Zooming in and zooming out: doing qualitative longitudinal research in the UK and US’

1. Zooming in and zooming out: doing qualitative longitudinal research in the UK and US’ Jacky Swan 25rd November 2011

2. What I will talk about • The challenges of the research context knowledge intensive work across nations • Example research study • Doing the research

3. I won’t talk about • Much theory on KIFs/globalization • Analysis/findings • A review of the academic literature on qualitative research • A recipe for doing qualitative research • The challenges of working across a 6-person team! • The many trials of publication….

4. Researching Knowledge-Intensive Organizations – The Context • The Evolution of Biomedical Knowledge: Interactive Innovation in the UK and US • Jacky Swan, Sue Newell, Maxine Robertson, Mike Bresnen, Anna Goussevskaia, AdemolaObembe • Research Policy (2007), 36, 529-547. • Research Context: Biomedical innovation – creation and application of scientific and technological knowledge to improve the delivery of human healthcare and the treatment of disease (Rasmussen, 2005) • Novel therapeutics • Main Question: What processes at the institutional and project levels facilitate or impede the development of knowledge for biomedical innovation

5. Networked/Interactive Innovation • The locus of innovation is ‘the network of inter-organizational relationships that sustain a fluid and evolving community’ (Powell et al. 1996). • university scientists, hospital clinicians, biotech, large pharma, clinical research organizations, investors (e.g. VCs), regulators • Innovation highly knowledge-intensive & NON LINEAR • Emergence (of knowledge, problems, unanticipated events) is the norm (Dougherty & Dunne, 2011) • Knowledge evolves in an open-ended, ‘inherently indeterminate’ manner (Tsoukas, 1996). • Outcomes and potential applications of new discoveries are unknown (or even unknowable) at the start (Dougherty, 2007; Pisano, 2006) • Poses significant challenges for research

6. Why the US and UK? • Global knowledge-intensive industry (global pharma and regulation) • US & UK both ‘Liberal Market’ economies (Whitley, 2000) • Both world class in R&D & market leaders in biotech • Both highly professionalised with similar regulatory frameworks • But national/institutional differences • availability of human resources, access to technology, access to finance (Casper,2000,Casper & Kettler, 2000), healthcare systems

7. Institutional Differences Summarised As… • US more supportive than UK of ‘integrative’ and ‘relational’ capabilities (Owen-Smith et al, 2002) • Integrative capabilities - the ability to integrate knowledge by moving back and forth between basic science, commercial and clinical development • Relational capabilities - the ability to collaborate with diverse organizations • What is the impact project level?

8. Zooming In and Zooming Out (CfNicolini, 2009) MESO Network dynamics MICRO MACRO Innovation projects national differences Knowledge integration Institutional theory Practice theory ZOOMING IN ZOOMING OUT

9. Research design • 3-year study • Zooming In – Longitudinal case studies of innovation projects (N =10) • Early stage development of novel therapeutics • Interview, materials, & observation of project practices • Zooming Out • Interview based survey of key stakeholders groups involved in early-stage biomedical innovation (N=97) • Secondary data sources

10. Example: project meetings I walked into the boardroom at around 11.58 pm and saw MH (Clinical Director). I introduced myself. She asked if I was doing a presentation. I said no because the agenda is full. She said that it was always full. The Project Manager chaired the meeting. Items on the agenda were timed to as little as 2-minute slots. Every item was almost exactly on time and many conversations were cut off. As I was chatting with the scientist afterwards she confessed her antipathy at having to stick to such ‘ridiculous’ schedules. “We never have time to talk about what is really happening. We should just tear up these stupid gannt charts” What did I learn about? time compression/commodification, the absurdity of project management tools in emergent contexts

11. Formal Criteria for design and evaluation (National Science Foundation Report)

12. Doing QR - an iterative process (just like the innovation processes being observed!)

13. “You learn something (‘collect some data’), then you try and make sense out of it (‘analysis’), then you go back and see if the interpretation makes sense in light of new experience (‘collect more data’), then you refine your interpretation (‘more analysis’), and so on. The process is dialectic, not linear.” (Agar, 1996, p. 62) • Formal criteria cannot be applied directly • Research fails if it is formulaic (Feldman) • In your project, you need to innovate and be imaginative. You can’t just apply a method!

14. Zooming Out - Challenges • Where to start/who to speak to esp in non- home country • Advice from SAB • Researcher’s networks influence network analysis! • Learning while asking questions • Both expert and novice • Mundane matters matter • Confidences & confidentiality • Relative importance of the research

15. Handling Cultural Norms & Expectations • We both speak English but… • Access in US actually easier • Reflects the inst differences (integrative capabilities) • Credibility institutionally based • More legalistic/formal in US • But non disclosure agreements made conversations more open • Expectations of ‘payback’ also differed • Some advantage in being a ‘foreign’ researcher

16. Zooming In - Challenges • Locating bounded areas of practice/projects where work/interactions are so fluid • Emergence means projects disappear and reappear • Innovation defined post-hoc (same process can be described as a mistake!) • Challenge of observing/discussing when you lack contributory expertise (Evans and Collins)

17. Zooming in Challenges (Contd) • Post-hoc rationalization is natural to sensemaking in fluid situations • Longitudinal research helps • Participants don’t always like what you say! • Paradox of national ‘comparative’ research • Myth of matching (cases and data sets) • Not a problem if your position is interpretivism (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2000) • Creating knowledge/insights = Drawing new distinctions (cfTsoukas) not comparing along prefixed dimensions

18. Practical Tactics • Practiced interactive innovation • SAB in both countries • Feedback workshops (esp in non home country) • Having a US-based researcher • Study leave period • Started with more than we needed (because projects disappear and reappear) • Travelled in packs (or 2 anyway)!

19. Practical Tactics (Contd) • DIY – do your own fieldwork (or at least some of it!) • Work with the institutionalised practices • E.g. used NDAs in the US • Expect to be ‘lost’ • Sort the mundane stuff early • Go with the flow & follow the practices opportunistically • Throw away your project management tools! • It is not a linear process

20. Resources (2) • Langley, A. (1999) 'Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data', Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 691-710 • Barley, S. (1990) ‘Images of Imaging: Notes on Doing Longitudinal Field Work, Organization Science, vol. 1 no. 3 220-247 • Heracleous, L. (2006) A Tale of Three Discourses: The Dominant, the Strategic and the Marginalized, Journal of Management Studies, 43(5) 1059-1087 • Spradley, J. 1979. Ethnographic Interview. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York • Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming In and Out: Studying Practices by Switching Theoretical Lenses and Trailing Connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391-1418. • Barley, S. R. (1986). TECHNOLOGY AS AN OCCASION FOR STRUCTURING - EVIDENCE FROM OBSERVATIONS OF CT SCANNERS AND THE SOCIAL-ORDER OF RADIOLOGY DEPARTMENTS. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78-108.

21. Resources (3) • Bailey, D. E., Leonardi, P. M., & Chong, J. (2010). Minding the Gaps: Understanding Technology Interdependence and Coordination in Knowledge Work. ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, 21(3), 713-730. • Pettigrew, A. (1990) Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice,Organization Science, 1 (3), 267- 292 • Pettigrew, A. (1997) What is Processual Analysis?, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13 (4), 337-348 • Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990) Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria, Qualitative Sociology, 13 (1), 3- 21