Epistemic Attitudes and Source Critique in Qualitative Research

Abstract

In this essay, we explore and discuss current practices of source critique. In our empirical analysis of a sample of interview-based studies, we find that few studies show a careful and reflective stance toward their sources. In the majority of cases, we discern a tendency to either ignore basic issues of the trustworthiness of interview material or produce technical descriptions which seem to have no real effect on the actual assessment of the study’s sources. We suggest five epistemic attitudes which describe how scholars engage—or rather not engage—in source critique. To improve source critique, we suggest tactics of intra- and extrasource critique which seriously consider interactional dynamics behind and quality of interview content other than “truth” reporting, aiming to corroborate interview statements by carefully cross-checking interview material with observations and multiple sources.

Sandwiched: Exploring role and identity of middle managers in the genuine middle

“…The five non-heads were invited from across the four schools to ensure additional observations and interpretations of how the heads enacted their role, and since current heads had previously been non-heads and vice versa we were able to cross check interview accounts to substantiate the interview statements and gain several observations on each head. This is important as interviewees, in particular in senior positions, may give a selective, flattering or in other ways biased view of themselves and their work, wanting to give off a positive impression and/or due to a common self-serving bias (Schaefer and Alvesson, 2018;Tourish, 2013). Five of our heads were interviewed twice, while two were interviewed three times over approximately two years, which helped us follow their interpretations of the middle management roles and identities over some time.…”

Rituals and Institutional Maintenance: The Case of the Beating Retreat Ceremony

“…Only believers may have participated in the ritual and a select few may have spoken with me, making the present narrative a lopsided one of unity that does not characterize the institution. Sources need not be authorities whose material we trust uncritically (Schaefer & Alvesson, 2020). Relatedly, it is important to acknowledge author subjectivity in imposing a structure on what was cognized (Gusfield & Michalowicz, 1984).…”

Experiences of arbitrary management among Finnish academics in an era of academic capitalism

“…There are situational and contextual factors, such as power relations, organizational norms and social positions, that will always affect an interview process and the nature of the data that comes from it (Schaefer and Alvesson 2020). In this study, we were aware that the interviewees' previous experiences, and the feelings that these aroused framed much of the way these three academics expressed themselves when interviewed.…”