It has been seven months since we had this discussion. I wanted to thank you again because I have found IPA to be well suited for my study. Since then, I have read the book by Smith et al. (2009) along with at least 15 articles on IPA. I also attended a workshop on IPA back in November at Aston University in Birmingham. I am now a member of the online IPA community and have been learning a great deal about the approach.
It sounds a little like you've selected a method to fit your perspecive rather than to really explore the problem and the research and discover the methods that expose the phenomena of interest. I'm familiar with Clark Moustakas' and other lived experience methods, but I guess I'm struck by the fact you haven't expressed what your research question is. That's the most critical place to start the inquiry you're sharing!
When I look at the literature in business that I attend to, the phenomenological approach I see most compelling is that of sensemaking, which is an interpretive analysis of lived experience. Either Weick's non-methodological approach to organizational analusis or Dervin's Sense-making Methodology, which is a serious and well-accepted method. Perhaps I should say more about SSMM on Methodspace, because it seems to be missing from discussion.
Peter Jones, Ph.D. Faculty, OCAD University
Thanks for the feedback. Please note that I'm not an experienced researcher, so excuse my ignorance. This is my first research project of this scale. I agree, however, I should have expressed my research question.
I am interested in exploring organizational barriers to strategy implementation. By "organizational" I mean those factors that are internal to the organization. I would like to examine the problems from the perspective of middle managers. So my research question is: How do middle managers describe organizational barriers to strategy implementation?
I guess I will have to read about Dervin's Sense-making Methodology. Thanks for the recommendation.
I've been inquirying into interviewing as well and after attending 3rd year residency, I learned something about Appreciative Inquiry (AI), a qualitiative methodology to open dialogue on positive aspects of an experience.
I thought about AI and after studying it, found that for most AI reported in the literature, the time element did not fit with my phenomenological study on leadersihp because while AI often is set up for inquiry over a period of days, weeks, months, etc., my study will be with participants responding in a one-time interview lasting from 34-60 minutes.
The modified van Kaam method became known to me through dissertations on phenomenology of person-centered problems. The method is for organizing and sorting data, etc. that I will iniitally think about as I conceptualize use of NVivo9 to enter data. The software application does not analyze data but assists the researcher in analysis.
Ahmad I found one article I will cite and reference:
Paesar, S. (2010). Exploring disparities between teachers' expectations and the realities of the education profession. Research in Higher Education Journal, 8(1), 1-19. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
I did not see a doi identifyer
See data collection and analysis section of the article-then the end of the article where he has a nice graphic of themes.
Dr. Jones hi,
Just taking a moment to talk with you about descriptive study and phenomenology. I read that Ahmad is looking to describe middle managers organizational barriers to strategy implementation.
Should he be conducting interviews or focus groups, and depending on length of time span of inquiry, appreciative inquiry (AI) might also work nicely.
I read some on sensemaking and liked the method. I thought it may not suit my one-time semi-structured interview plan but I am still looking into it.