http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/papers/1981SSIS.html
A CASE STUDY IN
QUALITATIVE
RESEARCH?
T. D. WILSON
University of Sheffield, England
Abstract
This paper reflects upon the methodology adopted in Project INISS. The author
begins by noting that a problem may be approached simultaneously from more
than one paradigmatic stance, and that a given method may be used by
researchers working within different traditions. His intention in his research
was to work within the conventional paradigm, and his choice of method
(structured observation) in no way reflected a predilection for qualitative
research. It was nonetheless the case that, when faced with a mass of
quantitative data, there were a number of advantages in combining quantitative
and qualitative modes of analysis and reporting. The author goes on to
consider various research management issues in field research of this kind. He
concludes by seeing his aim as that of finding a means of gathering more
meaningful quantitative data, rather than rejecting quantitative methods as
such. His feeling is that 'if anything is to be learned from the work, it is that a
more sensitive approach to the collection of data and accounts will pay
dividends in insights, theory, and practical ideas for improvements in
information services.
INTRODUCTION
The overall research strategy of Project INISS was that of
'action research'. In other words, the aim was to involve
staff of social services departments in innovations in
information provision and information transfer, to discover
what succeeded or failed and why.
The data-collection phase of the Project, therefore, was
seen as a preliminary to practical involvement in social
services departments. Its aim was not only to collect data
but also to give the research team direct experience of the
field of investigation, to establish the credibility of the team
in departments with which a lengthy association was
foreseen, and to provide insights into the day-to-day work
of departments and the information and communication
consequences of that work.
Various aspects of the data-collection phase have been
reported upon elsewhere, particularly in Wilson and
Streatfield (1977), Wilson et al. (1979) and Streatfield and
Wilson (1980). Structured observation as a method of
investigation has been assessed in an earlier issue of SSIS
(Wilson and Streatfield, 1981). This short note will not
attempt to duplicate these reports but will be restricted to
some methodological and research management aspects of
the observation phase of the study.
THE CHOICE OF METHOD
The choice of research method is clearly related to the
overall 'paradigm' within which one chooses to work. Guba
(1980) has characterized the paradigms 'favoured by
different groups at different times' and his statement is set
out in alternative form in Table 1. It is important to note
that a problem may be approached from more than one
paradigmatic stance more or less simultaneously and that a
given method may be used by researchers working within
different traditions. This last fact is certainly true both of
interviewing and observation.
Table 1. Ways of knowing (after Guba, 1980)
Paradigm
Fundamental
technique
View of truth
Example
Logical
Analysis
Demonstrable
Mathematics
Judgmental
Sensing
Recognizable
Wine tasting
Adversarial
Cross-examination
Emergent
Jury trial
Modus
operandi
Sequential testing
Trackable
Forensic
pathology
Demographic
Indicators
Macroscopically
determinable
Economics
Religious
Revelation
Absolute and given
Catholicism
Scientific
Experimentation
Confirmable
Physics
Naturalistic
Field study
Ineluctable
Ethnography
The choice of structured observation as a research method
for Project INISS was not the result of a predilection for the
'naturalistic paradigm', rather it was first, the result of an
accident; secondly, it was related to an intention to work
within the 'scientific paradigm' and only thirdly did an
awareness of its relation to the naturalistic paradigm and
qualitative research emerge.
The accident was one of those instances of serendipity that
happen to any researcher: the discovery on a colleague's
desk of Mintzberg's 'The nature of managerial work' (
1973) about to be returned to the British Library Lending
Division. The intention became, thereafter, to use
Mintzberg's method to collect quantitative data on
communication and information-seeking events. As
reported elsewhere (Wilson and Streatfield, 1977) the
method served that purpose: 5,839 communication events
analysed by 16 variables provided almost an
embarrassment of data. However, before the first week of
observation it became obvious (partly through further
attention to Mintzberg, partly through the training exercises
and partly as a result of reading John M. Johnson's 'Doing
field research' (1975) - another serendipitous event) that a
narrative mode of reporting, in addition to the statistical
mode, would:

make the quantitative data more intelligible;

provide a more effective way of reporting back to the
people observed;

reveal the social reality of the research settings more
fully; and

provide the research team with an effective means of
sharing and pooling their perceptions of the
departments in which they worked.
Thus, structured observation as used in Project INISS was
an example not of a wholly qualitative research approach
but rather of a combination of a method which has both
quantitative and qualitative applications with qualitative
analysis and reporting.
In a recent paper Gene E. Hall set the scene for an analysis
of the management of qualitative research by noting that:
'There is reason to believe that many of the new qualitative
research attempts will reflect overly simplistic approaches
to answering research questions and naiveté about the
complexities of doing this type of research.' (Hall, 1980:
350), and by identifying the following tasks the research
manager needs to perform in order to avoid the hazards of
the 'bandwagon' effect:
a. conceptualizing the research project and
determining if ethnographic methods are called for;
b. recruiting and training ethnographers;
c. negotiating ethnographers being on-site;
d. developing formats for data recording;
e. developing procedures for data transmittal to the
research center;
f.maintaining communication and coordination
between the ethnographer, site personnel and
researcher;
g. determining strategies to reduce the volumes of data
so that the. meaning and richness are not lost; and
h. interpreting and relating the qualitative data in
meaningful ways. (Hall, 1980:351)
Hall was writing about educational research/but the same
dangers and difficulties exist in information research and
his analysis of tasks will be used here as a basis for
discussion. However, two of the topics (b and d above)
have been dealt with in some detail elsewhere (Wilson and
Streatfield, 1981) and will not be further elaborated here.
WHY WAS A QUALITATIVE APPROACH
NECESSARY?
It has been noted above that structured observation was
adopted as a quantitative technique and, therefore, the
question becomes, 'Why was field research, rather than
survey research, thought desirable?'
As research director, the author had four reasons for this
choice of strategy. The first was a dissatisfaction with the
results of large-scale survey research in the information
field. Though useful in terms of providing generalized
descriptions of certain aspects of information-seeking
behaviour, survey research appeared to provide little in the
way of insight into motivations for information-seeking and
little in the way of discrimination between different
categories of information users that could guide
information service practice.
The second reason was related to the first: survey methods
appeared to have been based chiefly on questionnaires and
interview schedules constructed within the information
worker's frame of reference rather than that of the group
being investigated. This was clearly evident in the couching
of questions about information use in terms of physical
forms of presentation (books, journals, graphic materials,
etc.) rather than in terms of categories that might be more
familiar and more meaningful to the information user.
Thirdly, the author (and at least two of the researchers)
were almost totally ignorant of what the standard texts on
social work actually meant in terms of problems, activity,
and behaviour in social services departments. It was
believed that, without an understanding of the day-to-day
business of departments it would be impossible to conceive
of information needs in the same way as those working in
the field. Observation, therefore, offered a means for being
educated about a field of information use.
Finally, the author's emerging theoretical position on the
nature of information needs: see Wilson (1981) related
information-seeking behaviour to work-role and taskperformance. If the theory were to be further developed,
field research was essential.
From this analysis it will be clear that field research is not
necessary in every investigation. Where background
information and experience is otherwise available, where
false categorizations can be avoided and where clear
theoretical formulations already exist, field research may be
an unnecessary luxury.
NEGOTIATING ACCESS
Although increasing in popularity, ethnographic field
research in organizations is still a sufficiently unusual
strategy for one to expect problems in negotiating access.
In fact, as far as Project INISS was concerned, the actual
method of data collection seemed not to be the most critical
element in negotiation. Once the department had accepted
that the area of research was one which could provide
useful information, the method by which data were
collected was secondary.
Two factors may have promoted this fairly ready
acceptance of the method: first, that part of a social
worker's training involves observing and being observed,
and second that the research team was to be in departments
for only one week. Had the research involved lengthier
periods of field work more difficulty might have been
experienced.
Naturally, negotiation involved satisfying the participants
on a number of issues. However, these would have arisen in
any kind of investigation. They involved questions on the
confidentiality of the data, clearance for publication, and
the extent to which the department was likely to benefit.
The process of negotiation continued into the actual
observation weeks as far as the individuals observed were
concerned: they too raised questions of confidentiality, of
the motives for the research (was some kind of '0 and M
report' on their activities envisaged, for example), and of
the intended outcomes of the research in terms of further
action, books, etc. Their concern was clearly, in part at
least, that they should not be treated merely as 'subjects' for
some totally 'academic' piece of research.
In negotiating subsequent phases of the research it was
evident that the experience of observation was as satisfying
to those in the departments as it was to the researchers and
the fact that promises to report back to individuals and the
department had been kept by the research team was also
important. Feedback of this kind is practised insufficiently
by researchers and the anonymous 'subjects' who provide
data through questionnaire completion are more readily
forgettable than Syd, or Margaret, or Trevor with whom
one has spent a working week.
DATA TRANSMISSION AND MAINTAINING
COORDINATION
Because the periods offieldwork were each limited to one
week, transmitting data back to the research unit presented
no problem: the researchers brought the records back to the
office at the beginning of the week following each
observation period.
Nor was coordination a particular problem. The author
participated in two of the weeks of observation and, in
addition, visited the team during the first week. Again, the
short duration of the observation period was advantageous
since the researchers were able to discuss the experience in
depth in the intervening weeks. During observation,
communication among members of the team was easy as
all stayed in the same hotel and frequently met during
working hours as the people they were observing came into
contact at informal and formal meetings.
REDUCING THE VOLUME OF DATA AND
INTERPRETING DATA
One of the principle problems of ethnographic fieldwork is
that it produces a large amount of data. However, it should
be remembered that the field phase of Project INISS was
intended to produce quantitative data and the data-
recording format had been designed with this in mind.
Thus, records were collected of 5,839 communication
'events' and reduction became a matter of encoding and
statistical analysis in the classic 'positivist' manner.
However, these records also served as the basis for
narrative accounts of the week of observation to be given to
each person observed. There were twenty-two accounts in
all, amounting to more than 300 pages of qualitative data.
Clearly, these reports were reductions of much more
information both in the data and in the researchers' heads
and were focused upon what might be called 'information
behaviour' rather than upon total behaviour. In the final
report of the first two stages of Project INISS (Wilson and
Streatfield, 1980) these accounts have been reduced still
further into a narrative account of 'A week in the life of . . .'
a social services department. The aim was to give the
reader the 'flavour' of a department at work to set against
the rather more arid statistical reporting.
Throughout this process classification and categorization
were used to assist the reduction of complexity and to aid
interpretation. Thus, the individuals observed were
categorized by work-role, their activities were classified by
an amended version of Mintzberg's 'managerial roles', and
the subject of communication was classified by a simple,
two-facet classification scheme derived from the data.
Events were categorized in all of these ways and this aided
not only interpretation but also the narrative report-writing.
CONCLUSION
A question mark appears in the title of this piece because it
is questionable how far the observation phase of Project
INISS can be considered to be an example of qualitative
research in the information field. Rather than rejecting
quantitative methods the author sought a means of
gathering more meaningful quantitative data, less
influenced by pre-determined, 'library-like' frameworks. In
the event, the experiences were reported in both
quantitative and qualitative terms and, if anything is to be
learned from the work, it is that a more sensitive approach
to the collection of data and accounts will pay dividends in
insights, theory, and practical ideas for improvements in
information services.
All of this has benefits in an area not mentioned by Hall,
that is, the dissemination of results. Not only can research
reports be more vivid in their re-creation of the research
settings, but the accumulated experience is invaluable in
reporting to and encouraging organizations to adopt
changes in information provision. In the case of Project
INISS this has been attempted not only through individual
reporting to the 'subject' departments, but also by mounting
one-day training courses under the auspices of the National
Institute of Social Work. In the author's opinion, it would
have been impossible to conduct those courses successfully
without the field experience that structured observation
allowed.
REFERENCES

GUBA, E. G. (1980). Naturalistic and conventional
inquiry. Paper delivered at the AERA Symposium
'Considerations for educational inquiry in the 1980s'.
Boston, Mass.

HALL, G. E. (1980). Ethnographers and
ethnographic data: an iceberg of the first order for
the research manager. Education and Urban Society,
12, 349-366.

JOHNSON, J. M. (1975). Doing field research. New
York: Free Press.

MINTZBERG, H. (1973). The nature of managerial
work. New York: Harper and Row.

STREATFIELD, D. R. and WILSON, T. D. (1980).
The vital link: information in social services
departments. Sheffield: Community Care and the
Joint Unit for Research in Social Services.

WILSON, T. D. (1980). Recent trends in user
studies: action research and qualitative methods.
Berlin: Freie Universitat Berlin, Institut fur
Publizistik und Dokumentations-wissenschaft.
(Projekt Methodeninstrumentarium zur
Benutzerforschung in Information und
Dokumentation-Projektinformation MIB PI 11/80).
Retrieved 11 October, 2003 from
http://informationr.net/ir/5-3/paper76.html

WILSON, T. D. (1981). On user studies and
information needs. Journal of Documentation,
37(1), 3-15.

WILSON, T. D. and STREATFIELD, D. R. (1977).
Information needs in local authority social services
departments: an interim report on Project INISS.
Journal of Documentation, 33, 277-293.

WILSON, T. D. and STREATFIELD, D. R. (1980).
You can observe a lot. . . : a study of information
use in local authority social services departments.
Sheffield: Postgraduate School of Librarian-ship and
Information Science. (Occasional paper no. 12).
Retrieved 11 October, 2003 from
http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/INISS/

WILSON, T. D. and STREATFIELD, D. R. (1981).
Structured observation in the investigation of
information need. Social Science Information
Studies, 1, 173-184.

WILSON, T.D., STREATFIELD, D.R. and
MULLINGS, C. (1979). Information needs in local
authority social services departments: a second
report on Project INISS. Journal of Documentation,
35, 120-136.
Originally published in Social Science Information Studies, 1,
241-146