Aalborg University Denmark August 2002. Business Reality as Social Constructions Methods of Analysis (DRAFT) by Olav Jull Sørensen Abstract 1. Introduction 2. The Social Construction Concept (to be written) 3. The Particularities of Business Reality in a Social Construction Perspective (to be written) 4. Research Methods 1. The need for scientific methodological rules (a paradigm) 2. Focus on empirical studies and a reality, which never reoccur. 3. Participation 4. The Study of Shared Values and Actions 5. The Study of Individual Constructions. 6. The Multiplicity of Sources 5. Sources, Research Instruments and Participation Combined 6. The Research Procedures 6. The Ultimate Tests (to be written) 1. Does the findings make sense? 2. Is the construct logical? 3. Do the actors agree (validity)? 4. Is the process and results transparent? Professor of International Business Aalborg University Fibigerstræde 2 9220 Aalborg Denmark e-mail: OJS@business.auc.dk 1
Abstract The aim of this chapter is to discuss methods of analysis when business reality is socially constructed. Business reality is said to be socially constructed when perceptions and actions of individuals interact to form common views and ways of acting. Thus, the focus of interest is the subjective world of the individuals. The question is what methods do we use to reveal such social constructions, their strengths and how they develop. The answer is complex, as social constructions are not planned. They emerge as a result of daily life activity and thus have no stable structure, which can be measured. Furthermore, the individuals may not be very conscious of the existence of common views, as they are part of the daily routines. Finally, although language will be the main "tool" to identify the existence of social constructions, non-verbal acts may also be found as part of a social construction. The chapter comprises four sections: In section 2, the concept of social construction is briefly discussed and defined. In section 3-5, various methods of analysis are discussed: Section 3 discusses methods to reveal the degree to which a common understanding exists; Section 4 discusses how an historical approach can provide an in-depth understanding of how the social construction emerged. Finally, section 5 takes up the discussion of how the social construction process manifests itself in the daily life and how participative and nonparticipative methods can be used to reveal the process. It is found that both quantitative and non-quantitative methods can be used to gain insight into social constructions. It is also found that the methods of analysis depend on the aim is to describe, provide understanding and meaning or the aim is to work as a change agent. 1. Introduction For the past two decades, the stronghold, within the social sciences, of Logical Empiricism, with its ideal from the natural sciences, has waned and a diversity of approaches to the study of social life has emerged. Some of the more prominent "new" approaches are Phenomenology; Hermeneutics; Critical Theory; Ethnomethodology, and Symbolic Interactionism. Although different, the many approaches have one thing in common: They are all unsatisfied with the answers provided by present social theory and methods to the explanations and understanding of social life. The new approaches position themselves between pure Empiricism, i.e. a physical construction of reality, and pure Rationalism, i.e. a mental construction of reality (Hirschman and Hoolbrook 1992, p. 8). They emphasize reality as a Social, a Linguistic, or an Individual Construction. We are in this paper not concerned with the development of alternative paradigms as such but with the methodological implications of the proposed new paradigm. Neither are we concerned with all the new approaches but restrict the analysis to the Social Construction of Reality. I.e., the basic question to be answered in this paper is how can a social phenomenon, a business reality, be studied assuming that reality is socially constructed? 2
Business reality is said to be socially constructed when actions, experiences and reflections/perceptions of individuals interact to form common views and ways of acting. Thus, the focus of interest is the subjective world of the individual managers and how the subjective views of managers interact and form common views and common ways of acting. For example, in a new industry, a diversity of business strategies can be expected as each company has its own unique interpretation of the industry. Over time, when companies have acquired experience and learned from each other, a common understanding of how to conduct business in the industry may emerge. When reality is socially constructed, common views may emerge. However, no universal law can be found for whether or not common views and understanding will develop and how they develop. How an industry develops depends on the perceptions of the industry actors and how they react to the actions of others. Furthermore, a social construction is not once and for all given. It has no stable structures. The only stable structure is one of continuous change. To construct reality, the actors use verbal and non-verbal acts. Non-verbal business acts are physical actions in production or the market place. A physical act, e.g. making a vase, may or may not have a verbal or symbolic counter pact. It remains tacit knowledge or it may be given a name (or more names) and thus baptised and enter the normal vocabulary of that culture. Similarly, verbal acts may not have a physical counterpart, but remain an abstract concept, well understood by the culture in which it was created. It is, in contrast to tacit knowledge, formal knowledge easily transferable. The concept of social construction will be elaborated in section 2. From the above brief description, it appears that we may have three research interests in social construction: (1) To reveal the existence of common views and common ways of acting in business and the degree of agreement among the actors. (2) The historical development of the common views. What discourses took place? Who were the main actors to set the agenda? (3) The processes of social construction, i.e. how experience and perceptions/reflections form the basis for (inter)actions. In the first case, the task is one of revealing what kind of social construction exists. Have norms and a common vocabulary been developed. To what extent is the same concepts perceived the same way. For example, is there an agreement as to the boundary of the industry. A study by Easton (1992) revealed a big disagreement among companies as to who their competitors are. As the aim is to reveal "the common part of the social construction", it is possible to use the standard scientific techniques known from Positivism. Porac et al. (1995) provides an example of how to investigate the extent of common understandings in an industry. In the second case, the task is to understand how a specific phenomenon became socially constructed. Why was it put on the agenda? Who were the main partners in the discourse? How did the vocabulary emerge and how was it changed over time? What 3
problems were solved? This approach to reveal social constructions is depending on historical sources. An example of how to conduct a study is provided by Andersen (1997). He has studied the phenomenon "outsourcing" of public activities in order to find out how this concept has emerged and how it became THE recipe for the present day discussion of public efficiency and finance. In the third case, our interests relate to how a specific company is managed. How do the actions and thus the experience of managers and their perception of the situation influence the strategy of the company. What would the implications of an alternative view be. For example, a study of TetraPak revealed that, although the common understanding of business among the managers is one of the Planning Approach (Sørensen, 19), daily life activity revealed that the managers were closer to that of a Networker. Only through participation in the daily life of the company was it possible to reveal how they actually constructed their reality. 4. Research Methodology 4.1. The Need for Scientific Rules As pointed out in section 1, business reality according to the social construction paradigm is constructed through the intentional actions of individuals who base their actions on experience, perception and reflection. As an act is directed towards someone who in turn reacts, individual actions are at the same time interactions which may or may not create shared values and behavior. Thus, reality is created through a stream of individual and social constructions. Researchers, who hold the reality to be subjective and a social construction, face the challenge of developing a set of scientific rules and a methodology compatible with this understanding of a scientific social constructed reality. Needless to say, these rules cannot be the same as those of positivism, even if positivism and social constructionism have the same basic aim, that of enhancing our knowledge of social life. The aim of this section is to present and discuss the methodology to guide business researchers advocating a social construction view of the business reality. The section does not discuss meta-scientific issues as this area has been covered by many. Focus is on the practical methodological level, i.e. what rules to follow when a researcher (or a student) carry out a study of a single company (or sections thereof), an industry, or a business system in general and afterwards claim validity of his research findings. 4.2. Focus on empirical studies and a non-recurrent reality. It is self-evident, as the business reality is subjective and constructed by its actors, empirical studies are at the very core of scientific work. I.e., the daily life (daily 4
actions and interactions) in the company is the starting point of research and this reality should be approached systematically but without any pre-conceived ideas and hypotheses. Furthermore, it must be realized that the reality to be studied is in a continuous flux, it is a stream of events and in a state of becoming. It is not as in positivism governed by universal rules and it never will repeat itself. Routines will be found and they will exist for some time, but as they are soviet constructions they may vanish tomorrow. The two together, the non-allowed pre-conceived ideas and the non-repetitive reality, forms a big challenge to the guidelines to be prepared for social construction oriented researchers. First of all, social construction oriented researchers do not believe it to be possible to be neutral and with no ideas a priory before entering a specific empirical field such as a specific company. Secondly, reality as a never-ending stream of events, makes it impossible to repeat a study and thus, the very important reliability rule from positivism, is not applicable. Both issues will be dealt with in more details below. The empirical reality enters social construction studies in two ways: (1) History is important as an empirical "fact" for understanding how reality has been constructed. This is reflected in the concept of experience of individuals and in the gradually developed shared views, which are also a result of processes over time. However, the way historical facts are used is different from the conventional use of history - a preamble, a trend, specific events, etc. In social construction, we are less interested in events than in the social agenda, the discourses under the agenda and the social actors formulating the agenda. I.e., how did certain views emerge, for example, in a company? Who were the major actors to set the agenda and lead the debate? Thus, historical sources must be consulted to get a feel for how we came to where we are. (2) The historical analysis is complementary to and supportive of the study of the present reality. In section 5, we will discuss in more details, how to design an empirical study. Here it suffice to say that the core of the empirical study is to identify the dominant actors (managers) and get access to their perceptions and actions within reality, including how their perceptions are historically rooted. 4.3. Participation From section 4.1. follows, that the ideal within social constructionism is to maximize interaction between the researcher and the subjects to be studied in order to reveal how the subjects perceive reality, their experiences and the motivations for intentions of their action. The ultimate decision maker is expected to view reality through the research report prepared by the researcher and the researcher is expected to prepare the research report detached from the subjects, i.e. by means of a set of quantitative measurements. Both paradigms may however aim to provide advice, i.e. produce 5
normative results. But they do it differently. While the advise in case of positivism follows logically from the scientific investigation, the advise may be part and parcel of the very process of investigation in case of social constructionism, i.e. it is part of the ongoing (reflective) process between the researcher and the subjects under study. Two basic designs can be identified: At one extreme, the researcher aims to minimize his influence and at the other extreme, he may aim to influence, i.e. change reality (action research). In between, we may have the situation where the researcher, through the techniques used, may "..help the respondents think about their own worlds and consider, possibly for the first time, the way they construct their reality. " (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe 1995, p. 71). This may in turn, trigger the respondent, rather than the researcher, to initiate change. Thus, while the daily life is characterized by know-how and know-who, the research may result in raising the issue of know why, i.e. provide understanding and, not make sense of what people are doing, but reveal the meaning. This approach is in contrast to positivism. Here both the ultimate decision maker and the researcher must be detached from the subjects under study. To maximize interaction with the subject to be researched, four basic approaches can be used (a) participation in the daily work (doing); (b) interviewing, and (c) observing. Based on these approaches, participation may take different forms. The researcher as an employee In this case interaction is optimal as the researchers work among the people they study and they get experience from doing the work, i.e. hands-on experience. The only difference between the researchers and the regular employees is that the former is not satisfied with know-how and know-who but goes further into a reflective stage to reveal the meaning and the know-why of the daily work. This method is not used very much, because it is often not possible for researchers to work as normal employees for two reasons: They do not have the skills and it is difficult to get the necessary permits to go behind the stage. These problems are, for two reasons, less severe in case of business management. In the first place, the researchers and the managers often have the same academic background and thus have the same vocabulary and the same way of thinking although the former know more about know-why and the latter more about know-how and -whom. Secondly, the present trend towards more deep cooperation between universities and the business community makes it easier to get access to companies. In various countries, schemes have been established to further such exchange in order for research results to diffuse faster to the companies and their managers. Research through close cooperation with the company. In this case, the researcher is not an employee but may come to the company at any time and conduct in-depths interviews. In addition, the researcher may have access to internal documentary materials and may participate in internal meetings, etc. 6
In this case, it is essential to establish procedures for the cooperation both in order to build trust but also as part of the reflection process. For example, minutes may be used as a follow up of interviews in order to check their correctness, build common understanding, and as part of an ongoing reflection process. Research through panels of companies While the researcher concentrates on a single company or a few companies in the first two cases, the use of panels provide the opportunity to investigate more companies over time. The investigation will be less deep in case questionnaires are used but it will be broader (comparative) and longitudinal by using the same set of companies over a longer period. The idea is that the companies may agree or even sign a contract that they are willing to complete a minimum set of questionnaires per year, each with a focused topic. The initial questionnaires will cover a set of basic background questions to be used for analysis in the subsequent studies. The methodology can be improved by taking advantage of Internet based interactive software. It is then possible to have a more extensive dialogue and, for example, isolate special cases and continue the dialogue. The method may even result in joint publication as an outcome of the dialogue. It is also possible to create a network dialogue instead of the one to one dialogue between the researcher and each of the respondents. Research through experiments I general, social scientists, including business researches have little change to conduct genuine experiments. A Chinese colleague in the field of co-operation informed me one time that their research academy had officially assigned to the academy a specific rural area in which they could conduct experiments. However, rarely, if ever, are business schools offered the opportunity to conduct experiments in a private company. Even so, the Internet do open up for the possibility of conducting experiments in real business life. Again, the Internet is the tool providing for such opportunities. A case in point is a PhD project, the aim of which is to create an Internet portal for the building of business co-operation between Danish and Brazilian companies. The PhD-student is the web creator and master. The idea is while the companies do business, the PhD-student study the process and interact with the companies. This approach may not completely adhere to the conventional rules of experiments. On the other hand, it is not completely in accordance with action research as the PhD-student is the very creator of the basic rules of the game. 4.4. The Study of Shared Values and Actions In section 1, it was pointed out that a business as a social construction is the result of interplay between individual constructions. This interplay may or may not result in shared values and actions, i.e. in a reality, which is intersubjectively understood. The concept of sharedness is important in, for example, organizational research. At 7
company level, some organization researchers define a company as an organization with shared objectives and values. In less extreme cases, it is commonly agreed that to function well, it is essential that a company has a common culture. This is in contrast to the market and competitive level. Here it is essential for companies to have a competitive advantage and this advantage is obtained by being, in some way, unique vis-a-vis the competitors. However, there is a limit to how unique a company can be before it faces too high risks by falling outside the perceptions of the customers. Furthermore, as many managers have studied the same best ways of management, they also tend to think alike and thus not deviate too much from each other. In general, it is found that competitors do not stay very far from each other. Thus, at industry level, we expect to find a mix of uniqueness and shared values and behaviors. The uniqueness is the result of a social construction process taking place at the individual company level in a deliberate attempt to become different from the competitors, i.e. products are differentiated and some may even be niche products. The shared values are a result of the interaction between producers/competitors and customers. Moving one step up, to the level of the business system, we also find culturally and institutionally based recipes used by all companies. Shared values and activities are not created over night. They emerge over time as a result of numerous interactions between producers and customers. Thus, in general, it is to expect that the older a company, an industry or a business system, the more well defined are the shared part of conducting business. For example, it can be expected that within the textile industry, an industry recipe has emerged, one, which everybody knows and the majority adheres to. However, the simple rule of the older the more shared values cannot be trusted completely. It is evident that in the transition economies, such as Russia, the shared values are few due to the short span of time since the market economic reforms were introduced. In contrast, most industries in the EU are old and followed a general recipe until the Japanese started entering the market. They used a different business recipe and thus, the old shared reality was shaken. To use the terminology from above, when the Japanese companies entered the European market, the shared know-how and the tight network of know-who in Europe became partly obsolete and the managers of EU-companies had to turn to the know-why question in order to find a new competitive formula which could match the Japanese one. In conclusion, the business reality is a mix of uniqueness and commonly agreed upon ways of perceiving reality and ways of acting within it. Relating this rationale to the methodological issue, it is evident that we must and can use different techniques to study uniqueness compared to shared values. In this section, we focus on the study of sharedness while in the following we will look at the uniqueness within the business reality. Companies may have shared values in relation to objectives to be pursued, e.g. maximizing market share; perceptions, e.g. only continuous innovation can make the companies stay competitive, and actions, e.g. using a specific way of calculating prices. These shared values are socially constructed through the interaction over time at the same time as they are or rather have become empirical facts to such an extent that 8
managers and especially newcomers to the industry, consider them as objective facts. Obviously, the more shared values, perceptions and actions are considered "facts of the company's daily business life", the easier is it to reveal the business recipe of the company or industry. In cases of a high degree of sharedness or a strong intersubjectivity, we can speak of a temporary and context specific business law, temporary because it may be changed tomorrow (although it is not likely) and context specific because we cannot expect to find the same pattern in other business systems, industries or companies. To reveal these laws, we may use quantitative methods of the same caliber as those used by our positivistic oriented colleagues. The difference is that while the positivists are looking for a universal law, the question asked by the social constructivist is "to what extent has shared values, perceptions and actions emerged in the field under study". Although both quantitative in nature, the two methodologies will differ as the social constructivist will be open for uniqueness as well as sharedness. 4.5. The Study of Individual Constructions If a researcher wants to describe and understand the motives, the behavior, the opinions etc. of a manager, positivism demands the researcher to be as much detached from the manager as possible while social constructivism advocates intensive interaction. In the former case, the researcher wants the spontaneous answers without any external influences. While, the researcher, in the latter case wants reflected answers through a dialogue between the researcher and the subject. From section 1, it is known that the individual construct reality by way of actions which provide hands-on experience, observations of, and information from reality. The experience, the observations and the information is reflected upon (internal mental processes) which provides the actor with his or her perception of reality. The perceptions are voiced, i.e. presented and discussed with other actors, which in turn creates a new perception, etc. Thus, the individual never reaches an absolute clarification. The construction process is eternal - it is a stream, not a structure. To dig into the construction process of the individual and either get a snap-shut of it or participate in it, we need special tools and approaches. To tap into the experience, we may ask about the actions. An often-used method is to get an account of the major events in the company over the years, e.g. a major reorganization or the procurement of new machinery. Major events are sticky in the sense of reflecting the past at the same time as they more than smaller events outline the future. Knowing the events, we also know the kind of experience obtained. To tap into the interaction and thus the influence and resources from outside, we may draw an actor s map and identify dominant players. To tap into the perceptions, i.e. the way the manager sees things, we may try to describe his business recipe, i.e. is he a Planning Man, an Action Man or a Networker. In 9
addition, what makes a company competitive and successful? Finally, to tap into reflections, we need to sit down and discuss, probing in order to let him express how he makes sense of what he is doing, what meaning he attaches to what he is doing etc. Thus, to describe the individual manager s construction process is not an easy task, but if we want to understand his action, it is essential to reveal how he understands reality. 4.6. The Multiplicity of Sources Within social constructionism, the interaction between the actors is the most important source of information for our knowledge generation. However, there are numerous other sources. Teachers who supervise students in internship know very well that the major problem for the students is to get all the information documented and especially used. How can they put it together to an understanding of the company within which they work? Most researchers, especially those who lean towards the positivistic paradigm, never experience this richness in information sources. By formulating apriory their hypotheses and restricting the data collection to one, maximum two, modes, they are in control of both sources and data. This is also true for these social constructionists, who restrict their data collection to, for example, only a few selective in-depth interviews. Thus, in general the researcher rarely never experiences the problems of richness of sources and different perceptions by colleagues in the company. Assuming a situation, where the researcher/student is working in the company, the sources and the type of inputs they get can be summarized as follows: 1. Experience from own actions (hands-on-experience) 2. Discussions with colleagues in formal groups (sales meetings, task forces etc.) or informally over lunch etc. (information and reflections) 3. Daily observations, hints and rumors (information) 4. Documentary materials (regular reports, notes, consultance reports etc.) 5. Meetings with customers, suppliers, other businessmen, professionals etc. The question is, how to put all these impressions together to a coherent (although not necessarily conflict free) totality. A priory, you cannot eliminate any of the sources. They all contribute to the patchwork. 5. Sources, Research Instruments and Participation Combined In the previous sections, sources of information, the instruments used to collect data and the degree of participation on part of the researcher were discussed individually. In this section, the three dimensions will be combined to form the research design. See Figure 1. 10
At one extreme, the research design is very simple, comprising only one source, e.g. marketing managers, and one research instrument, e.g. a structured questionnaire. If the researcher, at the same time, is completely detached from the source, the researcher is in complete control of the research process and the following data analysis. This research design is the ideal positivistic design. At the other extreme, the research design is very complex, comprising multiple sources, e.g. all managers in a company, and multiple instruments, e.g. interviews, observations, written material, chats, etc. If the researcher at the same time is completely attached to the sources, e.g. through an employment position or at least regular visits to the company, the researcher has very little control over the process and a high complexity in the data analysis. This research design is the ideal hermeneutic design. Figure 1. Research Design Sources: Instruments: One Many One Positivistic design with detached researcher and complete control over the process Many Hermeneutic design with attached researcher on a search mission The hermeneutic research design is complex in the sense that it is difficult to manage the many different types of data. One way is to make an analysis of the data from each source and instrument and then add the analytical results. This piecemeal fashion has the weakness that it assumes that 2+2 is 4 while the starting point is that this is not the case. Synergy cannot be captured nor can dynamics in the phenomenon under investigation. Another way is to scan the data to identify key actors and themes. Key actors and themes combined produce the agenda, i.e. what is important and how is themes are italesat. A research procedure where the nexus is the key actors and the themes will be outlined in the following section. 6. Research Procedures At risk of becoming too structuralistic and thus not able to pursue the research in a flexible way, the following procedure is proposed as a reference for researchers using the social construction perspective: 1. Account of your pre-understanding. Knowing, in broad terms, the assignment, i.e. the empirical phenomenon to be studied, e.g. the marketing organization and activities, the researcher prepares a brief account of his present understanding of the phenomenon with emphasis on his assumptions and values. For example, he may hold the view that marketing is manipulation and selling to people something they do not need. As the pre-understanding of the researcher will 11
influence his approach to the study, it is essential that they are written down. The researcher may also in general write down his view on how reality is constructed. Is it an objective fact or is it a social construction. 2. Study the available historical materials, i.e. reports, statistics, etc. The study of the historical material and present documents has two purposes: The first purpose is to save time in the sense of not bothering the employees with questions, if the material is in written or other documentary form. The second reason is that history matter in the sense that the present views on the marketing reality have emerged over time as a result of historical actions and interactions. It is important to stress that this way of using history is different from the conventional way. Conventionally, history is used to prolong trends into the future, i.e. the starting point is far back in history. In our case, where the aim is to understand a present phenomenon (and not forecast), we ask the question, how can history contribute to the understanding of the way marketing is conducted in the company today. Furthermore, when studying historical sources, we look for major events, which are consequences of historical actions and interactions at the same time as they point to the views on the future reality. We also look for the historical agenda, i.e. what were the major debates in relation to marketing and who sat the agenda (dominating actors). 3. Identify key actors in the company and outside the company The review of historical and present materials may provide information enough to a first actor s map, i.e. a map of the dominant actors and how they are related horizontally, vertically and socially. 4. Carry out a first interview with a key actor to qualify your pre-understanding (p.1-3) Based on the actors map, it is possible to identify the first actor to be interviewed. It is obviously that an actor who are dominant in terms of setting the agenda and who has knowledge of the history of the marketing organization and activity is to be preferred. Otherwise the natural choice is the marketing manager or the general manager at this stage where the aim is less detailed data but the broad lines. Methodologically, this interview as all the following is open-ended and only partly structured. Furthermore, all questions are of the type where the person being interviews expresses how he understands the phenomenon. For example, we do not ask how many big customers do you have or what is the company's marketing strategy. We ask "in your marketing, do you work with any special grouping of your customers" and "how do you see the future". Thus, it is the one being interviewed that defines how reality looks like, not the interviewer. 5. Prepare a list of important themes (e.g. main actors; what are the main issues discussed; present organizations and resources; marketing people in relation to others in the company and to customers). 12
Based on the historical account and the inspirational interview, the researcher enter reflection stage one where he arrange the materials (interpret the materials) according to "themes". He may have one or more of the following themes: Conflicts with other departments; Customers are unsatisfied; The themes reflect the present agenda in the company - at least as it is seen from the one who was interviewed (and interpreted by the researcher). 6. Confront the findings with people to get approval and further development Now the researcher has a skeleton onto which he can put additional information. Intentionally, the researcher should use as many sources of information and methods as possible, including own actions (if he is an employee or on internship), interviews, observations, rumors, etc. He should also be sure of getting the opinions from and views of people from different departments, different levels in the hierarchy, dominant and non-dominant opinions, and external actors (customers, suppliers, other researchers, etc. In principle, he should carry on until the agenda does not change, i.e. all themes have been covered rather comprehensively. This process should thus make it possible to get a complete agenda on marketing organization and activities. At this stage, the researcher may also start reflection stage two involving separating shared views and unique views held by individuals. He may also analyze the materials from the point of view of coherency or conflictual views. Many shared views indicate a stable organization. Uniqueness indicates perhaps dynamics and/or potential conflicts. 7. Reflect and consult/get inspiration from theory to develop understanding and make sense-models To further the reflection, the researcher may consult and get inspiration from the theoretical literature. Again a broad search is recommended although it may be tempting to put all the data (or as many as possible) into one model and that's it. Theories are logical constructs, most of which are empirically based. They may thus have rationales and views, which prove useful when applied to the materials on the themes. For example, to what extent can a deeper understanding be obtained if the themes are related to the network theory or the marketing management theory. 8. Collect more information to qualify, add new and eliminate existing themes. As an integrated part of point 7 and 8, findings are presented to various actors both for confirmation (did I understand correctly) and to further the dialogue and thus improve the understanding. As indicated above, such dialogues may go far beyond revealing the know-how of marketing and the know-who and make the people interviewed realize how they view reality, something they may never have thought of before, and thus create a basis for action. 9. Continue previous point until a coherent understanding is appearing. 13
No rules can be given as to when to stop the learning cycles, comprising the circles of dialogue, inspiration from theories and reflections. The running out of time or resources will often stop the process. If not, then it may stop when additional rounds do not contribute very much more to the understanding, i.e. the researchers - within the framework he has used - have reached a social construct, which is: a. Logical and consistent b. Making sense to the employees in the company, i.e. this is how they see reality constructed. c. Documentation of transparency as to the methods used and data collected. It should be added, that the final results are the subjective interpretation of the researcher even if the employees agree to what was found. Furthermore, it is not possible to use the usual reliability test for two reasons: The employees developed their understanding during the research process through the interaction with the researchers. Secondly, when the reliability test is carried out, the employees may again have developed their understanding further. References: Arbnor, I. and B. Bjerke (1997): Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge. 2 nd edition. Sage: London. Easterby-Smith, M., R. Thorpe, and A. Lowe (1996): Management Research. An Introduction. Sage: London Hirschman, E. C. and M. B. Holbrook (1992): Postmodern Consumer Research. The Study of Consumption as Text. Sage. Popova, J. and O. J. Sørensen (1997): Marketing as Social Construction. Alternative Views on the Interface between the Enterprise and the Environment. Paper presented at Workshop on Business Systems in the South, Copenhagen Business School, Jan. 22-24, 1997. 14