The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1176-6093.htm
QRAM 3,3
The use of a research diary as a tool for reflexive practice Some reflections from management research
208
Sara Nadin University of Bradford, Bradford, UK, and
Catherine Cassell Manchester Business School, Manchester, UK Abstract Purpose – To provide a practical example of how a research diary can be used to aid reflexivity in the research process. Whilst there have been increasing calls for reflexivity in management research, little has been written about how to “do” reflexivity in practice. Design/methodology/approach – Qualitative data from the first author’s research diary which relate to three distinctive experiences are used as analytical examples. Findings – The research diary was a valuable tool, prompting insights which informed a variety of methodological and theoretical decisions in relation to the research. Practical implications – Suggests that all researchers should systematically use a research diary, regardless of epistemological position. However, what is needed first and foremost is a commitment to the pursuit of reflexivity and awareness on ones’ own epistemological assumptions. Originality/value – The paper gives a practical example of how to practice reflexivity, something which is lacking in the current literature. It is intended to be of use to those management researchers interested in pursuing reflexive research. Keywords Research, Research methods, Qualitative research Paper type Research paper
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management Vol. 3 No. 3, 2006 pp. 208-217 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1176-6093 DOI 10.1108/11766090610705407
1. Introduction Reflexivity involves reflecting on the way in which research is carried out and understanding how the process of doing research shapes its outcomes (Hardy et al., 2001). Based upon the notion that research is an interpretive activity, positivist notions of objectivity and empirical facts are rejected. The research process is regarded as being subject to a variety of influences which impact upon the interpretations generated, thus a reflexive stance is required in order to identify and understand what these influences are. In this sense, “reflection can be defined as the interpretation of interpretation and the launching of critical self exploration of one’s own interpretations of empirical material” (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2000, p. 6; original italics). Whilst more commonly associated with the disciplines of sociology and ethnography, reflexivity is emerging as a key issue for qualitative researchers within the management field. A number of authors have in recent years outlined different approaches or models to reflexivity, and the various benefits it can have for management and organizational research more generally (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2000; Johnson and Duberley, 2003; Cunliffe, 2003; Weick, 2002). Potential benefits in relation to qualitative research relate to both a greater understanding of the role and
impact of the researcher (Cassell, 2005), and an increased “trustworthiness” of the data, and general “integrity” in the research process (Finlay, 2002, p. 531). There seems to be general agreement amongst authors therefore that reflexivity is a good thing, yet it is also seen as a difficult process which varies according to the tacit metatheoretical commitments of the researcher (Johnson and Duberley, 2003). An additional complication, particularly pertinent to this paper, is that there is little information available to the qualitative researcher about how to “do” reflexivity in practice. As Mauthner and Doucet (2003, p. 413; emphasis in the original) suggest: “Whilst the importance of being reflexive is acknowledged within social science research, the difficulties, practicalities and methods of doing it are rarely addressed”. The aim of this paper is to assess the use of a research diary as a potential tool for reflexive analysis. Drawing on empirical work in the field of small businesses, we outline a practical example of a research diary in use and analyse the extent to which it enables reflexivity in the research process. First, we outline some of the key issues in relation to reflexivity in management research, and highlight our position in relation to these issues. 2. The call for increased reflexivity in management research In management and organizational research the call for reflexivity has emerged relatively recently compared to other social science disciplines (Cunliffe, 2003). Engaging in “thinking about our own thinking” (Johnson and Duberley, 2003, p. 1279) is seen as one way of enhancing the quality of qualitative management research and examples can now be found throughout the field. These include theoretical papers which identify different types of reflexivity, (Johnson and Duberley, 2003; Holland, 1999); more critical discussions of existing research methodologies and how they can be enhanced through reflexivity, (Hardy and Clegg, 1997; Cox and Hassard, 2005); the role of reflexivity when occupying or negotiating the dual role of consultant and researcher, (Johnson et al., 1999; Chau and Witcher, 2005; Lalle, 2003); and the role of reflexivity in cross-cultural research, (Easterby-Smith and Malina, 1999). Discussions about reflexive research are also found in those areas more traditionally associated with quantitative methods of inquiry, such as accounting and finance (Humphrey and Lee, 2004). Alvesson and Skoldberg (2000, p. vii; emphasis in the original) suggest that promoting a more reflective approach by incorporating ideas from the philosophy of science, (such as epistemic considerations), represents an attempt to “raise the level of qualitative method” through its “intellectualization”. Reflexivity in this context enables both in-depth thinking about the methods we use and the epistemological commitments that underlie them. Other authors have also pointed to the benefits of reflexivity for the qualitative researcher. Finlay (2002) for example, suggests that apart from the advantages of enhanced trustworthiness of the data and an enhanced understanding of the role of the researcher, reflexivity in itself can be empowering: Coming out through reflexive analysis is ultimately a political act. Done well, it has the potential to enliven, teach, and spur readers toward a more radical consciousness. Voicing the unspoken can empower both researcher and participant (Finlay, 2002, p. 531).
A further benefit can be seen in the impact of theory development. Weick (2002, p. 893) suggests that “theory construction in the new millennium is partly an exercise in
Research diaries
209
QRAM 3,3
210
disciplined reflexivity” and that “this newer attention to self-as theorist makes for better theory” in the field, with the proviso that the attention is directed towards “spotting excluded voices and” and “thinking more deeply about topics” Additionally reflexivity can be seen as an ongoing process in relation to learning: “reflexivity encourages us to strive not to be complacent and to continue to review and critique our own research practice” (Cassell and Symon, 2004, p. 506). Given the benefits of increased reflexivity for the management researcher, it is perhaps surprising that there is little information available about how we can actually do reflexivity in practice. Finlay (2002) suggests that reflexive analysis is always problematic as the complex and often ambiguous nature of research means that those processes are often difficult to unfold. Cunliffe (2003, p. 984) argues that within the field of management and organizational research there are “comparatively few discussions about the issues involved in reflexive research practice”. In speculating why this maybe the case, a number of potential reasons come to mind. Firstly, it may be that researchers are conducting their research in a reflexive way, but it is rarely being reported. It could be that reporting on such issues does not tie in neatly with the traditional academic conventions within which we write up our research or, that other institutional processes may be at work. For example, as Mauthner and Doucet (2003) highlight, it is somewhat easier to admit the confusions and ambiguities in one’s own research practice when one has a secure academic post. Such options therefore may be risky for new researchers. Finlay (2002) also argues that it may be difficult to publish or disseminate reflexive research due to the “positivist hegemony” that permeates many of our research outlets. Secondly, it may be that it is simply very difficult to write up a reflexive account in a way that is both interesting and of use to the reader. A number of writers have highlighted the thin line between interesting insights and self-indulgence in reflexive accounts. Weick (2002, p. 894) outlines the perils of “narcissm run amok” and Fournier and Grey (2000) amongst others note the dangers of the emphasis within a research account being exclusively upon the researcher rather than the manager, or the organizational member of interest. A key issue here is that reflexivity is conceived as a process located within, and owned by, an individual researcher. Consequently, as Lynch (2000, p. 36) argues “What reflexivity does, what it threatens to expose, what it reveals and who it empowers depends upon who does it and how they go about it”. Such comments are consistent with Johnson and Duberleys’ (2003) assertion that any reflexive researcher needs an understanding of their own epistemological assumptions in relation to reflexivity. Relating this to the current study, the decision to use a research diary was grounded in the first author’s own epistemological position of social constructionism, and a commitment to render as transparent as possible the subjectivities inherent to the researcher and the research process which influence the interpretations generated. Our suggestion is that this process of reflection is aided by the use of a diary as it enables the researcher to continuously think about their own research practices and assumptions, by recording those thoughts in a systematic way. The research diary in use is outlined in the next section. 3. The research diary in use The research diary was adopted by the first author whilst she was conducting research for her PhD. The focus of the PhD was the psychological contract in small businesses
located in the UK, and involved in-depth qualitative interviews with both employers and employees from a range of firms. In outlining the diary and its use in the sections that follow, we will refer to the researcher in the first person. The decision to use the diary was made on completion of the literature review before the field research commenced. The salience of reflexivity as an issue emerged from my readings concerning methodology. Already a committed qualitative researcher, further reading combined with discussions with my supervisor, (the second author), led to a recognition of the importance of reflexivity, and its consistency with my epistemological position of social constructionism within the confines of a realist ontology. Also noted from familiarity with the literature was that much of the debate concerning reflexivity had taken place at the philosophical level with the practicalities of actually doing it receiving little attention. Thus, aware of the need to adopt a reflexive position, but with little practical advice on how to actually do it, we decided that one priority was to record my experiences of the research situation in a systematic way as the research progressed. The research diary was simply an A5 lined notebook. Each time a firm was visited and data gathered a new entry was made. This was done as soon as practically possible following each visit, (usually sat in the car outside the firm visited). Each new entry commenced on the next new page, starting with the date and brief biographic details about the firm, (i.e. name of the firm; name of the employer; age of firm; nature of the business; number of employees). Reflections on the interview experience were then recorded, which focused both on practical issues as well as how I had experienced the interview as a social encounter. Typically this included comments on: how well I felt the interview had gone and what I felt throughout the interview; what the dominant themes were; what the employer’s management style was like; any anomalies or contradictions, along with ideas about the methodological and theoretical implications these may have. Used in this way, the research diary served a number of functions. The more practical comments enabled me to explore methodological issues, (such as the adequacy or efficacy of the interview schedule), as well as supplementing the content of the interview data where relevant (e.g. by noting general themes or perhaps non-verbal aspects of the interviewees’ behaviour). Comments relating to how I had experienced the interview as a social encounter enabled me to record my own observations of myself as a researcher, (e.g. noting my emotional state, such as feeling angry), leading to a consideration of what this revealed about my own assumptions, values and beliefs and how these impacted upon my research. Additionally the diary acted as a useful organizational aid to help me keep track of the research process as a whole. Three examples taken from the research diary are now presented in order to illustrate how the diary was used. The examples chosen illustrate a variety of concerns which interested me as a researcher, but which were not necessarily concerned with the stated aims and objectives of the research. The diary thus provided a forum for me to record these concerns, which may have otherwise been lost, or at least simply not considered. For each example, brief contextual details are given before presenting the comments as recorded in the research diary. The impact of each example is then considered which is done at two levels: firstly the practical or methodological implications, and secondly, the impact that using the diary had on enabling me to think about my values as a
Research diaries
211
QRAM 3,3
212
researcher. Additionally, in highlighting the examples we seek to demonstrate that reflexivity is an ongoing process with the diary enabling reflection long after the research had concluded. We now address the three examples in turn. 3.1 Example 1 The first example is taken from an early stage in the research process following initial interviews with three employers, two of whom owned their own dental practice. Initially, (i.e. before data collection commenced), when thinking about data analysis, we thought template analysis (King, 1998) would be ideal. Template analysis enables the identification of common themes across a number of transcripts, enabling comments to be made about the sample as a whole. However, reflecting back on the first three interviews brought the desirability of identifying common themes into question. These concerns were expressed in the diary as follows: . . . not sure template analysis is going to be enough in terms of doing justice to the uniqueness of each case. So, with the two dentists’ whilst on paper they are very similar, (size of practice, number of employees, age of practice, etc.) they couldn’t be more different in how they are managed and run – basically, Andrew is very hands-on and enthusiastic and Ian couldn’t really care less. Whilst the template will pick up common themes it won’t do justice to the contrasts between them, perhaps creating an illusion of similarity, when in fact they are very, very different. . .
This example can be interpreted as having an impact on the two areas outlined above. With regard to the potential impact upon the research itself, this example raised my awareness early on in the research process of the need for a supplementary type of analysis which would adequately reflect the uniqueness of each case. This initiated a search for a suitable technique and ultimately resulted in the adoption of “matrix analysis” (Miles and Huberman, 1994), a technique which enables between case comparisons through the presentation of data in a “grid” formation. The techniques of data reduction required for matrix analysis also complemented template analysis nicely. (For a full account see Nadin and Cassell, 2004.) In relation to my values as a researcher, I had previously assumed that the problems associated with making generalisations were the province of quantitative methods. However, what this example illustrated was that there was no room for complacency and simply because a technique is qualitative does not guarantee that it is sensitive enough to do justice to the data. Using template analysis alone, there was a danger of presenting an illusion of homogeneity within the sample, failing to reveal the uniqueness of each case. Since, writing up the research I have realised how the concerns I had about methodology at that time have prompted me to further explore debates concerning the link between theory and method. What this highlighted was the wide variety of techniques which fall under the very general label of qualitative approaches, and the danger in assuming that qualitative approaches share common ground regarding epistemology and ontology. For example, the neo-positivist approach to qualitative research is founded on imitating quantitative ideals (such as objectivity and neutrality), for data production, analysis and writing (Alvesson, 2003). This realisation was especially useful recently in trying to understand critical feedback offered by a senior colleague, whose idea of good qualitative research was that based upon neo-positivist ideals. At a theoretical level this has reinforced the view of the inextricable link between theory and method, and the value of making one’s ontological
and epistemological assumptions explicit to oneself and one’s audience. Similarly, it has also highlighted the importance of establishing what is actually meant by the label “qualitative” when used by other researchers. 3.2 Example 2 The second example and my initial reflections illustrate the influences of my own history as a researcher with a vested interest in researching the small business community. Alan owned a small private car hire firm which he ran from his home. He was a humble, benevolent employer and looked after his staff well, whilst also constantly undermining his firm saying “it wasn’t a proper business”. Upon finishing the interview with Alan, one of his drivers Jeff showed up and Alan suggested I could talk to him if I wanted to. Jeff was very obliging and gave me a very insightful potted history of why he works for Alan. My experiences led me to record the following comments in my diary: . . .the stories of those in the small businesses are humbling and we have a lot to learn. Take Jeff. Jeff played for England cricket team – capped 29 times. Knackered his knees. Had fish and chip shop for 20 years. Packed that in and is now driving for his pal Alan. It gives him a nice top up to his pension. He enjoys the work. He’s in his late 60’s. He’s not one to sit around but he’s limited due to his knackered knees so the driving suits him. He enjoys the job. Alan pays £40 a month into his pension fund for him. As he said, what would he be doing if it wasn’t for the job? Sitting at home on his own watching telly – no thank you ! To him the job provides meaning and a role, without which life would be very different – and can we really say that this kind of thing doesn’t count?
At the time this example highlighted to me the insights that can be gained by looking at the wider social context and history of each case or individual. Knowing Jeff’s full story resulted in a fuller appreciation of what his part time job as a driver meant to him. This reinforced my own belief in the value of researching small firms which, as Curran and Blackburn (2001) assert, are typically neglected by mainstream management research. The jobs provided by such firms are as important to those employees as are the jobs provided by larger, more “professional” organisations, and we therefore have a duty as researchers to give voice to such people. In hindsight it is easy to identify the foundations of arguments concerning the neglected status of small firms within the management literature as a product of the research community to which I belonged. Whilst this doesn’t negate the observations recorded, it acknowledges the influence of one’s own research community and the established “repertoire of interpretations” (Alvesson and Skoldberg, p. 250) characterizing it. Having researched small firms for several years and now pursuing a PhD on small firms, I already had a lot invested in making and supporting the case for their neglect. Indeed, a key argument underpinning the rationale for the PhD was that they had thus far been neglected in psychological contract research. 3.3 Example 3 The third example relates to an interview in which I experienced an intense dislike for the employer being interviewed. I found his treatment of me patronising, and some of the views he expressed racist and sexist. Following the interview, I recorded the following comments in my diary:
Research diaries
213
QRAM 3,3
214
Aaaaggghhh!!..... Arrogant pig. Who’d work for him???!!! Sexist bigot. Felt really uncomfortable . . . like a little girl who was being told how it was in the world of the small business MAN!!! Liked the sound of his own voice. All his staff had been there a long time, all recruited through word of mouth.
At the time this experience highlighted the need to be aware of how my anger and dislike of him might impact upon the interpretation of his transcript. This was further reinforced when transcribing the interview, vividly bringing back the whole experience, eliciting similar feelings of anger and irritation. Practically this resulted in extra vigilance from my supervisor when assessing my interpretations of the transcript. The incident led me to reflect on the power dynamics of the interview situation and my role within that. This initially led me to question why I did not challenge his views and the implicit collusion signalled by remaining both silent and passive. This itself prompted consideration of whether indeed I should have challenged his views, (did I have a right to do that?), and what I would do if it happened again. Since, writing up the research, wider reading and further reflection have brought into question the reflexive observations initially made. Whilst comments regarding my dislike for the interviewee in question are not disputed, what is questioned is my naı¨ve assumption that transparency and objectivity are possible: “this resulted in extra vigilance from my supervisor” in order to reduce the chance of unfavourably biased interpretations myself. Such lofty objectives emerge from neo-positivist ideals, revealing some confusion and, more recently, conflict in my understanding of reflexivity and the kind of reflexivity I wanted to practice. Revisiting the example now, different reflexive interpretations are prompted. This is based on a consideration of the question: what function did the interview serve for the interviewee? For example, it is possible to regard the whole interview situation as an impression management exercise for the interviewee. Looked at in this way, the views he expressed, which I experienced as racist and sexist, could be regarded as extensions of a broader identity (e.g. that of a fair but firm businessman who has seen enough to know what people are like, including women). Alternatively, his comments could be regarded as reflecting the power dynamics of the interview situation in which he arguably occupied a superior position. 4. Discussion Doing reflexivity requires the creation of dedicated times, spaces and contexts within which to be reflexive (Mauthner and Doucet, 2003). Our suggestion is that the use of a research diary is one way of creating such spaces, especially in contexts where there are limited opportunities for other forms of reflexive practice, (e.g. discussions with fellow researchers). Accepting Hertzs’ (1997, p. viii) description of reflexive practice as “an ongoing conversation about the experience whilst simultaneously living in the moment” the diary is a useful substitute when there is no-one to have a conversation with. The notion of varying “degrees of reflexivity” (Mauthner and Doucet, 2003) prompts a consideration of the different types or “levels” reflexivity may take. As acknowledged in the introduction, reflexive accounts can take a variety of different forms and a thin line exists between interesting insights and self indulgence. Finlay (2002) highlights the dangers of “infinite regress” of the researcher getting lost in endless narcissistic emoting where the prime focus is upon themselves as a researcher rather than the
participants. Whilst this may indeed be a valuable process of self discovery for the researcher it arguably has little to do with the actual research and those participating in it. It is useful here to draw on the work of DeVault (1997) who suggests that personal revelation is only useful if links are made to analyse its relevance in terms of the broader study. In the current study the first example reveals how the reflections made in the diary prompted the first author to revisit issues surrounding the links between epistemology and methodology, initiating the search for supplementary techniques of analysis. The second example, whilst not being directly mentioned in the thesis, certainly fuelled theoretical arguments concerning the status of small firms and the types of employee’s typically studied in management research. In the third example it was hoped that making explicit the first author’s negative reaction to the interviewee would somehow limit the potential for biased interpretations of the transcript, with the transparency offered ultimately resulting in a more “valid” account. Whilst a rather naı¨ve assumption, (being as it is based on neo-positivist ideals about validity), it did prompt further valuable consideration of related epistemological and ontological issues. As such, the reflexivity employed impacted both directly upon methodological and analytical decisions made during the research process as well as influencing the theoretical conclusions reached concerning the status of small firms. It is hoped that in demonstrating the practical and analytical relevance of the reflexivity employed in this study as suggested by DeVault (1997), the dangers of infinite regress and narcissistic emoting are avoided. In addition, putting reflexivity into practice rather than simply thinking about being reflexive has had longer term implications, especially for the first author, in terms of developing her ideas about what constitutes good research and the type of researcher she wants to be, in the context of the position she seeks to occupy in the research process. As noted earlier, one way of encouraging the difficult processes involved in reflexive research is to create the time, spaces and contexts within which to be reflexive. Our suggestion is that the research diary helps to create one such “space”. Another such space has been created by the writing of this paper, prompting the authors to consider and reconsider the use of the diary and the role it played in the research process. As such, this paper can be regarded as a narrative about the context in which the research diary was produced and used, which as Richardson (2000, p. 931) explains, reminds us that our work is grounded, contextual and rhizomatic. Arguably, over and above pragmatic concerns about how to do reflexivity, papers such as this provide the opportunity to acknowledge the emotional and personal presence of the writer, something which is unacknowledged in more “rational” “scientific” accounts of the research process (Richardson, 2000). As Mauthner and Doucet (2003) point out, reflexivity may alter as time, distance and detachment from the research process increases. All three examples presented earlier are open to further reflexive interpretations, and some of the interpretations which have emerged as both detachment from the research process and as the knowledge of reflexivity issues have increased have been highlighted. An important point to make here is that reflexivity is an on-going process. It does not just start and stop with the research project and the use of a research diary. Conversely, whilst the use of a diary may aid reflexive processes, adopting a research diary does not turn a non-reflexive researcher into a reflexive one. What is required first and foremost is a
Research diaries
215
QRAM 3,3
216
commitment to reflexivity and a desire to integrate reflexive thinking into the research process. Whilst there is no shortage of epistemological and philosophical arguments calling for greater reflexivity, the issue of how to be more reflexive in practice has yet to be adequately addressed (Alvesson, 2003). Adopting a research diary is one simple and effective way of building reflexive practice into the research process, creating a record of one’s reactions to the research situation, which by its sheer physical existence, affords the issues raised a focus of attention which could otherwise quite easily get lost. 5. Concluding comments Although located within the arena of management research, the experience of using a research diary in this context should be of interest and use to other social science researchers. As stated at the outset, the use of a research diary was grounded in the epistemological position of social constructionism and the need for reflexivity in research. Action does not occur in a social vacuum, therefore we need to take account of the wider context or social embeddedness of human action in order to gain a full understanding. This is equally applicable to the research situation as it is to everyday life. Given that the research situation is itself a social encounter, we thus need to reflect upon the range of factors which impact upon the interpretations gathered. For the researcher this means being aware of and explicit about a number of issues including: our own epistemological position; our thoughts and feelings about how the research is progressing; exploring how we experienced the research situation as a social encounter and what influence that had on the interpretations produced. Aiding such transparency encourages us to question and explore our own beliefs concerning what constitutes good research. The research diary is one simple and easy to use tool which can significantly help researchers achieve these aims and become more reflexive. References Alvesson, M. (2003), “Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: a reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 13-33. Alvesson, M. and Skoldberg, K. (2000), Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, Sage, London. Cassell, C.M. (2005), “Creating the role of the researcher: identity work in the management research process”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 167-79. Cassell, C.M. and Symon, G. (2004), “Enhancing the profile of qualitative methods in organizational psychology”, in Humphrey, C. and Lee, B. (Eds), The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 491-508. Chau, V.S. and Witcher, B.J. (2005), “Longitudinal tracer studies: research methodology of the middle range”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 343-55. Cox, J.W. and Hassard, J. (2005), “Triangulation in organizational research: a re-presentation”, Organization, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 109-33. Cunliffe, A. (2003), “Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: questions and possibilities”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 983-1003. Curran, J. and Blackburn, R.A. (2001), Researching the Small Enterprise, Sage, London.
DeVault, M.L. (1997), “Personal writing in social science: issues of production and implementation”, in Hertz, R. (Ed.), Reflexivity and Voice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 216-29. Easterby-Smith, M. and Malina, D. (1999), “Cross-cultural collaborative research: toward reflexivity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 76-86. Finlay, L. (2002), “Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 209-30. Fournier, V. and Grey, C. (2000), “At a critical moment: conditions and prospects for critical management studies”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 7-32. Hardy, C. and Clegg, S. (1997), “Relativity without relativism: reflexivity in post-paradigm organization studies”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 8, pp. S5-S17. Hardy, C., Phillips, N. and Clegg, S. (2001), “Reflexivity in organization and management theory”, Human Relations, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 531-60. Hertz, R. (1997), Reflexivity and Voice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Holland, R. (1999), “Reflexivity”, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 463-83. Humphrey, C. and Lee, B. (2004), The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research, Elseiver, Oxford. Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2003), “Reflexivity in management research”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1279-303. Johnson, P., Duberley, J., Close, P. and Cassell, C. (1999), “Negotiating field roles in manufacturing research: the need for reflexivity”, International Journal of Production and Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 12, pp. 1234-53. King, N. (1998), “Template analysis”, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (Eds), Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide, Sage, London, pp. 118-34. Lalle, B. (2003), “The management science researcher between theory and practice”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 1097-114. Lynch, M. (2000), “Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge”, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 26-54. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Mauthner, N.S. and Doucet, A. (2003), “Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis”, Sociology, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 413-31. Nadin, S. and Cassell, C.M. (2004), “Using data matrices”, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, Sage, London, pp. 271-87. Richardson, L. (2000), “Writing: a method of enquiry”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 923-48. Weick, E. (2002), “Essai: real-time reflexivity: prods to reflection”, Organization Studies, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 892-8. Corresponding author Catherine Cassell can be contacted at:
[email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Research diaries
217
