Jörgen sandberg. Stockholm School of Economics. A classic managerial problem, страница 6

Analyzing Data

My aim in the subsequent analysis was to search for variation in the optimizers' conceptions of engine optimization and to make explicit the basic meaning structure of these conceptions. The analysis was carried out in an ongoing iterative process in which I alternated between what the optimizers conceived of as work and how they conceived of that work. The starting point was acquiring a general grasp of the optimizers' conceptions of engine optimization. I did this by reading each transcript several times. After I had grasped each optimizer's conception generally, I sorted the optimizers into groups according to their conceptions. Second, I read all the transcripts again, to systematically search for what each optimizer conceived of as engine optimization. The main focus here was not on the particular statements in themselves, as in most forms of content analysis. Instead, the primary focus was on the meaning of a particular statement in relation to the context of the surrounding statements and the transcript as a whole. When I had analyzed what each optimizer conceived of as engine optimization, I shifted the analysis from single optimizers and compared the conceived optimization work across optimizers. First, I compared the individuals within each group from the first phase of the analysis. Second, I compared them between groups. This process resulted in some optimizers being moved from one group to another.

Third, I analyzed all the transcripts again, but now in terms of how each optimizer conceived of engine optimization. The primary focus in this phase of the analysis was on how the optimizers delimited and organized what they conceived as engine optimization. After I had analyzed each

transcript, I compared the optimizers with each other, first within and then between groups. Again, this process led to some regrouping.

Finally, I analyzed all the transcripts once again, simultaneously focusing on what each optimizer conceived of as the work in relation to how they conceived of that work. I then cross-checked my interpretations of each conception. I did so by reading through the transcripts expressing a particular conception while testing whether an alternative interpretation held. I performed this cross-checking until I believed I had found the most faithful interpretation of each optimizer's way of conceiving of engine optimization. This cross-checking also led to clearer and more precise formulations of the conceptions. I eventually reached a point where, despite further cross-checking, each conception of engine optimization remained stable. The analysis resulted in three groups of optimizers expressing qualitatively different conceptions of engine optimization. Six optimizers expressed conception 1; ten, conception 2; and four, conception 3.

Validity and Reliability Criteria

As noted, phenomenology was my pÖint of departure in this research. In the phenomenological view, person and world are inextricably related through a person's lived experience of the world. This notion applies not only to workers' competence, but also to a researcher's interpretation of that competence. Therefore, to justify my interpretations, I used three criteria: communicative and pragmatic validity (Kvale, 1989, 1996) and reliability as interpretative awareness (Sandberg, 1994, 1995). Establishing communicative validity involves an ongoing dialogue in which alternative knowledge claims are debated throughout the research process (Kvale, 1989). Pragmatic validity involves testing the knowledge produced in action (Kvale, 1989). Striving for pragmatic validity increases the likelihood of capturing knowledge in action rather than what Argyris and Schön (1978) called "espoused theories." Reliability as interpretative awareness means acknowledging that researchers cannot escape from their interpretations but must explicitly deal with them throughout the research process. In this study, phenomenological reduction was used as a strategy for achieving interpretative awareness. Adopting phenomenological reduction means striving to withhold theories and prejudices about the research object (Giorgi, 1990; Ihde, 1977). The main ways in which I tried to meet the above criteria are elaborated below.