Doing Research in Organizations (RLE: Organizations) by Bryman Alan;

Author:Bryman, Alan;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group

(ii)Oral historical evidence

Amongst organization analysts the technique of oral history is relatively unknown. It was introduced here not as an alternative to the ‘scientific’ lobby of organization researchers but as a genuine attempt to explore the use of a method that could bring some life to the rather barren picture painted by other, more traditional, methods.

A great advantage of using oral history techniques is that previously unexplored or ignored areas of study can be looked at. Spheres of life about which remarkably little is known become accessible. The fact that information is gathered on an individual basis means that the researcher can use his/her own concepts and categories. These might otherwise have been aggregated inappropriately as is often the case with a great deal of secondary statistical sources.

Subjectivity, therefore, lies behind the approach of using oral evidence. Of course, the unwary or unethical might force the data into pre-defined categories and therefore present a view of social and organizational life that is consistent with the researcher’s own theoretical position. It must be stressed that any research method is open to such abuse. Indeed, Hindess (1973) suggests that no set of social statistics can exist independently of its means of production, its sets of categories. Behind any statistics lies a conceptual base that influenced their production.

Since oral evidence is uncategorized, the data are available for reassessment in terms of the applicability of the concepts employed. The interpretation can, therefore, be scrutinized by sceptics. Even the researcher may be prompted to reconsider his/her own position since reassessment is a process that naturally produces new ways of thinking, new questions and new approaches. Oral sources, Passerini (1979, p. 91) has suggested, ‘like the sphynx . . . force us to reformulate problems and challenge our current habits of thought.’

There is a certain proneness to difficulties and dangers that could render the use of oral evidence inadmissible. In the first instance is the issue of reliability. Certainly the reliability of a respondent’s memory is a major worry although Thompson (1979) and Gittins (1979) have suggested that the greatest loss of memory is to be found with a short period recall and that later memory recall is negligible. Even though facts may be recalled, the question of attitudes is more problematic. Distortion of emotions and motives invariably occurs as individuals attempt to harmonize issues.

One of the main aims of the in-depth oral interview is to investigate values. Here the issue of the cultural construction of values is central. Regardless of method, the process of interpretation and reconstruction by the respondent takes place. Thus, any account of the past involves factual events being interpreted through socially constructed values. Using oral evidence makes this process more pronounced and therefore suggests a major advantage. The subjective interpretation common to all reconstruction of the past is possibly more visible with this method. The combination of factual accounts and cultural understanding encourages questioning and interpretation of a kind that does not normally occur with other methods.

The twin problem of validity also needs to be taken into account using this method.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.