Fieldwork in Organizations

  • Fatma M. AlHaidari
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter gives a full description of the two research field sites of Kuwait City and the Phoenix area and the implemented qualitative methodologies. The chapter begins by spelling out the importance of using ethnography and native ethnography to collect meeting data. Afterward, it provides a synopsis of the qualitative research design of a case study, made up of a report of the two field sites, participants’ demographic details, and a record of the compiled business meetings in both field sites. The final part of the chapter concentrates on the data collection process, sampling, and recruitment, with the goal of creating a case study design that includes field notes, participants’ observations, and audio recording of business meetings.

References

  1. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S. (1997). Managing language: The discourse of corporate meetings. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boas, F. (1966). Race, language and culture. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. (2014, August 12). U.S relations with Kuwait. U.S Department of State. https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35876.htm. Accessed 1 Mar 2017.
  5. Chawla, D. (2006). Subjectivity and the native ethnographer: Researcher eligibility in an ethnographic study of urban Indian women in Hindu arranged marriages. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(4), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duranti, A. (2009). Linguistic anthropology: A reader. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Feagin, J., Orum, A., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). A case for case study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  12. Geertz, C. (1937). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Golafashani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–607.Google Scholar
  14. Grassel, E., & Schirmer, B. (2006). The use of volunteers to support family careers of dementia patients: Results of a prospective longitudinal study investigating expectations towards and experience with training and professional support. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 39(3), 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75–91.Google Scholar
  16. Gulsecen, S., & Kubat, A. (2006). Teaching ICT to teacher candidates using PBL: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 96–106.Google Scholar
  17. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Holmes, J., & Meyerhoff, M. (2003). Different voices, different views: An introduction to current research in language and gender. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(3), 282–292.Google Scholar
  21. Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 214–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: Ac account of native enterprise and adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  24. Merriam, S., & Simpson, E. (1995). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults. Malabar: Krieger.Google Scholar
  25. Meyer, C., & Schareika, N. (2009). Neoklassische Feldforschung: Die mikroskopische Untersuchung sozialer Ereignisse als ethnographische Methode. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 134, 79–129.Google Scholar
  26. Milroy, L., & Gordon, M. (2003). Sociolinguistics: Method and interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Narayan, K. (1993). How native is a native anthropologist? American Anthropologist, 95(3), 671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rampton, B., Karen, T., Janet M., Richard B., Creese, A., & Lytra, V. (2004). UK linguistic ethnography: A discussion paper. UK Linguistic Ethnography Forum. http://www.ling-ethnog.org.uk/documents/discussion_paper_jan_05.pdf.
  29. Rossman, G., & Rallis, S. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Sarangi, S., & Roberts, C. (1999). Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The ethnography of communication: An introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Silverman, D. (2005). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Stewart, A. (1998). The ethnographer’s method. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. Qualitative Report, 3(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  36. Tempe Tourism Office. (2011). Tempe past & present. https://www.tempetourism.com/discover-tempe/tempe-past-present/. Accessed 1 Mar 2017.
  37. U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Population estimates. Quick facts Arizona. July 1, 2016. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AZ. Accessed 1 Mar 2017.
  38. Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fatma M. AlHaidari
    • 1
  1. 1.Public Authority for Applied Education and TrainingKuwait CityKuwait

Personalised recommendations