Thoughts on Conducting Interviews

Overall, this interview exercise has shown that there are many issues that need to be kept in mind when conducting interviews.  Factors to take into account can be divided into three groups:

1. Pre-interview preparation;

2. During the interview;

3. Post-interview reflections.

In order to prepare for the interview, Michael and I discussed the overall research objective/aim of the study in order to situate the study in the relevant context.  We decided that the study would be on the experience of international students studying at ANU.  Next, we felt that we had to develop an interview protocol with open-ended interview questions.  This provided some structure for the semi-structured interviews so that they were all to some extent similar and comparable as the same questions were asked to each interviewee.  Developing suitable interview questions took some time as we decomposed our overall aim into parts to generate specific interview questions.  Given that this is a qualitative study, I have noticed that when writing questions certain terms or words can be used that are more appropriate for these kinds of studies.  For example, some words commonly used in interview questions for qualitative research include: perceptions, experiences, describe, factors, influences, affect, attitudes, etc.  It is important to bear in mind that the order of questions as well as the questions themselves may lead to possible response bias, and therefore, it is the responsibility of the researchers to minimise this bias.  When constructing our interview questions we tried to keep them as neutral as possible so as to reduce potential interviewer bias.  For example, our first question asked how they would describe their experience as an international student at ANU in general.  This left open the possibility for interviewees to mention any aspect that they considered relevant to them.   

We selected subjects at random and who were not acquainted with the researchers and we found this process to be quite effective as the subjects asked all consented to an interview.  In practice, when selecting case organizations for case studies and potential interviewees it may help to develop contacts/connections, know key informants and have some kind of relationship with the organization.  However, I wonder if there is a difference in potential responses if researchers know or do not know the interviewees personally.  This may be something that could be investigated further.   

Conducting the interviews was a relatively smooth process overall as we were well prepared going into the interviews.  I think that the researchers need to be prepared going into an interview in order to make it flow as smooth as possible.  For instance, this may include making sure that both the researchers and interviewees are fluent in the language in which the interview is conducted in, interviewers being familiar with the interview questions and broad objective of the study, making sure that your recording equipment works, checking the environment (e.g. the room) in which the interview will be conducted in, developing some expectations of possible answers to check whether responses confirm or contradict your expectations.   

Another issue that has come to mind is whether you provide consenting interviewees a list of the interview questions before an interview.  In this way, they have some way of preparing for the interview and can already come up with some data or responses to give.  Because sometimes when you are asked a question on the spur of the moment you might not come up with all the answers on the spot.  However, if you have some time to think over the interview questions, you my come up with richer answers during the interview.  Moreover, you may also provide some company documents that help answer some questions.

During our interviews with international students we found that interviewees, at times, did not fully understand our questions.  Based on this observation I see that a major issue when doing interviews is making sure that your interviews understand and do not misinterpret your questions, otherwise the responses may not help you in collecting relevant data.  I found that having two interviews conducting one interview is very useful as they can take different roles as well as switch during an interview.  For example, our plan was for one of us to recruit an international student, one of us interviewed them as the other person observed and took observational notes, made sure the recording equipment worked and also listened to the interview to check that all the salient points had been covered and mentioned any other issues.  Because you do not realise it at first but there are many tasks that an interviewer needs to complete during an interview and it helps to have two people alternating roles.

Another observation is that sometimes you need to let the interviewees talk if they want to talk as they may reveal some important information in their stories.  We conducted three interviews with three international students and I found that one interviewee in particular talked the most and, in turn, provided us the richest data.  However, at the same time, often it is even what is not said that is equally important.  Some responses for some questions were a little short as there appeared to be a bit of a language barrier. 

Body language and external environmental factors are important issues to take note of when conducting interviews.  I found that it is not just the words said but also the way they are said, the tone of the voice and the disposition of the interviewee that all provide meaning and context, and therefore help with interpretation.  For example, one interviewee seemed a little rushed during the responses, however they still provided us with important data.  You need to consider if there are any distractions and whether the interviewee is comfortable.  Our interviews were conducted in three different locations - a quiet room, in the foyer of the library and outside.  We noticed that our three interviewees had three distinct profiles which reflected in their responses provided.    

After the interviews, transcribing them took a while and we consulted useful references to help code and analyse our raw data.  So in qualitative research there needs to be some kind of systematic approach to provide meaning and interpretation to your data.  I think that qualitative research has some element of grounded theory in it, particularly if you do more interpretive research.  I look forward to learning more about grounded theory in qualitative research because it seems to some extent quite different and radical to the more scientific method of research.  

In transcribing our interviews in verbatim, we noted that there are other items that are often included in transcripts, such as ..., ahhh, uhmm, etc.  In analysing the data we used established coding frameworks, and worked on one question at a time.  First, decomposing it into discrete parts, then comparing these parts across the three interviewees to identify similarities and differences, and lastly, establishing potential connections and relationships amongst the responses.  This process helped us to identify common or unique emergent themes in the data.  

Lastly, after the interviews I took some reflective and analytical notes and memos in order to jot down some pertinent points and observations of the interviews.  Here I reflected on my observations and and what I thought rather than analysing the data from the transcripts.  I found that this exercise helped we when I later had to code and analyse the data from the transcripts.  So, in a sense, when conducting interviews the interviewer has multiple tasks and roles.  Also, you obtain different sources of data, the responses to the interview questions from the interviewees as well as reflective and analytical memos of the interviewer.

         

 

Ahrens and Chapman (2007)

Ahrens and Chapman (2007) "Management Accounting as Practice"

This is another paper that I found to be very useful for my research as it highlights the "distinctive practice theory approach to considering the role of management accounting in the constitution of organizations" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 1).  I really enjoy the way that Ahrens and Chapman write in such a smooth, fluid way, which is indispensable for good qualitative research.  For example, in this work the researchers state that by "situating the interrelationships between technical and interpretive accounting processes in the wider field of organisational practices we elaborate the ways in which management control systems as structures of intentionality both shape and are shaped by shared norms and understandings" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 1).

According to Ahrens and Chapman (2007, pg. 2) "accounting cannot be understood simply with reference to its supposed functional properties because it is implicated in the shaping of its own context".  Both contemporary and historical studies have brought insight into the diverse ways in which accounting has been and is being implicated in a wide variety of activities and social arrangements.  This paper draws a link between technical and interpretive aspects of accounting by demonstrating how the "cumulative effect of such interpretive studies of accounting has been to establish the flexibility and variability of accounting" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 2).  In other words, studying accounting from an interpretive perspective provides another layer of studies that could not be obtained from technical (positivist) accounting studies. 

In their papers, Ahrens and Chapman make numerous references to leading scholars in their field, such as Hopwood and Chua, among many others.  

Interpretive studies may require the use of a practice theory that may not play such a crucial role in more positivist/functional accounting studies - "practice theory seeks to delve into the details of the functioning of subsystems.  Practices are about the specific relationships forged between understandings and traditions of social groups and their aspirations and pressing problems" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 3).  This paper draws on practice theory in an attempt to fill the various gaps in our understanding of management accounting as practice.  Where practice theorists have been concerned to reflect on the ways in which action relates to aspects of context.  In particular, it is this context, perception that drives behaviour (even if inaccurate), interpretations and shared meanings that may hold the key to explaining the success or failure of a particular accounting system, or the emergence and enactment of MCS.  

Various theories of studies are discussed that give rise to various specific notions of practice including studies of governmentality, disciplinary powers, critical accounting, social theories such as actor network theory.  

Management control as practice aims to understand a much wider and more complex field of organising practices.  Ahrens and Chapman (2007, pg. 23) make an interesting point that "theoretical accounting concepts cannot be used by practitioners as 'means' to pursue their 'ends' because means and ends are constructed simultaneously in practice".  It seems that practice theory shows a very dynamic and versatile side to accounting as "for practice theorists social order is real in the sense that activities belong to practices and that practices and arrangements can be identified as sustaining or changing one another" Ahrens and Chapman (2007, pg. 23).   

Interestingly, although practice theory does not ignore conflict it does not cast it in terms of control and resistance.  Instead, "practice theory emphasises the role of actors in drawing upon the rules, procedures, ideals, targets, etc, of management control practice because interest and conflict are not given" Ahrens and Chapman (2007, pg. 24).  Their practice perspective underscores the ways that actors' motivations come to be constructed through their daily effort as individuals engage with each other and interact with MCS.  

The major contribution of practice theory is to provide a language for expressing practical activity in context and recognising the constitution of context through action.  Their final concluding comments shows the potential for other accounting studies to provide timely contributions to the stock of knowledge - "rather than take the much observed fluidity and unpredictability of management accounting and control in practice as a sign of the feebleness of accounting theory we should adjust our notion of theory such that it becomes more suitable for the study of practice" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 24).  Everything happens for a reason and it is important to understand WHY.  This is the VALUE and CONTRIBUTION of qualitative research. 
                  

Ahrens and Chapman (2006)

I found a really useful academic paper in my disciplinary field of management accounting and I thought and should write a few notes.  The paper is by Ahrens and Chapman (2006) and it is called "Doing Qualitative Field Research in Management Accounting: Positioning Data to Contribute to Theory".  I think that this paper will help me to understand the implicit 'rules of the game' in my disciplinary area and help me to conduct 'good' qualitative research in order to contribute to management accounting scholarship. 

This paper is useful for my studies in qualitative research because unlike quantitative research where you may have some established research instruments and and established benchmarks for validity, reliability, etc, in qualitative research I wonder what benchmarks, if any, can we use to compare our research to established standards in our field.  For example, how do I know if I am interpreting the data correctly?  How do I link the data to my research questions.  This paper provides these answers.

The paper shows the interlacing of data, theory and research problems by providing examples of specific individual research projects. 

Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 819) argue that theory, method, methodology and knowledge gains in qualitative field studies are intertwined through the ongoing hypothesis development in the field".  They emphasise the distinguishing role of theory in qualitative research which is related to "the expression of a subjective reality more than clarification of an objective one" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 819). 

Moreover, this paper allows researchers to assess the trustworthiness of their accounts as according to Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 819) the "intention is to develop a more appropriate basis for judging the plausibility of qualitative field studies than notions borrowed from positivist methodology".  This is a noteworthy contribution to my field as there is a need to develop some kind of framework to assess the quality of qualitative interpretive research.  The paper distinguishes interpretivism from positivism.  This work also explains the difference between theory, domain, methodology, hypothesis and method in terms of their meaning, relevance and examples.  Many leading qualitative research papers published in top tier accounting journals are provided. 
 
Below are some key points that will help me to conduct 'good' qualitative research in management accounting:

- Doing qualitative field studies in management accounting is about methodology, not method, where they delineate the notion of the field as a research domain;
- What differentiates the qualitative field researcher is a particular way of knowing the field;
- In particular, qualitative field researchers in management accounting agree that "social reality is emergent, subjectively created, and objectified through human interaction" (Chua, 1986, pg. 615, in Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 819) - understand the intricacies of social interaction, such as the ways meanings are derived;
- Doing qualitative field studies is not merely empirical but a profoundly theoretical activity;
- The field is not just a part of of the empirical world but it is shaped by the theoretical viewpoints of the researcher;
- According to Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 820) the "practice of doing qualitative field studies involves an ongoing reflection of data and its positioning against different theories such that the data can contribute to and develop further the chosen research questions".  This is where there needs to be a good 'fit' between the theory, research questions and data;
- Data are not pure parts of objective reality but rather are aspects of a recorded activity that a researchers considers significant for theoretical reasons;
- Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 821) outline "how qualitative field studies can make theoretical contributions by giving insight into how images of specific social realities may infuse action and relate this to the ability of qualitative field studies to express the processual character of accounting";
- These theoretical discussions provide the basis to develop a re-assessment of validity and reliability for qualitative field research and provide the sources of discipline for the researcher.  Hence, theory plays a crucial role in qualitative research in making sense of your data as well as linking data to the research questions and theorising.  Also, theoretical discussions help to discipline the researcher through the exercise of reflexivity;
- "Qualitative field studies collect data in the domain 'field' and employ 'qualitative' methodology (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 821);
- Qualitative approaches may be referred to as naturalistic, holistic, interpretive and phenomenological;
- The principles that guide qualitative work, include a forucs on meaning, the use of analytical induction, have a close proximity to the data, attempts to link agency to structure;
- Qualitative and qualitative research has different ontological and episotemological assumptions;
- "The conflation of method with methodology means that ontological assumptions remain unrecognised as assumptions.  We see the distinction between method and methodology and the theoretical potential that it affords for defining research questions and notions of research trustworthiness as central to much of the miscommunication between qualitative and quantitative researchers" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 822);
- The interview may be mobilised towards interpretive or positivist ends contingent on the view of reality to be explored.  Either expressing a social reality or clarifying an objective reality;
- Objective realities versus context dependent constructs;
- According to Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 823) "qualitative methodology seeks to explore aspects of social order that are not objectively real but are instead subjectively created through the interaction of actors, rarely mentioning the words hypothesis or testing at all";
- Qualitative field studies study "situations and questions in which the uses and meanings of management accounting are fluid" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 823);
- A characteristic of qualitative field studies is the potential for linking structured and unstructured data;
- As stated by Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 826) "it would be wrong to simply associate positivism with prediction and qualitative methodology with explanation.  Prediction without explanation is the hope that past correlations hold in future"..."Prediction and explanation are not opposites, but are complexly intertwined in both qualitative and positivistic management accounting research";
- "Qualitative field studies must achieve 'fit' between theory, methodology, hypothesis, method and domain in order to contribute to the literature.  Fit indicates the successful conclusion of that process" (Silverman, 1993, pg. 1-2, in Arhens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 826-827);
- According to Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 831) "images infuse action insofar as wider organisational and social meanings are connected with accounting through process because actors in the field refer to those meanings in the processes of creating and practicing accounting";
- Qualitative field studies have been associated with a quest for meaning;
- A reminder for field researchers is not to take for granted stability in management accounting systems, their uses, and organisational roles;
- Doing qualitative field studies is a disciplined process which therefore requires the application of reflexivity.  The research must constantly question their own ideas.

Re-assessing Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Field Studies
According to Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 833) "notions of validity that were developed to evaluate positivistic studies of objective reality are unsuitable for qualitative field studies".  For qualitative studies "valid and reliable accounts of the role of accounting in social reality cannot pretend to study this reality without reference to the agency of the actors in the field and independently of the reseacher's theoretical interest".

This is a noteworthy point as it indicates that the question of replication studies in qualitative field research is inappropriate because we would not expect identical results when two observers study the same organisation from different points of view, or when they study different substructures within a large organisation.  We do, however, expect that the two descriptions are compatible, in other words, the conclusions of one study do not implicitly or explicitly contradict those of the other (Becker, 1970 in Arhens and Chapman, 2006).  

Patterns of causality are of interest to both qualitative and positivistic researchers according to Luft and Shields (2003).  The qualitative researcher works on the assumption that oganisational activity is meaningful in practice.  Interestingly, Cronbach (1982, pg. 108, in Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 834) states that "validity is subjective rather than objective: the plausibility of the conclusion is what counts.  And plausibility, to twist a cliche`, lies in the ear of the beholder".

Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 835-836) state that the "field researcher's prior knowledge disciplines her interpretation of new observations..."Theory helps the author structure masses of data and communicate its significance at the same time as it helps construct that significance.  Even though detailed insight into organisational processes is necessary to inform a good field study, there is always more going on than the researcher can observe and report in a publication.  A good field study therefore requires a problem to be addressed and a theory can can frame the problem such that the fieldwork can contribute to the ongoing debate"..."Theorising [in field research] is about moving from the general to the local to the general [...]" Baxter and Chua, 1998, pg. 80, in Arhens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 836).  That is, problem theory and data influence each other throughout the research process as the process is one of iteratively seeking to generate a plausible fit between problem, theory, and data (Arhens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 836).

According to Arhens and Chapman (2006) this iterative process requires three main sources of discipline:
1. the readers' knowledge of the existing literature imposes a disciplinary context;    
2. the researcher does not make up a story and suppress inconvenient data;
3. the significance of the theoretical contribution is ultimately judged by the reader.

Underlying the argument of Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 836) is "a notion of theory that is first and foremost a vehicle for understanding and communication".  Although things may be independent on theory, descriptions of them are always dependent on theory.  According to Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 837) "to generate findigs that are of interest to the wider management accounting research community, the qualitative field research must be able to continuously make linkages between theory and findings from the field in order to evaluable the potential interest of the research as it unfolds.  This ongoing engaging of research questions, theory, and data has important implications for the ways in which qualitative field researchers can define the field and interpret its activities". 
   

Ahrens and Chapman have co-authored many papers together and I noticed how they write so very well.  I have included some quotes because these scholars write in an almost poetic fashion that cannot be paraphrased.   

In order to be do good qualitative researcher you need to be good with people and you need to write really well (articulation) as words are your data and interviews, observations and document analysis can all be reduced to text and words. 

Luft and Shields (2003) "Mapping Management Accounting: Graphics and Guidelines for Theory-Consistent Empirical Research" - another very useful paper in my field - indicated that qualitative field studies are inclined to emphasise that management accounting is not easily classified as only a dependent or only an independent variable, but rather they tend to be more complexly implicated in the unfolding of events as both cause and effect of changes.     

Week 7 - Archival Methods and Textual Sources

How do you derive useful evidence from existing documents and archives?

Archival methods is similar to document analysis.  In this class I learnt how to use historical and text-based data sources.  Specifically, originally I thought that this topic was going to be about how to analyse documents and text, however during the class I realized that there was a focus on archival documents from a historical perspective.  There was a bit of a mixed methods approach to show how some quantitative data could be used to help interpret qualitative data.  There was a strong focus on historical/archival documents as evidence and sources of data for business research.  Hence, when doing this kind of research there is a survival bias in the documents that survive and can be used for analysis.

This classed opened my eyes to the possibilities of doing two types of case studies:
1. contemporary case studies;
2. historical case studies.

Taking an earnings management perspective, the lecturer showed us a graph of reported earnings and internally reported earnings, which highlighted an important difference - that reported earnings were lower and smoother compared to internally reported earnings, as there was an incentive to report lower earnings based on external factors.  The interesting part was how archival/historical documents were used to identify events during history at particular times to explain particular peaks and toughs in reported earnings.  Therefore, documents are an important source of data to help explain certain patterns in observed quantitative data.  This provides evidence into the motivations for particular reported behaviour.  This EM example was a useful illustration of a mixed methods approach incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.  The quantitative side showed observed reported behaviour/patterns; the relationships between the variables, and the qualitative side explain why certain patterns took place.  With such a mixed methods approach it is possible to do some triangulation and obtain corroborating evidence.

Various sources of information were provided in order to access archival sources, such as various libraries and universities.       

Week 6 - Fieldwork Methods and Issues

This class focused on field work methods and in particular some forms of data collection techniques, such as interviews.  One useful tip was that it is important to have an ongoing relationship with your case organization and interviewees rather than a one-off relationship.  For example, it is important that the organization benefits from your study and gets something out of it.  Like anything, I think that every exchange needs to be reciprocal and while the research is gaining valuable output from the case organization, the organization needs to also gain something valuable.  If you are conducting action research, perhaps the benefits to the organization involved are more obvious.  Apart from offering a summarised version of the results from the interviews, I think it is important to find some other benefits for the organization.  In particular, organizations may gain academic contacts and these contacts could be used for consulting work, given that academics also provide some consulting services to practitioners in the public and private sectors. 

In terms of interviews, I think that there are different types of benefits with all types of interviews, including, structured interviews, semi-structured interviews and unstructured interviews.  An important point that I learnt was that while it is important to have some structure when conducting interviews so that the interview has some focus and consistency across different interviews, it is also important to have some room for interviews to express their own thoughts and add there own comments.  Often interviewees may provide interviews with important sources of data where emergent issues may be revealed that are relevant to the broader research issue.  As a result, it is important not to stop interviewees to quickly when they are telling a story because the hook at the end may be what you are looking for and be very important.  Sometimes it is the information that is unexpected that is the most significant.  I think this is important element or characteristic about research.  You are a researcher if you are discovering or learning about things that you do not know about - the unexpected element - if you already knew everything or had a fair idea at the beginning you would not be a researcher. 

I think that another important point when conducting interviews is that just because it is an interview (questions and answers) does not mean that there are not other data collection approaches occurring at the same time.  For example, during an interview - especially if there are two interviewer that alternate - one asking the questions and the other making observational notes and later both can write reflective/analytical memos - observation can occur during interviews.  I think that observation is important because it is well known that with humans words and language account for only a small proportion of communication.  Other forms of more subtle forms of communication that occurs during an interview includes body language and non-verbal cues that one research could take notes on while the other research conducts the interview.  Also, other external factors, such as the environment, the room where the interview takes place, noise, size, temperature and time, may all play a role in the potential responses obtained. 

Body language may include various elements.  For example, even they way that they present themselves, are they punctual, are they happy to do the interview, do they want to be there and give their time or are they in a rush, are they motivated and enthusiastic when you ask the question or do they hesitate when questions are asked. 

Also, I discovered that during an interview, interviewees may write some notes or, for example, draw diagrams and provide documents to the interviewer and these are all forms of data that the researcher can potentially use. 

When conducting interviews it is important to bear in mind that there may be potential interviewer bias and response bias, where respondents may give the answer that the researcher is looking for so it is important to keep these points in mind when conducting interviews.  Also, interviewees may be untruthful in their responses and lie.  However, even if you discover that they have lied, possibly when conducting data triangulation techniques, it is important to understand the source and why they lied because this still provides important data for your study.  Also, it is important to make sure that interviewees understand the questions that you are asking which means that both the interviewer and the interviewee need to be fluent in the language that is being spoken in the interview. 

Based on my readings, I found that quotes or verbatim in published articles often includes the umms and arhs and ..., which apparently all contain some form of meaning.  Therefore, when transcribing interviews it is important to include everything however it may take several hours to transcribe a one hour interview.  In this class I also learnt various technologies that can be used to record interviews.

Apart from using projective techniques in interviews, I was reading about mirroring.  Mirroring is where you use the words and phrases that the interviewees use in order to construct a later question or comment.  I think that mirroring would be quite useful in interviews because you are using their language, which is not foreign to them, and as a result, the interviewee may be more comfortable. 

Focus groups are group interviews and I have not really seen focus groups in papers in my field.  Recently, I participated in the ANU CBE Alumni focus group session.  Participating in a focus group has helped me to better understand what focus groups are about.  Basically, the purpose of the focus group was to get collective views on a certain topic of interest - this involved gaining insights into the communication style, events, alumni support and fundraising.  The focus group provided the opportunity to shed light on what works and what requires attention as well as to better understand the needs of alumni.  I found the open exchange very beneficial as I enjoyed the fact that it as a group interview.  There were 6 of us alumni and 3 interviewers (1 main interviewer).  The focus group was digitally recorded and enjoyed the opportunity to actively participate myself but also hear what other participants had to see, which I guess you don't get if you have a one-on-one interview. 

The focus group ended on a really good note as the interviewers indicated that the welcomed our feedback on the style, delivery and usefulness of the exercise.  They also gave us the opportunity to contact them further if we had anymore ideas in coming days, weeks, months or even years.  I found this focus group to be mutually beneficial.  Obviously, we were promised a summarised version of the findings after they were analysed. 

Week 5 Types of Research

If it's one thing I have learnt about doing good research is that a good thesis or research paper needs a problem and an argument, otherwise there is no thesis.  For there to be a good problem and argument everything needs to be justified throughout so it is defensible and there is linkages and flows.  It is not about a right or wrong answer, it's about a good or bad or better answer. 

Something I found useful was when Professor Jacobs mentioned the two types of errors: (1) errors of fact/substance, and (2) errors of communication.  This is really important because sometimes there can be misunderstandings between people and it is important to understand the source of this misunderstanding.  Is it because the two people have different information and are forming different conclusions or is it because they agree on the substance but have not adequately expressed it so that the other person understands. 

I like how in qualitative research it is the outliers/abnormal/influential/extreme observations that are interesting and the focus of study. 

In terms of case studies, I understand that there are single case designs and multiple case designs.  I have read papers with both single and multiple case designs and I see that a single case design is sufficient if you have a rich enough, in-depth study that allows you to tell a well informed story about a single organization: the where, what, how and why.  However, if you want to compare and contrast and find similarities and differences and multiple case design may be appropriate.  For instance, I read one paper and they justified a multiple case design because it was an exploratory case study which they wanted to use to develop theory and so they needed multiple cases in order to find similarities and differences. 

For case study research, I have seen that there are many references by Yin that are commonly used in my academic field.  I like the way that case studies are quite versatile in that they can be used for all kinds of research: such as postivist, interpretive and critical research.  Also, they can be used for exploratory, explanatory research as well as several other kinds of research. 

Triangulation seems to be used in case study inquiries and I think that this is a term that seems to be a little misunderstood as I think that different people have different interpretations for what triangulation is about.  For example, there are different types of triangulation, including:
1. data triangulation
2. investigator triangulation
3. theory triangulation
4. methodological triangulation.

I think most people see that triangulation relates to triangulation as data and methodological triangulation. 

In terms of ethnographic research I have written separate blog entries.

Action research seems less common in my disciplinary area of management accounting.  Action research is interesting in that it aims to simultaneously build on the stock of knowledge as well as resolve current practical problems.  The differentiating feature of action research, compared to other types of research, is that it is concerned with creating organizational change while at the same time studying the process.  This latter part is the focus of research in my academic field.  To me, action research has a more practical, applied focus and I understand that this research output is published in more practitioner-oriented journals and magazines rather than pure scholarly research journals.  Within the accounting sphere, I think that the relevant practitioner journals that possibly publish more action type research includes: Australian Accounting Review (AAR) as it is published on behalf of CPA Australia, which is a major accounting body for accounting practititioners.  Action research is not consulting because action research combines both action and research. 

I think that action research would be particularly relevant if accounting academics wished to examine more practical phenomena together with accounting practitioners.  For example, academics may conduct a study with CPA or ICAA or the Big 4 and combine both action and research together so that their research provides both a contribution to practice - the action element - by intervening in an accounting business process or an organization, as well as providing a contribution to theory - the research element.  This output could be published in AAR.  With action research, I think it is important that the sponsor of your research is a key organization or industry body in your field. 

Another thought is that I think it is imperative that when you are the process of deciding on and planning a particular academic study it is important to identify target journals that your research could eventually be sent to for publication.  You could already at the outset potentially contact some academic gatekeepers in the field to see if your proposed research study is something that is acceptable within your academic discipline.  In this way, you have a bit more confidence when you are in the process of conducting your research (including the gap in the literature, theoretical framework, research methods) it is something that is appropriate and acceptable within your field.  It would be a waste of time if you plan and complete particular study without consulting key players in your discipline and then when you have finished you realise that no one sees the relevant of what you have done.
   

Reflective Blog and Field Notes/Memos

To me this reflective blog that we are working on during the semester seems like doing field notes and analytical/reflective memos that are done in ethnographic research and field studies.  In ethnographic studies, there are certain terms and expressions that are used, for example, discovery where everything is seen in context, it is naturalistic, in-depth and rich.  Also, the ethnographer learns from people and I feel that this blog is a way of learning that has a parallel with continuously reflecting and writing fieldnotes that are done during fieldwork.  Ethnographics emphasise obervational evidence and various forms of memos and field notes, such as reflective, analytical and observational. 

Writing field notes on a regular basis, which include observations, impressions, feelings, thoughts, hunches, questions, among other things is akin to this reflective blog and I think it is really good practice for preparing fieldnotes in a qualitative field study because in qualitative research the research is the research instrument. 

Moreover, that fact that qualitative research is an iterative process and is based on emergent ideas identified, this blog helps us to think, write, analyse and refine so that we develop our emergent ideas. As a result, there is a lot of data in ethnograpic research because not only do you have the primary and secondary of sources as well as data collected from interviews, documents and transcripts, but also you have your own data that is created when you write reflective and analytical memos based on the data you collect. 

Context is imperative because it allows you to give interpretation and therefore meaning to the raw data you collect.  One thing I like about qualitative research, especially in ethnographies and grounded theory is that with the knowledge of what happens in the field you can challenge assumptions.  That is, ethnograhy/field studies leads the researcher to question what we 'take for granted'.  In particular, I read the term 'taken-for-granted' assumptions in a qualitative field study - Chua and Mahama (2007) and at the time I was a little uncertain as to why this expression was used - but now I get it.  Myers (2009, pg. 93) indicates then ethnographic research is the appropriate research method for studying organizational culture, and "organizational culture includes not just the explicit values and behaviours of the members of an organization, but also taken-for-granted assumptions that are virtually impossible to discover if you are there for only a short time".  Ethnographic research is the only method that enables a researcher to spend a considerable amount of time in the field so that you can uncover the unwritten rules of how things work - these unwritten rules are rarely verbalized.  This is like the tacit 'rules of game' that we need to uncover for our academic discipline.