1
A Study of Management Change in An Garda Síochána Utilising
Grounded Theory
Gerard Reilly
Brendan McEvoy
Working Paper NCIRL- 012-2002
A Study of Management Change in An Garda Síochána Utilising Grounded Theory
2
Gerard Reilly, greilly@staff.ncirl.ie
Brendan McEvoy, National College of Ireland
0.
Abstract
The purpose of this PhD study is to examine management practices in An Garda
Síochána and determine how successful the organisation adapts to contemporary
management practices. The researcher has been a member of An Garda Síochána for
twenty-nine years and gained access to data and interviewees which was not available to
outside researchers. This professional experience meant that the researcher was familiar
with the context and issues that impacted on the organisation. This paper discusses the
issues of using grounded theory research as a method of gaining insight into the
management of change in the Irish Police Service.
1.
Methodological Issues
This paper contains an account of the researcher’s philosophical approach and the
research strategies and techniques are discussed. In particular, the relevance of grounded
theory as developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) to the study of contemporary
management practices in An Garda Síochána is examined. There is a need to approach
discussions on methodology in a way that highlights the vital link between theory and
method, between the worldview to which the researcher subscribes, the type of research
questions posed and the technique that is to be adopted as a basis for research (Morgan
and Smircich 1980). A concentration on method alone distorts the link between the
views held by the researcher and the overall research method. Morgan and Smircich
(1980) consider that this gives the illusion that methods themselves rather than the
orientations of the researcher generate knowledge. The form of analysis offered by
Burrell and Morgan (1979) suggests that all approaches to social science are connected to
ontology, human nature, and epistemology.
3
2.
The Interpretative Approach to Qualitative Research
The interpretative approach is characterised by a particular ontology, epistemology, and
methodology. Researchers working in this tradition assume that people’s subjective
experiences are real and should be taken seriously (ontology). We can understand other’s
experience by interacting with them and listening to what they tell us (epistemology), and
that qualitative research techniques are best suited to this task (methodology). Blanche
and Kelly’s (1999) work on interpretative methods, correctly states that the interpretative
approach tries to harness and extend the power of ordinary language and expression,
developed over thousands of years, to help us better understand the social world we live
in. Dilthey (1823-1911) introduced to the cultural sciences the method of “verstehen”
which was used in this research. “Verstehen” seeks to understand the inner minds and
feelings of human beings and how they manifest themselves in action, in institutions and
organisations. Interpretative research relies on first hand accounts and tries to describe
its finding in rich detail.
This study saw the researchers own role as part of the research instrument linking the
research, the researcher and theory, in order to fully understand contemporary
management practices in An Garda Síochána. Hayano (1979, 1982) formulated the term
‘auto ethnography’, i.e. researching one’s own culture.
Applying this three way
switching process (Mc Auley 1985), this research is clearly located in the hermeneutic
tradition, focussing on single occurrences rather than universal laws.
In origin,
hermeneutics is the interpretation of text in order to re-establish their “true” meaning
(Baurman 1978). This interpretive approach comes within the auspices of qualitative
research. It is difficult to classify qualitative studies into specific categories as qualitative
researchers use a number of different techniques.
A researcher can use a mix of
questionnaires, interviews, and observations within a single study. Several attempts have
been made to classify the major areas of qualitative research (Miles and Huberman, 1984:
Cresswell, 1994; Marshall and Rossman, 1999). Lee (1999) summarises four underlying
4
themes of qualitative research. Firstly, research occurs in natural settings. Secondly, the
data is derived from the participants’ perspective. Thirdly, qualitative research design is
flexible and reflective allowing a researcher to adjust data collection methods. Finally,
instrumentation, observation methods, and modes of analysis are not standard.
No
method of research is even close to perfect and all studies are open to question. The
construction of an argument that answers as many potential objections as possible is the
paramount goal of research methodology (Wakefield, 1995). A valid form of qualitative
research for management scientists is grounded theory (Martin & Turner, 1986, Lee
1999). Grounded theory is derived from data systematically collected and interpreted
during the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998).
The study of change in an organisational setting is suited to inductive methodology (Van
Maanen, 1979) and this approach can foster development of theory concerning change in
organisations. Mintzberg (1979) describes two essential steps in inductive research. The
first is detective work, where the researcher searches through a phenomenon looking for
order, following one lead to another. The second step in inductive research is the creative
leap, where the researcher generates theory from data. This process is described by
Glaser and Strauss (1967) as a constant comparative method of analysis and is central to
grounded theory. Every theory requires the creative leap, however small, the breaking
away from the expected to describe something new (Mintzberg 1979). To achieve this
creative leap it is necessary to be on site and be there long enough to be able to
understand the phenomena.
Mintzberg (1979) considers that it is not sufficient to
discover interesting relationships; you must be able to explain the richness of the
discovery. Those creative leaps seem to come from our subconscious and we need to be
in touch constantly with our research. Strauss and Corbin (1998) consider that these
discoveries should be presented as sets of inter related concepts to give insight to the
study.
The researcher has given an explanation of the interpretative approach to qualitative
research and demonstrated how the process may be used inductively to study
5
organisations. It is appropriate to discuss how this approach can be linked to generating
theory on contemporary management practices in An Garda Síochána.
3.
Approach to the Generation of Theory
The research focus was to investigate the effect of changes in management practices in
An Garda Síochána. The method of research concerns itself with the uniqueness of the
setting and quite often the motivation to select a particular area is based on a personal
need to understand it (Truzzi 1974). Eisenhardt (1989) describes the research strategy as
focusing on understanding the dynamics present within a single setting. Corbin and
Strauss (1990; 7) consider that theories cannot be built with actual incidents or activities
as observed or reported; that is, from "raw data.” The incidents, events, happenings are
taken as, or analysed as, potential indicators of phenomena, which are thereby given
conceptual labels. Grounded theory is often assumed to be an exercise in inductive
reasoning only. In reality it is much more (Lee 1999, p. 46). Preliminary notions must
be subjected to subsequent empirical testing against additional data (Kuhn 1996). An
essential feature of a theory building approach is comparison of the emergent concepts
with the extant literature (Eisenhardt 1989). This involves seeing what it is similar to,
what it contradicts and why. If researchers ignore conflicting findings, confidence in the
findings is reduced.
Conflicting literature can represent an opportunity for greater
understanding. Literature discussing similar findings is important because it ties together
similarities in phenomena not associated with each other. Where similar findings in very
different context are linked, this strengthens the results of the research. This linkage with
a variety of literature in other contexts raises the readers’ confidence (Eisenhardt 1989).
The system of grounded theory as introduced to researchers by Glaser and Strauss (1967)
and modified by Strauss & Corbin (1990) (1998) provides the verification necessary for
rigorous qualitative research.
Continuing with the hermeneutic approach, the evaluation of creditable and consistent
grounded theory is reviewed.
Grounded theory methodology explicitly involves
6
“generating theory and doing social research as two parts of the same process” (Glaser
1978; 2). It is a way of thinking about and conceptualising data and is easily adapted to
study diverse phenomena. Grounded theory is an approach to the systematic generation
of theory from qualitative data. Glaser and Strauss (1967) advocate a particular approach
to qualitative research, which they termed grounded theory. The researcher begins the
project without any preconceived theory in mind. The researcher starts with an area of
study and allows theory to develop from data interpretation. Strauss and Corbin (1998)
consider that the purpose is to build rather than test theory. The use of grounded theory
methodology was not without criticism.
grounded theory.
Parry (1998) has identified two forms of
A “partial” grounded approach where data is collected and then
theorised upon and a full grounded theory approach, which is described by Glaser and
Strauss (1967) and detailed further by Glaser (1978) in which the iterative approach is
adapted. There are two main shortfalls with the “partial” grounded approach, which
reduces its value as sound scientific research Parry (1998; 11). Firstly, the analytic
process by which concepts are built up to higher levels of abstraction is not explained.
Secondly, the determination of the relationship between concepts is not undertaken.
Typically critics have an incomplete understanding of the logic and strategies involved
and this can lead to applying inappropriate criteria on which to judge the method. In
approaching research without any strong prior theory, qualitative researchers are
inevitably faced with the problem of making sense out of vast amount of unstructured
data. Grounded theory methodology had three purposes. Firstly, to offer a rationale for
theory that was grounded, generated and developed through the interplay of data
collected through the research process. Secondly, to suggest the logic for and specifics of
grounded theories. The third aim was to legitimate careful qualitative research, as by the
1960s this had fallen to a low status and was not believed capable of adequate
verification. Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggest that research begins by allowing ideas
and categories to emerge from systematic inspection of the data. Henwood and Pidgeon
(1992) correctly state that in the earlier stages of grounded research the researcher has
maximum flexibility in generating new categories from data. As analysis proceeds, the
7
researcher builds a set of categories, which reflect the many instances of data. The
advantage of this research is that, the theory generated is contextually sensitive,
persuasive, and relevant. Grounded theory is a valid qualitative form of research for
management scientists (Martin & Turner, 1986, Lee 1999) and is inductively derived
from the study of the phenomenon it represents, such as change management. The
grounded theory, is discovered, developed, and provisionally verified through systematic
data collection and analysis. Data collection, analysis, and theory stand in reciprocal
relationship with each other. In this form of research, the researcher begins with an area
of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge (Strauss & Corbin 1990).
This approach uses a systematic set of procedures to develop inductive theory about a
phenomenon. Strauss & Corbin (1990) advise that if certain criteria are adhered to
correctly and methodically, grounded theory meets the criteria for “good” scientific
research.
These
criteria
are
significance,
theory observation
compatibility,
generalizability, reproducibility, precision, rigor, and verification. Glaser and Strauss
(1967) describe this process as a constant comparative method of analysis, which is
central to grounded theory.
Silverman (1993) posits, that the constant comparison
method or “analytic induction” is a source of validity in research. This process means
that concepts and preliminary ideas emerge out of data which prompt further, but more
focused data collection. This process of analysis leads to the generation of further
hypothesis. This process as coding is described as Coding (Glaser 1978) (Strauss &
Corbin 1990).
The strength of grounded theory lies in theory generation and not theory testing.
Researchers must have no preconceived ideas about what the research might find (Strauss
& Corbin 1990).
When considering the implementation of grounded theory, it is
important to recognise the theoretical sensitivity of the researcher. This is a controversial
area within grounded theory because the extent to which a tabula rasa approach is
feasible is highly contentious (Henwood & Pidgeon 1992; Parry 1998). Glaser and
Strauss (1967) suggest that the theoretical sensitivity of the researcher has two
characteristics.
The first is the involvement of the researcher’s personality and
8
temperament. Secondly, the ability to have insights into the area of research. Glaser
(1978) acknowledges that a researcher cannot come into a topic completely cold and that
the emergent theory must be compared with the extant literature. This is to avoid the
possibility of existing theories or biases being forced into the data being gathered (Parry
1998).
References
Baurman, Z. (1978), Hermeneutics and Social Science. Approaches to Understanding,
Hutchinson, London.
Blanche, M. and Kelly, K. (1999),’ Interpretative Methods’, in Blanche, M. & Durrheim
A., K, (eds). Research in Practice, Applied Methods for the Social Sciences. UCT Press,
Cape Town.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis.
Heinemann, London.
Cresswell, J. W. (1994), Research Design, Thousand Oaks, Sage, CA.
Dilthey, W. (1976), ‘Selected Writings’, in Richman, H. P., (eds). Cambridge University
Press, London.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989), ‘Building Theories from Case Study Research’. Academy of
Management Review, Vol., 14, 532-550.
Gersick, C. (1988), ‘Time and Transition in Work Teams; Towards a New Model of
Group Development’. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.
Glaser, B. (1978), Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press. CA.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L,. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Aldine. New York.
Hayano, D. M. (1979), Auto-ethnography, Human Organizations, 38, pp. 99-104.
Hayano, D. M. (1982), Poker Faces, University of California Press.
Lee, T. (1999), Using Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research. Sage. London.
Martin, P. Y. & Turner, B. A (1986), ‘Grounded Theory and Organizational Research’.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2) 141 –157.
9
Marshall, C. & Rossman G. (1999), Designing Qualitative Research 3rd Ed. Sage
Publications, London.
Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1984), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Source Book of New
Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Mintzberg, H. (1979), ‘An Emerging Strategy of Direct Research’. Administrative
Science Quarterly, December, Vol. 24, p582.
Morgan, G. & Smircich, L. (1980), ‘The Case for Qualitative Research’, Academy of
Management Review. Vol. 5, No. 4, pp 491-500.
Mc Auley, J. (1985), ‘Hermeneutics as a Practical Research Methodology in
Management’, Management Education, and Training. vol. 16. no. 3, pp 292-299.
Parry, K. (1998), ‘Grounded Theory and Social Process: A New Direction for Leadership
Research’. Leadership Quarterly, Spring. Vol. 9 Issue 1, p85.
Silverman, D (1993), Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text,
and Interaction. Sage. London.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research, Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques, Sage, London.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research, Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edition. Sage, London.
Truzzi, M. (1974), Verstehen: Subjective Understanding in the Social Sciences, AddisonWesley. Reading, Mass.
Van Maanen, J. (1979), ‘Reclaiming Qualitative Methods for Organisational Research’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24. pp 52-56.
Wakefield, J. (1995), ‘When an Irresistible Epistemology Meet an Immovable Ontology’.
Social Work Research. March, Vol. 19. Issue 1, p 9.