Advertisement

Method

  • Thomas AfflerbachEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)

Abstract

The theory-based sensitizing concepts about the contextual challenges putting the cooperation within hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations at risk as well as the solutions to foster cooperation provide a broad understanding about the complexity of teamwork within such settings. As such sensitizing concepts should be deployed only with the aim to be bolstered with specific content through empirical research, the qualitative, empirical part of the study presented in this book explores how members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations can overcome the cooperation problem to enable their teamwork to flourish. Thus, in the present chapter 1 (1) introduce the overall design of the empirical research design, thereby outlining how the sensitizing concepts informed the formulation of the research questions, (2) present the qualitative field research inspired by organizational ethnography in detail, thereby outlining which ethnographic elements the present study contains; (3) clarify the data collection through expert interviews and (4) explain the process of transcription and data analysis.

References

  1. Bechhofer, F., & Paterson, L. (2000). Principles of research design in the social sciences. Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Blumer, H. (2004). Der methodologische Standort des symbolischen Interaktionismus. In J. Strübing & B. Schnettler (Ed.), Methodologische interpretative Sozialforschung. Klassische Grundlagentexte (pp. 319–387). Konstanz: UVK (UTB).Google Scholar
  3. Bryman, A. (2001). Ethnography (Vol. 4). Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five approaches: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage publications.Google Scholar
  7. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Paradigms and perspectives in transition. Handbook of qualitative research, 2, 157–162.Google Scholar
  8. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2003). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography. Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Geertz, C. (1973). Notes on the balinese cockfight. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 412–453). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  14. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Practices and principles. Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Hinds, P. J., & Cramton, C. D. (2012). Studying global work groups in the field. In A. B. Hollingshead & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams (5th ed., pp. 105–120). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Irani, Z., Love, P. E., & Jones, S. (2008). Learning lessons from evaluating eGovernment: Reflective case experiences that support transformational government. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(2), 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). Participant observation. Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Knol, A., Janssen, M., & Sol, H. (2014). A taxonomy of management challenges for developing shared services arrangements. European Management Journal, 32(1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (Eds.). (2004). Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches. Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  20. Kruse, J. (2014). Qualitative Interviewforschung. Ein integrativer Ansatz. Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar
  21. Lyon, F., Möllering, G., & Saunders, M. (Eds.). (2012) Handbook of research methods on trust. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2009). The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. In A. Bogner, B. Littig & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Neyland, D. (2008). Organizational Ethnography. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Oliver, D. G., Serovich, J. M., & Mason, T. L. (2005). Constraints and opportunities with interview transcription: Towards reflection in qualitative research. Social Forces, 84(2), 1273–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pole, C., & Lampard, R. (2002). Practical social investigation: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Pratt, M. G., & Kim, N. (2012). Designing for drift: Planning ethnographic qualitative research on groups. In Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (6–30). Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion, 573(2002), 305–329.Google Scholar
  31. Rustemeyer, R. (1992). Praktisch-methodische Schritte der Inhaltsanalyse. Münster: Aschendorff.Google Scholar
  32. Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context?. Discourse & society, 8(2), 165-187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yalow, D. (2009). Reading and writing as method: In search of trustworthy tests. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels & F. H. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography. Studying the complexity of everyday life (pp. 56–82). Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Shapiro, G., & Markoff, J. (1997). A matter of definition. Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing statistical inferences from texts and transcripts, 1, 9-34.Google Scholar
  36. Trinczek, R. (1995). Experteninterviews mit Managern: Methodische und methodologische Hintergründe. In C. Brinkmann, A. Deeke & D. Völkel (Eds.), Experteninterviews in der Arbeitsmarktforschung. Diskussionsbeiträge zu methodischen Fragen und praktische Erfahrungen (=BeitrAB 191) (pp. 59–67). Nürnberg.Google Scholar
  37. Van der Waal, K. (2009). Getting going: Organizing ethnographic fieldwork. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F. H. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography. Studying the complexity of everyday life (pp. 23–39). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Maanen, J. (1979). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative science quarterly, pp. 539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Maanen, J. (1998). Qualitative studies of organizations (Vol. 1). Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Walter, W. (1994). Strategien der Politikberatung. Die Interpretation der Sachverständigen-Rolle im Lichte von Experteninterviews. In R. Hitzler, A. Honer & C. Maeder (Eds.), Expertenwissen. Die institutionalisierte Kompetenz zur Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit (pp. 268–284). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  41. Warner, W. L. (1947). The social system of the modern factory. The strike: A social analysis.Google Scholar
  42. Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  43. Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society. The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago, US: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Yanow, D., & Geuijen, K. (2009). Defining, organizational ethnography’: Election criteria. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F. H. Kamsteeg (Eds.), organizational ethnography. Studying the complexity of everyday life (pp. 253–259). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Ybema, S., & Kamsteeg, F. (2009). Making the familiar strange: A case for disengaged organizational ethnography. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F. H. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography. Studying the complexity of everyday life (pp. 101–119). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H., & Kamsteeg, F. H. (2009). Studying everyday organizational life. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F. H. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexity of everyday life (pp. 1–20). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cooperative StudiesBerlin School of Economics and Law, University of Applied SciencesBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations