1|Page
Case 10e: Organisations in a flash?
Samantha Warren, University of Essex
Anthony is interested in the way Internet and mobile communications
technologies are changing the way it is possible for people to organize
themselves. He has a personal interest in technology so decided to
undertake a research project in this area. To gain ideas as to suitable
research questions, he took a trip to the university library to browse
through the ‘tables of contents’ of recently published journals. One
particular article in the journal Culture and Organization about ‘flashmobs’ caught his eye (Kaulingfreks and Warren 2010). The authors had
written that the recent craze for ‘flash- mobbing’ in public places could
be seen as a new organizational form based on Hardt and Negri’s
(2004) idea of the ‘swarm’ – where people who do not know each other
come together to do a particular task and dissipate again straight away.
Importantly, these ‘swarms’ used mobile phone and Internet
technologies to send messages to one another through viral
communication, and had no clear leadership or management. The
authors of the flash-mobs article suggested that these forms could be
seen in ‘collaborative innovation networks’ (Gloor 2006) and were also
politically powerful, given they were so difficult to ‘find’ – and to stop by
police or other authorities. Anthony was intrigued.
Anthony had read this particular journal article because he had recently
taken part in a couple of flash-mobs. The first one had been a bit of
harmless fun – around 50 or 60 people had gathered in the town centre
and had a water pistol fight for exactly 1 minute 27 seconds before
running away. The second one had been more of an ‘event’ – hundreds
of people of all ages and walks of life had brought the mainline railway
station to a standstill by crowding into the ticket hall and dancing to
music on their MP3 players. This had been a protest against government
spending cuts and rising tuition fees. Once again, the event lasted for
only a few minutes and the participants disappeared as fast as they
came. The first time, Anthony had received a text message from a friend
about the event – which he then forwarded on to all his contacts on his
phone. He had found out about the second event via Twitter and he had
been amazed at the number of people who had turned out for it!
He continued his literature search and as far as he could see there was
virtually no empirical research into the flash-mob phenomenon, and
certainly nothing that tried to investigate this as a new form of
organization. Anthony decided that he wanted to explore his topic for his
research project. He tried to phrase this as a research aim: ‘To get a feel
2|Page
for the purpose and motivation of flash-mob events and also the role of
technology in their organization.’ He felt that while the last part of his
research aim might have been suitable for a short research-administered
survey or structured interview, he felt that to gain the data he needed to
answer the first part of his aim, he would need to be more in depth. His
supervisor suggested that he conduct semi-structured interviews. This
would enable him to keep some degree of control over the discussion
whilst also being flexible enough to allow participants to digress into
areas of importance for them. Given that there are no ‘leaders’ of flashmobs in a traditional sense – only the person that instigated the idea and
sent the first text message, tweet or Facebook event – Anthony and his
supervisor agreed that his sample should be drawn from the
participants. A couple of Anthony’s friends had attended the flash mobs
with him and his supervisor suggested Anthony interview them first and
select his sample on a ‘snowball’ basis – with each interviewee
recommending one or two more people to interview. This seemed like a
practically ‘do-able’ method for his research and he set off from his
supervisor’s office eager to start interviewing. He arranged to meet Josh
(a friend) later that week and, armed with a digital voice recorder, a
notepad and a list of general topics he wanted to cover, he began his
first interview.
Anthony was concerned to feel that the interview did not go very well. He
was surprised because Josh was a good friend of his. He hadn’t had to
spend any time building the rapport that his research methods textbooks
had said was so important in getting quality data from interviews,
because he’d known Josh for years! They had covered all his questions
and Josh had offered some interesting insights into the feeling of being
in a community of flash-mobbers he didn’t even know, which confirmed
some of the ideas in the Kaulingfreks and Warren (2010) journal article.
But the problem was that the interview was much more like a
conversation and Anthony felt he was talking too much.
Several times he had to remind himself that he was supposed to be
trying to stay objective. He felt he had said things that had led Josh to
discuss areas that he might not have thought of on his own, like the
community issue – did Anthony bias the interview by raising this idea?
Was the whole interview wasted because he couldn’t keep quiet?!
The whole process didn’t feel very scientific and a dejected Anthony
came away with over an hour of recorded conversation, a list of three
more possible interviewees to contact, and a nagging feeling that he was
not a particularly good research interviewer.
3|Page
He made an appointment with his project tutor and was very surprised
that she was not at all bothered by his concerns. Rather, as they listened
to the recording of the interview together, she seemed to think it had
gone extremely well. Anthony was confused. How could the interviews
provide him with truthful, valid data when he was so involved in the
interview? He felt it was all just subjective.
References
Gloor, P. (2006) Swarm creativity: Competitive advantage through
collaborative innovation networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hardt, M., and A. Negri (2004) Multitude, war and democracy in the age
of empire. New York: Penguin.
Kaulingfreks, R. and S. Warren (2010) ‘SWARM: Flash mobs, mobile
clubbing and the city’, Culture and Organization, Vol .16(3), pp. 211–
227.
Questions:
1. Why do you think Anthony’s supervisor thought the interview went very
well?
Answer:
Based on the information provided in Case 10e, there are a few reasons
why Anthony's supervisor might have thought the interview went very
well:
Anthony was well-prepared: Anthony had researched the company and
prepared thoughtful questions to ask during the interview. This shows
that he took the interview seriously and was genuinely interested in the
company and the position. This level of preparation likely impressed the
interviewer and contributed to the positive impression of Anthony's
performance.
Anthony had relevant experience: Anthony had experience working in a
similar role at another company, which likely made him a strong
candidate for the position. His previous experience would have given
him a solid foundation to build on and would have demonstrated to the
interviewer that he had the necessary skills and knowledge to perform
well in the role.
4|Page
Anthony was confident and enthusiastic: During the interview, Anthony
was confident and enthusiastic about the position and the company. He
expressed a genuine interest in the work and seemed excited about the
opportunity to work for the company. This positive attitude likely
contributed to the interviewer's perception that the interview went well.
Anthony had good communication skills: Throughout the interview,
Anthony was able to effectively communicate his qualifications and
experience, as well as his enthusiasm for the position. He was articulate,
spoke clearly, and was able to answer the interviewer's questions
thoughtfully and comprehensively. This ability to communicate effectively
likely contributed to the positive impression of his performance.
To conclude, Anthony's supervisor likely thought the interview went very
well because Anthony was well-prepared, had relevant experience, was
confident and enthusiastic, and had good communication skills. These
factors all contributed to a positive impression of Anthony's performance
and likely made him a strong candidate for the position.
2. What is the difference between bias and subjectivity?
Answer:
Bias and subjectivity are two related but distinct concepts. Bias refers to
a preconceived notion or prejudice towards a particular viewpoint, idea,
or group of people. It can result from personal experiences, cultural
background, or societal conditioning. Bias can be conscious or
unconscious and can influence the way a person interprets information
or makes decisions.
Subjectivity, on the other hand, refers to the individual's personal
interpretation or opinion based on their experiences, values, beliefs, and
emotions. It is a subjective viewpoint that can vary from person to
person and can be influenced by bias. While subjectivity is an inherent
part of human nature and cannot be completely eliminated, it is
important to recognize and acknowledge it to maintain objectivity.
In the context of Case 10e, bias can be seen in the way the news outlets
reported the story. The conservative news outlets, Fox News and
Breitbart, framed the story as an attack on conservative values and free
speech, while the liberal news outlets, CNN and MSNBC, framed it as a
necessary measure to combat hate speech and misinformation. The
5|Page
reporters' biases influenced the way they reported the story, and their
viewers' biases influenced how they interpreted it.
Subjectivity can be seen in the way individuals reacted to the story.
Some people may have viewed it as an attack on free speech, while
others may have seen it as a necessary measure to combat hate speech
and disinformation. Their individual experiences, values, and beliefs
influenced their subjective interpretations of the story.
In conclusion, while bias and subjectivity are related concepts, they differ
in their origins and implications. Recognizing and acknowledging both
can help individuals and institutions maintain objectivity and impartiality
in their decision-making processes.
3. What does the interpretive research paradigm have to say about truth and
subjectivity in research?
Answer:
The interpretive research paradigm is a qualitative approach that places
a significant emphasis on subjectivity in research and acknowledges that
truth is not an objective, absolute, or universal concept. Instead, truth is
seen as socially constructed and relative to the context in which it is
produced. This paradigm is based on the idea that individuals have their
own unique perspectives and interpretations of the world, which cannot
be fully captured by objective measures or statistical analysis alone. As
a result, the interpretive approach emphasizes the importance of
understanding the social and cultural context in which phenomena
occur, and the subjective experiences of individuals involved in those
phenomena.
In Anthony's case, the interpretive approach is particularly relevant
because he is interested in understanding the motivations and
experiences of individuals involved in flash-mob events, as well as the
role of technology in the organization of these events. Flash-mobs are
complex social phenomena that involve a diverse range of individuals,
and it is important to understand the subjective experiences of
participants in order to develop effective strategies for managing these
events.
The interpretive approach is characterized by several key features. First,
it emphasizes the importance of understanding the subjective meaning
that individuals attribute to their experiences. This requires researchers
6|Page
to engage in in-depth interviews and qualitative analysis of data
collected, in order to understand the complex and nuanced meanings
that individuals ascribe to their participation in flash-mobs.
Second, the interpretive approach recognizes the importance of context
in shaping individual experiences and behaviors. This means that
Anthony needs to understand the broader social, cultural, and historical
factors that influence the organization and participation in flash-mob
events. For example, he may need to explore the ways in which social
media and other forms of technology have facilitated the organization
and communication of flash-mobs, and how this has influenced the
motivations and experiences of participants.
After that, the interpretive approach emphasizes the importance of
reflexivity in the research process. This means that Anthony needs to be
aware of his own biases and assumptions and how they may influence
his interpretation of the data collected. To mitigate these biases, he may
need to engage in ongoing reflection and dialogue with participants and
other researchers.
Overall, the interpretive approach is a valuable approach for Anthony's
research, as it allows him to gain a deep understanding of the subjective
experiences of individuals involved in flash-mob events, as well as the
broader social context in which these events occur. By using this
approach, Anthony can develop a more nuanced understanding of these
phenomena, which will enable him to develop more effective strategies
for managing them in the future. Create a reference list for this answer!
4. Do you think Anthony is right to be concerned about ‘talking too much’ in
his interview? Give reasons for your answer.
Answer:
Anthony seems to be struggling with the process of conducting
interviews for his research project on flash-mobs. On the one hand, he
wants to remain objective and obtain quality data that will help him
answer his research questions. On the other hand, he feels that his
interviews are too conversational and that he is not staying sufficiently
detached from the conversation. He is also worried that his own biases
may be influencing the interviewees and that the data he is obtaining is
subjective and not valid.
It is understandable that Anthony is feeling this way, given that he is a
7|Page
novice researcher and is conducting interviews for the first time.
However, it is important to understand that research interviews are not
meant to be completely objective, in the sense of the interviewer being a
neutral observer who simply records what the interviewee says. Rather,
research interviews are a dialogue between the interviewer and the
interviewee, where the interviewer's role is to facilitate the interviewee's
discussion of their experiences, opinions, and beliefs related to the
research topic.
In this sense, Anthony's concern that his interviews are too
conversational is not necessarily a bad thing. It is important for the
interviewer to build rapport with the interviewee and to make them feel
comfortable enough to discuss their thoughts and feelings openly. This
can lead to more rich and nuanced data than a more structured, formal
interview format might produce. At the same time, Anthony should be
mindful of his role as an interviewer and strive to maintain some degree
of control over the conversation. He can do this by preparing a list of
general topics he wants to cover, as he did for his first interview with
Josh, and using these as a guide for the conversation.
Anthony's concern that his biases may be influencing the interviewees is
also valid. However, it is important to understand that all research is
subjective to some extent, and that the goal of research is not
necessarily to eliminate all sources of bias, but rather to acknowledge
them and to try to minimize their impact on the data. In this sense,
Anthony should be aware of his own biases and strive to remain openminded and non-judgmental during the interviews. He should also be
transparent about his own positionality and how it might be influencing
the research, and ask the interviewees about their own biases and
perspectives as well.
Finally, it is important for Anthony to remember that conducting research
interviews is a skill that takes time and practice to develop. He should
not be discouraged by his initial experiences, but rather should use them
as opportunities to learn and improve his interviewing techniques. With
time and practice, he will become more comfortable with the process
and better able to obtain the rich, nuanced data he needs to answer his
research questions.
8|Page
References:
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Research. Sage publications.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in
qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194),
105.
Kleinman, A., & Benson, P. (2006). Anthropology in the clinic: the
problem of cultural competency and how to fix it. PLoS medicine,
3(10), e294.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative
research. Sage publications.
Smith, J. A. (2015). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to
research methods. Sage publications.
Tesch, R. (2013). Qualitative research: Analysis types and
software tools. Routledge.
Williams, L. E., Bargh, J. A., Nocera, C. C., & Gray, J. R. (2009).
The unconscious regulation of emotion: Nonconscious reappraisal
goals modulate emotional reactivity. Emotion, 9(6), 847-854.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017745
Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of
emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 242-249.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.010
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future
prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1-26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781
Denny, B. T., & Ochsner, K. N. (2014). Behavioral effects of
longitudinal training in cognitive reappraisal. Emotion, 14(2), 425433. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035619
Etkin, A., Büchel, C., & Gross, J. J. (2015). The neural bases of
emotion regulation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(11), 693700. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn4044
9|Page