper only. Put your name on the reverse side of the last page ONLY.
Check spelling and grammar and proofread carefully. Do not present a first draft. I should see an evidently edited version. Each error costs 1% of your total grade.

DETAILS:

In this paper, you should be concise and clear as you accomplish the following objectives:

1) EXPLAIN your perspective

2) DESCRIBE your procedures

3) JUSTIFY the approach you took (are taking) to collect, analyze, and write this organizational study

SUGGESTIONS FOR SUCCESS

Pretend you are the reader, and you don't know anything about the researcher, the researcher's stance, what the researcher did, what assumptions the researcher made during the study......etc., etc., etc. So, what do you need to know? What would the reader want to know about in order to evaluate this study? In writing your justification, you are providing essential info about the research process, the researcher, the research stance, and so forth. You are explaining what you did more than what you found. In this paper, then, you should be very self-reflexive. Who are you? What guided your study, in all its stages? What did you do? Answering these questions in detail will provide you much of the necessary stuff to write this short paper.

I'll give more information below that may be useful as you are thinking about these papers. However, keep in mind ONE CRUCIAL REQUIREMENT: You should write this paper as if your audience knows NOTHING about the topic, organizational communication, ethnography, interpretive approaches, etc. (I realize this may be difficult, because your reader--me--does know some things about this stuff, but for purposes of this paper, you should assume I know nothing). You should explain your basic perspective, methods of data collection and analysis, etc., as if speaking to an audience who has not taken this class. In other words, don't take the knowledge you have gained in this class for granted.

Use as many sources as you can to show me you got the information from somewhere outside your own head. In the example below (which I've just made up, so the citations are most likely incorrect), the writer is making some basic claims about the research process and the subject of validity/bias. However, if the writer has not considered these issues prior to taking this course, it's highly likely the writer learned it in class or in the course readings. You should not be afraid to use the course readings or class lectures as sources. In fact, you SHOULD give credit to the sources of new ideas.

"Even though this study is based only on my observations and interpretation of events, the interpretive results should not be rejected as invalid because they are biased. As Markham (1999), Geertz (1971), and others have emphasized, all research results are biased because studies are done from a particular perspective. We should not judge research findings only on the basis of generalizability or external validity (Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1985, 35). Rather, we should consider the "usefulness" of the study to the organizational members or to the scholarly community at large."

The other issue evident in the example above is a repeat of a suggestion I made earlier, which warrants repeating because it's so important: Don't take the knowledge learned in this class for granted. Many of your "theoretical and methodological assumptions" will be based on things we've talked about in class. These should be included in the discussion of your perspective, and cited appropriately.....many many many readings that we've had in class discuss the basic assumptions of ethnography and interpretive or critical methodology.

THOUGHTS ON PERSPECTIVE OR WORLDVIEW

Remember, theoretical and methodological assumptions undergird all three stages of the research project. So the "method" or "theory” stuff is not separate from you or your study.

Let's review the basic process of the study: When you write an analysis of an organizational culture, you collect data (discourse), analyze it (make sense of it), and present your findings (write it so others can understand). During ALL these stages, your theoretical and methodological assumptions will influence how you entered the organization, what you chose to focus on, how you collected the information, how you analyzed it, and how you wrote it up.

For example, your worldview comprises one level of your “theoretical assumptions." So in the first objective, you may want to spend some time explaining your perspective about the world and how this relates to (or influences) your analysis. Of course, for this study, you've been asked to take the perspective of an "interpretive ethnographer." Burrell and Morgan (reading packet) discuss how the interpretive worldview influences "inquiry." So you might at some level explain how your perspective of "interpretivism" influences your study......of course, if you do not agree with the interpretive perspective, you will no doubt experience some feelings of discomfort with this perspective, and in this case, you should explain how your perspective of "X" operated in conflict with the perspective you were supposed to take for purposes of this course....and then tell me how this influences your study.

Explaining your perspective is also intimately involved with explaining your method. Your method of collecting information should be specified in detail in your final paper. Don't forget a basic fact you’ve learned in this course: your method of collecting data is based on your "stance" as an "ethnographer." So, this method of collecting data is related to your perspective as an ethnographer....and warrants some explanation and justification.

THOUGHTS ON METHOD

Method, in a simple sense, simply refers to the way you go about making sense of the organization.

You use some knowledge you've gained in this class to help you figure out what to focus on...this simply means you've used a METHOD to collect data.
You use some knowledge you've gained in this class or read about to help you figure out what the data MEANS....which means you're using METHODS to analyze data.
You're also going to draw on your knowledge of ethnography and qualitative research to help you figure out how to present your findings....so many of you will be thinking of METHOD when you write your study.

All the methods you use are based on your perspective as a researcher. In terms of explaining a specific method you used (are using) to analyze your data; look at what other interpretive or qualitative scholars say about this issue. Some scholars will suggest an explicit method of analysis, such as metaphor analysis, narrative analysis, and theme analysis. However, not all of you are using such specified analytical tools, right? Well, still other qualitative scholars simply look for themes and interpret the organizational culture based on certain themes. This is not an explicit analytic tool, but is still a method....hence, deserves explanation and justification. So, in this case, you might answer the questions: Why is "finding patterns or themes and creatively interpreting these themes a valid way to make sense of the data?" and "Who says it’s legitimate?"

THOUGHTS ON THEORY

Theory runs through virtually every decision you make as a researcher. Theory influences every decision to focus on some things and ignore some other things. Theory influences the way you ask questions in interviews. Theory influences the way you decide to make sense of your data. Theory influences the way you choose to write up your study.

Theory also runs through virtually every claim you make about what is happening in the organization. You will be interpreting data and presenting claims about the culture of the organization. One of the most basic questions to ask about theory in your paper would be: “What "theories" (grand or simple) help you determine that "culture” exists?"

Many of you are making claims about what some organizational behavior or pattern or practice "means." In doing so, you are drawing on theory, consciously or subconsciously. You should think about this, and make sure you're not making assumptions out of turn, or make sure you're giving theoretical credit where due.

For example, in the following paragraph, the writer makes claims that should be supported because they're based on theory:

"The members of the COOP engage in very traditional and repetitive rituals throughout the year, which in many ways lends strength to their culture. Pacanowsky and O'Donnell Trujillo (1986), along with other cultural researchers (such as Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Goodall, 1995; Markham, 1995, 1999), contend that ritual and tradition are some of the primary means that culture gets reproduced and sustained.

In the case of the COOP, this is very evident. Members are not long standing; rather, they come and go every two years, because membership is limited to college juniors and seniors. Without standardized and repetitive rituals, the organization might not survive. Karl Weick argues that organizations become concretized when the rules and norms of behavior become sedimented and almost invisible (1979, p. 42). In the COOP, rules and norms are certainly sedimented. But they are not invisible. To the contrary, the COOP makes the rules highly visible through the repeated rituals. They do this on purpose to create a sense of strong community. But one could argue that the entire process is absolutely vital to the continuation of a culture that otherwise would have only a two-year life."

I made up the quotes and dates in the above example for purposes of illustration only. Please don't take this as truth, but notice how the conclusions about culture are based on an analysis of events. Almost all the assumptions are backed up by some theory or theories.

*end*