Using the Research Journal during Qualitative Data Collection in a Cross-Cultural Context
-
Anne Annink
Abstract
This article shows how a research journal can be used as a tool to reflect on issues arising during the phase of data collection. Especially in cross-cultural comparative research, unexpected cultural issues are likely to arise. The most critical is the phase of data collection, where decisions have to be made quickly. This article demonstrates how to establish and maintain a research journal during cross-cultural face-to-face interviewing with entrepreneurs. It provides ten suggestions for “what” and “why” to take notes on during five phases of data collection. Furthermore, the article elaborates on how a research journal could be used to deal with emotions as well as methodological and ethical issues that may arise.
Introduction
In sociological research, there is a long tradition of providing accounts of the research process (Quilgars et al. 2009). Unfortunately, in entrepreneurship journal articles, researchers hardly mention issues that arise during the actual phase of data collection. Gómez and Kuronen (2011) refer to this phase as the “grass-root level”, where the work is actually done and decisions are made. Especially in cross-cultural comparative entrepreneurship research, this is the level where most unexpected cultural issues and differences arise. Reflective data is often omitted from the final written report because the researcher may seek to conceal and suppress certain relevant, and at times, personal aspects during research. These missing voids affect the findings and their reading, even if the reader is unaware of its existence or influence (Weiner-Levy and Popper-Giveon 2013). If present, reflections are mainly on practical issues and research design, such as whether or not to hire a translator (see for example Williamson et al. 2011) and not on the phase of interviewing itself.
So far, little is written about the role of the research journal as a learning tool and how to establish and maintain it (Engin 2011). For these reasons, the complexity of comparative research on entrepreneurship requires greater attention, particularly when the study is conducted by a single researcher. This article aims to explain how a journal can be used to reflect on issues arising during the phase of data collection. This article is based on a case study and uses practical examples from conducting interviews with entrepreneurs in various countries. Entrepreneurship researchers may benefit from using a research journal and improve the transparency and quality of cross-cultural interview studies in entrepreneurship research.
In cross-cultural qualitative research (which can be multicultural, multilingual, multinational, or multiregional), the main aim is to study entrepreneurs in different cultural settings. This research often takes place at the level of local practices, entrepreneur’s everyday life, and experiences. A major advantage of the in-depth qualitative cross-national approach is that it enables the researcher to analyze the entrepreneurial phenomena “from inside”, in their cultural and social context, in actual local practices, and in entrepreneur’s everyday life. This is more difficult, if not impossible, in large-scale multi-national comparisons (Gómez and Kuronen 2011).
Comparative research methods have long been used in cross-cultural studies to identify, analyze, and explain similarities and differences among entrepreneurs. These methods serve as a means of gaining a better understanding of different structures and institutions influencing entrepreneurship. More recently, as greater emphasis has been placed on contextualization. Cross-national comparison, which has been encouraged by (European) government and research funding bodies to monitor, report, and evaluate developments, has coincided with the growth of interdisciplinary and international collaboration and networking in entrepreneurship research (Hantrais 2008).
Yet, relatively few entrepreneurship researchers feel they are well equipped to conduct studies that to cross national boundaries. In case they do, it is most common to have a multi-national team of researchers with local researchers collecting data from their home country and in their native language (Hantrais 2008; Mangen 1999). Although teamwork in cross-cultural research benefits from theoretical, methodological, and practical discussions between researchers, Agar (1980) argues that the feeling of being “the professional stranger” is missing. By contrast, solo-researchers conducting cross-cultural comparative research by themselves are able to see things from a different perspective when in a foreign culture and society, but also in one’s own country after taking distance from it. Especially in this type of research setting, reflection is important.
I will start this article by elaborating on the importance of reflection and keeping a journal as a tool do to so. I will then demonstrate how to establish and maintain such a journal during five phases of cross-cultural face-to-face interviewing with entrepreneurs. I provide ten suggestions of “what” and “why” to take notes on during these five phases. Furthermore, I elaborate on how a research journal could be used to deal with emotions during the phase of data collection. Lastly, crucial issues such as compliance to the study protocol and ethical issues will be addressed.
The Importance of Reflection
Reflexivity emphasizes an awareness of the researcher’s own presence in the research process, with the aim of improving the quality of the research. Over the past few years, a researcher’s positionality, his identity, conceptions, origin, and gender have been considered factors likely to influence the choice of research topic, field work, data analysis, and presentation (Weiner-Levy and Popper-Giveon 2013). Gokah (2006) argues, based on his own experiences, how (naïve) researchers are likely to be confronted with field realities that may threaten their well-being or research work. Borg (2001) notes that emotions too are an undeniable part of the human researcher’s work. Usually, reflexivity in the literature is discussed as an individual activity. Furthermore, thinking reflexively is often portrayed as an afterthought in qualitative analysis, an exercise to conduct once the data has been collected and the results have been written up (Browne 2013). Reflective data, however, may show relevant findings that would otherwise have been missed (Weiner-Levy and Popper-Giveon 2013).
The Research Journal as a Tool for Reflection
Reflection by solo researchers is often done in written forms such as journals (or diaries) and case records (Boutilier and Mason 2012).The case record is based on a problematic situation and includes a factual description of an event and reflection on the nature of the situation, the action taken, the alternatives considered, and the possible outcomes (Kottkamp 1990). Journal writing expands the scope of such reflection beyond problematic situations. In addition to a case record, it contains a critical analysis of the (political) context in which actions unfold, the researchers’ knowledge, skills, expertise, values, assumptions, and the emotions evoked by the research. The research journal is a tool for observing, questioning, critiquing, synthesizing, and acting. The specific elements it may contain are: (1) data obtained by observation, interviews, and informal conversations; (2) additional items such as photographs and letters; (3) contextual information; (4) reflections; and (5) ideas and plans for subsequent research steps (Altrichter and Holly 2005).
By integrating these elements and using the journal throughout the research, it becomes a tool for reflection in the midst of making choices, which is also referred to as reflection-in-action (Boutilier and Mason 2012, 200). Newbury (2001, 3) argues that the research journal can be seen as “a melting pot for all of the different ingredients of a research project – prior experience, observations, readings, ideas – and a means of capturing the resulting interplay of elements”. Browne (2013) shows that it may also become a tool to air grievances, to rationalize decision making processes at times of great uncertainty, and an opportunity for researchers to be open and honest about their personal transformation during the fieldwork process. The research journal can assist the researcher in acknowledging these emotions, expressing them, and particularly where these emotions threaten the progress of the research, analyzing and reacting to them. It may contain conversations, poetry, drawings, and songs that may assist in making feelings and thoughts more clear (Boutilier and Mason 2012). After introducing the case study in the next section, this article continues by demonstrating how to establish and maintain a research journal.
A Case Study Approach
I use examples from my own research about the work-life balance of independent professionals, who are highly skilled solo independent professionals and engaged in service activities (Leighton and Brown 2013; Rapelli 2012). This explorative comparative case study, conducted in three European countries as a solo researcher, was designed to understand, in-depth, how social support increases the independent professionals’ abilities for work-life balance. Data was collected by a semi-structured questionnaire based on the capability approach adjusted to work-life balance (Hobson 2014) and literature on social support and work-life balance. I interviewed 50 entrepreneurs in total in The Netherlands (N=16), Spain (N=17), and Sweden (N=17) and worked and lived in each country for minimum of three months. In each country, I approached the owners of several co-working spaces to invite independent professionals to participate in the research. Next, the interviewees were asked to forward our invitation to colleagues who worked from home via the snowball method. A pro of this method is that it allowed us to ensure variation in the sample, for example in location of the work place, occupation, gender, and parental status. Data was collected through audio taped interviews, lasting approximately one hour. The interviews took place between January and August 2015 at co-working spaces, cafés, or at homes in Rotterdam, Valencia, and Malmö. In the next section, I will elaborate on how I established and maintained a research journal during this research project.
Establishing and Maintaining a Research Journal
During my research project, I kept a digital journal in Microsoft Word and Excel in a folder on my laptop. The Word document contained the methodological steps taken to gather my data, including key persons and organizations. In an Excel file, I recorded the important contact details of participants during the period of fieldwork. The Excel file contained three sheets with one for each country. The columns contained information such as date of the interview, email address, web page, telephone number, age, family situation, and work location. Later, I added numerical data from the exercises I did with participants, but also, for example, descriptive data about the setting in which we met. I updated this file as soon as I got home after the interview or, for example, when I received a confirmation email from participants. Besides a digital, practical journal, I bought a small notebook which I always carried with me in my bag, because I noticed that ideas often come at moments you do not expect them. In this small notebook I would write down patterns I discovered across the interviews, but also ideas on persons to contact, suggested books to read, or websites to check. During the interviews, I used a printed out a topic list on which I scribbled down answers or ideas. Because I obviously needed to focus on the participant and the conversation, I would work out these ideas in my note book directly after the interview.
Using the Research Journal During the Various Phases of Data Collection
In this paragraph, I will illustrate what I wrote down in my research journal and why this was useful during five phases: before data collection, while contacting participants, after the first interviews, during interviews, and after the interviews are conducted. This description results in a flow chart at the end of this paragraph (Figure 1), showing five phases and ten suggestions for keeping a research journal.
Before Data Collection
Before I started to collect data, I wrote down in my journal how I perceived the world at that point of time and how I could understand the work-life balance of the entrepreneurs under study. For example, an important assumption in my research was that the national context would influence the entrepreneur’s abilities to achieve work-life balance. A reflexive position statement was a valuable start, since it served as a starting point to come back to and it allowed me to compare it to my stance afterwards.
Contacting Participants
During the phase of contacting participants, I felt low in energy because I was simultaneously settling down in a new country and meeting new people. Meeting so many new people and contacting possible participants meant having to introduce myself and constantly taking part in small talk, so the first week or two, I was too tired to work. Finding participants took a lot of time as well, which made me feel very unproductive. I used my journal to set priorities and remind myself of what I had to accomplish during my stay abroad. I struggled with my perfectionism – wanting to do more and better. Writing in my journal made me become aware of my thoughts, taught me to focus, as well as work according to my given energy level. The results confirmed my belief that individuals cannot be studied separate from their (national) context. Furthermore, I found out that it is not only national context, but also work characteristics that influence work-life balance experiences.
After the First Interviews
In the phase of the first explorative interviews, I used my journal to write down (cultural) customs and the participant’s expectations regarding timing and relational aspects. When I scheduled most of my interviews and I was ready to meet participants, I noticed that timing is important to take into account. In the Netherlands, for example, it is seen as polite to show up a little early for your appointment. When I arrived 10 min before my interview appointment in Spain, I unintendedly stressed the participant. She opened the door by saying “I should have known, since you’re Dutch. I thought we would meet at 11.00 and I need some time to clean up, collect my stuff, and make some coffee. Just sit down there, will you?”. I got the impression she felt rushed, which was not a good start to the interview. In Sweden, I found out that it is common to take of your shoes off before entering someone’s home. These taken for granted customs might cause moments of confusion if not taken into account. I used my journal to prevent myself from making the same mistakes again and making participants feel uncomfortable.
Regarding relational aspects, I made notes on the effects of bringing gifts for participants as I brought Dutch caramel waffles as a small gift for the participants. Although the gifts were very much appreciated, I did not feel as if a gift was necessary. Participants were most often happy to share their stories and to benefit from a moment of reflection. Because I travelled by plane, I could not bring caramel waffles for everyone and had to buy local chocolates instead. Because these were not Dutch, I felt they were less appreciated and therefore I stopped bringing them. Because I took notes on relational aspects in my Excel file, I found out that the gift only contributed if authentically given.
In the same phase of the first explorative interviews, I took notes on my interview techniques. Reflecting on my techniques afterwards allowed me to see what went well and what did not. In the beginning, I noticed that I sometimes posed more questions at the same time. I found that especially non-native speakers would only answer the last question they heard. Furthermore, the Spanish entrepreneurs would answer negative questions different from what I expected (i. e. with “yes” where I would have expected “no” in the Netherlands).
During Interviews
The research journal appeared to be especially helpful during the actual interview phase. First, I took notes on context such as the interview and work location. The interview location was chosen by the participants, which often provided me with background information on where and how they worked. I always took notes on these workspaces on my topic list. Workspaces could be separate offices or the kitchen table, which, for example, gave me a sense of whether participants were organized or messy. Another example is the presence of pets. After I noticed that a participant held her cat during the entire interview, I started to realize that pets could play an important role in the work-life balance of self-employed workers. Dogs, for example, provide temporal structure because the owners need to walk them at fixed times. After the interview, I transferred my notes on the work location and the presence of pets to a table in Excel, which allowed me to clearly see relationships between their work context and work-life balance.
I took notes on language issues such as the interviewee’s use of dictionaries or a translator. At the beginning of the interview, I noticed that participants often apologized for their level of English. Some of them made use of Google translate if they could not find the right word. Most of the times I could offer a suggestion – in English or Spanish – for the word I thought they meant. In one case, the participant felt he needed someone to translate, who in this case was the owner of the co-working space he was working at as well. Halfway through the interview, we decided that we could suffice without a translator. I marked this moment on my topic list. When I analyzed the interview, I could see that the participant talked much more freely about his personal experiences. This was probably related to anonymity issues. Reflecting on this practical issue reassured me in my decisions to do all the interviews myself, without the help of a translator.
During the interviews I noted long pauses, gaps, and contradictions. Pauses most often meant that participants were thinking, but sometimes they were thinking about the meaning of the question, instead of the answer. Long pauses or gaps might indicate difficulties with interpretation, resulting in short or irrelevant answers. Afterwards, reflecting on these notes of long pauses, I noticed that they occurred after the use of abstract concepts. Terms such as “work-life balance” and “autonomy” were too abstract for participants, regardless of me explaining what I meant by these terms at the beginning of the interview. Concepts might have different meanings or connotations across cultures, because of which I decided not to use them at all but stick to the language respondents used themselves. My research journal entries helped me to avoid misunderstandings.
Cultural differences in body language sometimes made me feel uncomfortable. In Spain, for example, it is common to kiss someone when you first meet them. Furthermore, during the interviews participants sometimes touched me, in a friendly manner, on the arm when they were emotional or wanted to thank me. A few times, male respondents flirted with me or made ambiguous remarks. Because I did not expect these remarks and did not know how to respond to them in the moment, I mostly ignored them until the interview was over. When the interview was concluded I would sit down and write how I felt and why. Later, when I compared my notes to the transcription, I found out that body language and ambiguous remarks were most often made when we discussed difficult issues or emotions. With the help of my journal, I found out that body language sometimes is used to distract the attention from key issues.
In Spain, I especially felt I had to interrupt respondents to prevent them from floating away from the key issue. This was challenging, as the Spanish participants often used expressive body language and hand gestures while telling their stories. In the beginning I would just observe them and make notes on my topic list, but later I tried to mirror them and use more body language myself. Although this felt as a barrier in the beginning, later I noticed that it feels more comfortable if both interlocutors have similar communication styles. In Sweden, on the contrary, one respondent told me that he felt uncomfortable talking about himself all the time, until he realized that he was the object of study. After taking note of this, I explained to all Swedish participants that I was mostly interested in their daily experiences and feelings. Thanks to my notes, I also found out that younger participants were more likely to share their personal experiences with me than older participants. The latter sometimes made remarks like “you will understand when you have children yourself” or “it’s much more difficult to make real good friends after your thirties, you will see”. Reviewing my notes helped me to prepare for similar situations in the future. For example, I would then start talking about common contacts, networks, or interests first. Another strategy was to tell them that I had run my own business too. The effect was that participants would think that “I knew what I was talking about”. In short, body language often signals difficult issues or emotions and is sometimes used to distract from key issues. Encouragements or interruptions may be helpful in making participants feel more at ease or remaining on topic, but the researcher might risk missing out on relevant stories.
There were more moments I had to pretend I knew what the participant was talking about in order to keep them talking. My research journal notes showed me my limited knowledge of the country context the participants were living in and the importance of comparative analysis to detect contextual influences. I had assumed beforehand that culture would influence the participant’s experiences of work-life balance. However, I noticed that I could not ask respondents directly about culture, simply because they had no reference point. Similarly, unless they had lived in another country before, they were unaware of work-life arrangements in other countries and therefore could hardly judge their own system. Furthermore, participants would only talk about government support if I explicitly asked about it. Apparently, this was not a pressing issue in individuals’ experiences. Participants would only bring up issues they were not satisfied with (such as tax systems).
My notes also showed me my own limited awareness of current political debates, business forms, and registration and tax payment systems. I did not experience this lack of knowledge as an obstacle during the interviews, but I was aware of having to pretend I knew. During the interview, I would note in my journal to check certain websites or to ask someone later. Making notes on my lack of knowledge on a topic allowed me to pretend as if I knew and keep participants talking.
After Interviews
During the last phase of data collection, and also immediately after the interviews, I would sit down in a café, read the notes I made in my notebook, and try to discover patterns. I distanced myself from the individual interviews and analyzed the information across occupations, gender, parents, and non-parents, and so on. I supplemented these ideas with my personal observations as a Dutch researcher working and living in a foreign country, which I had made throughout the whole interviewing phase. Because I went back and forth between analyzing within and between countries, I also needed to put my work away for a while to distance myself from the data. Because I worked and lived in the countries myself too, I noticed that I got adjusted to the context. I started to take things for granted myself. Taking notes on the context was especially difficult in the Netherlands, where I was not the “professional stranger” as termed by Agar (1980). However, cross-cultural differences came up after constant comparisons between countries. My research journal allowed me to discover patterns across individuals and countries and to adjust interview questions if necessary (Figure 1).
Flow chart showing what and why to enter in a research journal during the various phases of data collection.
Journaling Emotions
Besides improving the quality of data collection, maintaining a research journal provides the opportunity to record the emotional highs and lows of the process (Engin 2011). Browne (2013) argues that fear, worry, anxiety, loneliness, and apprehension ultimately inform many of the major choices made in the field. Although these issues might be more severe in an insecure and volatile research context, they were present in my research period abroad too.
At some point during the interviewing phase, I felt lonely. When I read Browne’s (2013) description on how he developed an evening routine revolving around Skype by calling friends and family and catching up on other people’s lives, I felt very relieved. I was not the only one Skyping and texting my friends regularly, while I felt like I should go out every night to enjoy this adventure to the maximum. A feeling of loneliness is not necessarily caused by being alone, but can also be experienced when surrounded by new colleagues, a flat mate, and entrepreneurial participants in an unknown city. I especially missed friends, family, and colleagues who knew me and with whom I could talk about something other than work in my mother tongue.
At times, feelings of loneliness prevented me from being focused on what I was doing in the moment. I struggled with whether or not to invest in new relationships as I knew that I would “only” stay for a few months. This became especially apt after six months, towards the end of my research period. I was aware of cultural differences too, in the sense that it was more difficult to start social relationships in Sweden than in Spain. Reflections on my own journal entries made me decide to focus on a few persons I felt connected with. Although I felt supported by relatives via Skype and email, I stopped communicating with them in order to be able to focus my attention on the people around me.
Being away from home also meant that I did not work at an office surrounded by colleagues. On one hand, I experienced a feeling of freedom as I did not have to attend department meetings and nobody would ask if I did not work for a day. On the other hand, I missed being able to check whether I was doing the right thing and making the right decisions. I started to write down in my journal how and why I was doing this project.
My journal also taught me to tap into my intrinsic motivation. For example, I wrote that participants were often surprised by their own answers. After the interview, participants told me how this interview had made work-life related issues more clear to them. Realizing that I could contribute to improving one’s quality of life made me feel better than publishing as much articles as possible on it. I learned that I felt most fulfilled by being able to offer a moment of reflection to participants. This motivated me even more to focus on the quality of the work I was doing.
To conclude, besides using the research journal for improving the quality of data collection, it could help you to deal with emotions. I suggest to: (1) take notes on feelings of loneliness because it helps you to focus on being “here and now” and to connect with people around you; and (2) to take notes on how and why you are doing this project because it helps you to tap into your intrinsic motivation, especially if you are conducting this research alone.
Methodological Considerations
Regardless of their philosophical background, qualitative researchers have distinct criteria by which to ensure and judge the trustworthiness of findings. The qualitative data collection and analysis is based on a research protocol. The protocol is an explicit guide on all aspects of the proposed methodology. However, in the phase of qualitative data collection, unexpected issues may arise that are not mentioned in the protocol. Here, it becomes extra important to ensure the rigor of qualitative research.
Rigorous data analysis may be achieved through providing the reader with an explanation about the process by which the raw data is collected, transformed, and organized into the research report (Tracey 2010). Furthermore, Tracey (2010) argues that qualitative research should be characterized by sincerity. Sincerity means that “the research is marked by honesty and transparency about the researcher’s biases, goals, and foibles as well as about how these played a role in the methods, joys, and mistakes of the research” (2010, 841). It can be achieved by: (1) transparency about the methods and challenges; and (2) self-reflexivity about subjective values, biases, and inclinations. Transparency requires a case record or an “audit trail” which provides “clear documentation of all research decisions and activities” throughout the account or in the appendices (Creswell and Miller 2000, 28). An account of self-reflexivity is seldom provided, but could be based on the research journal. Whereas the research protocol is written before the phase of data collection, research journal entries are made unexpectedly and not separated and structured such as a research protocol. A research journal includes different types of entries such as data, additional items, contextual information, reflection, and ideas (Altrichter and Holly 2005). This may raise the question whether reflection impacts on replicability of the protocol and the transferability of the results.
As I have shown before, the research journal can be used for reflection-in-action (Boutilier and Mason 2012). The research journal allows the researcher to reflect on these issues in the midst of making choices. Instead of ignoring or going over issues because they were not in the protocol, the researcher reports on unexpected issues without wanting to improve the status of the data. Using a research journal allows the researcher to remember these issues and reduces the chances of the researcher sweeping issues under the carpet.
Furthermore, the research journal may contain notes on methodological issues or ideas on alternative methods and procedures. More specifically, researchers may reflect on the conditions under which they used particular research methods, possible biases, the role of the researcher, and what decisions they made about the future course of the research and why. These reflections may help to develop the quality of the research project, the competence of the researcher and future research (Altrichter and Holly 2005). Rather than a replacement of the protocol, the research journal may be seen as a valuable addition to ensure sincerity and rigor. In the next paragraph, ethical considerations will be discussed.
Ethical Considerations
Being reflexive, or holding up research activities to ethical scrutiny, is an important part of research ethics (Israel and Hay 2006). Ethical decision-making is influenced by ethical frameworks, professional guidelines, and ethical and legal regulation (Wiles 2012). This becomes clear when a researcher submits a research manuscript and is asked to declare that the independence of research is clear and any conflicts of interest or partiality must be explicit. The most common aspects of ethical frameworks are respect for people’s autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Respect for autonomy relates to issues of voluntariness, informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity. Beneficence concerns the responsibility to do good, non-maleficence concerns the responsibility to avoid harm, and justice concerns the importance of the benefits and burdens of research being distributed equally (Israel and Hay 2006).
Some of these ethical issues can be considered prior to the research commencing, but many are emergent and become apparent only as the research proceeds, mainly during the phase of data collection. Furthermore, researchers may have a “gut feeling” about the morally right course of action when they encounter issues. This is why Wiles (2012) argues that ethical issues should be approached from a situational relativist perspective. This means that the ethical issues should be managed when they emerge in research, rather than solely adhere to a set of principles or rules. From this perspective, ethical frameworks do not determine decision-making but rather provide researchers with a means of thinking systematically about moral behavior in research. In addition, a journal may help researchers to think about, evaluate, and justify these issues and their “gut feelings”.
By writing down issues in a research journal during the phase of data collection, researchers are able to manage them in considered and reflexive ways (Israel and Hay 2006). For example, researchers might write and reflect on why one guideline might need to be chosen over another (Israel and Hay 2006; Hammersley and Traianou 2012). During my research project, I reflected on whether I should be honest and tell participants I did not know which policies they were talking about, or whether I could lie and tell them I knew in order to keep them talking. Because it would not harm the participants, I decided I would pretend I knew. Reflexivity may also help to maintain the ethics of the power relationship between researcher and the researched. Reflexivity is likely to situate the researcher as non-exploitative and compassionate toward the research subjects (Pillow 2003). Being self-reflective helps the researcher to identify questions and content that he or she tends to emphasize or shy away from. It increases awareness of one’s own reactions to interviews, thoughts, emotions, and triggers (Berger 2015). To conclude, the research journal may function as a tool for honesty and awareness of ethical issues and to reflect on them, but also a log if consent from ethical committees is required afterwards (Pillow 2003).
Conclusions
In this article I have argued that keeping a research journal is a suitable method to reflect on issues arising during the phase of data collection. This is important especially if there are no colleague researchers within reach to discuss issues with, because unexpected issues may arise and decisions have to be made quickly in the phase of data collection.
I used examples from my own research project to show how a research journal may effectively help one to reflect on issues during face-to-face interviews with entrepreneurs in three different countries. I would like to encourage qualitative entrepreneurship researchers to establish a journal on your laptop, on printed-out topic lists, and in a notebook that can always be kept in your bag. A research journal should always be at hand and ready to use, since ideas often come at unexpected moments. Smartphones or tablets could serve this purpose very well too. Based on a case study, I provided ten suggestions for what and why to write down in a research journal during five phases of data collection: before you start, while contacting participants, after the first interviews, during interviews, and after the interviews are conducted.
Besides improving the quality of data collection, maintaining a research journal also provides researchers with the opportunity to deal with emotions. I suggest to: (1) take notes on feelings of loneliness because it helps you to focus on being “here and now” and to connect with people around you; and (2) take notes on how and why you are doing this project because it helps you to tap into your intrinsic motivation, especially if you are conducting this research alone.
Researchers may increase the rigor of qualitative research by providing the reader with an explanation about the methodological process (Tracey 2010). The research journal may be seen as a valuable addition to the research protocol, because it allows researchers to reflect on arising issues which are not included in the protocol and require immediate decision making. Besides methodological choices, researchers in the field need to deal with ethical considerations. Keeping a research journal stimulates researchers to note down their thoughts and considerations. These notes are likely to provide clarity and stimulate researchers to be honest and compassionate toward the research participants. Lastly, the research journal may function as a log if consent from ethical committees is required afterwards (Pillow 2003).
To conclude, the journal helps researchers to reflect on unexpected issues, emotional challenges, and methodological and ethical issues at the “grass-root level of qualitative research”, which undoubtedly will arise in a cross-cultural context. Although in this case study cross-cultural refers to cross-national, entrepreneurship researchers conducting face-to-face interviews in local or regional multicultural and multilingual settings can benefit from keeping journals too. The research journal may be seen as a valuable addition to the research protocol, which will improve the rigor and sincerity of qualitative entrepreneurship research.
Funding statement: Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) (Grant/Award Number: “4010002.006”).
References
Agar, Michael. 1980. “Stories, Background Knowledge and Themes: Problems in the Analysis of Life History Narrative.” American Ethnologist 7 (2):223–39.10.1525/ae.1980.7.2.02a00010Search in Google Scholar
Altrichter, Herbert, and Mary Louise Holly. 2005. “Research Diaries.” In Research Methods in the Social Sciences, edited by Bridget Somekh and Cathy Lewin, 24–32. London: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Berger, Roni. 2015. “Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research.” Qualitative Research 15 (2): 219–234.10.1177/1468794112468475Search in Google Scholar
Borg, Simon. 2001. “The Research Journal: A Tool for Promoting and Understanding Researcher Development.” Language Teaching Research 5 (2):156–77.10.1177/136216880100500204Search in Google Scholar
Boutilier, Marie, and Robin Mason. 2012. “The Reflexive Practitioner in Health Promotion: From Reflection to Reflexivity.” In Health Promotion in Canada: Critical Perspective on Practice, edited by Irving Rootman, Sophie Dupéré, Ann Pederson and Michel O’Neill, 196–207. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Browne, Brendan Ciaran. 2013. “Recording the Personal: The Benefits in Maintaining Research Diaries for Documenting the Emotional and Practical Challenges of Fieldwork in Unfamiliar Settings.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 12 (1):420–35.10.1177/160940691301200121Search in Google Scholar
Creswell, John, and Dana Miller. 2000. “Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.” Theory into practice 39 (3): 124–130.10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2Search in Google Scholar
Engin, Marion. 2011. “Research Diary: A Tool for Scaffolding.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 10 (3):296–306.10.1177/160940691101000308Search in Google Scholar
Gokah, Theophilus. 2006. “The Naïve Researcher: Doing Social Research in Africa.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 9 (1):61–73.10.1080/13645570500436163Search in Google Scholar
Gómez, Maria Victoria, and Marjo Kuronen. 2011. “Comparing Local Strategies and Practices: Recollections from Two Qualitative Cross-National Research Projects.” Qualitative Research 11 (6):683–97.10.1177/1468794111413366Search in Google Scholar
Hammersley, Martyn, and Anna Traianou. 2012. Ethics in Qualitative Research: Controversies and Contexts. London: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781473957619Search in Google Scholar
Hantrais, Linda. 2008. International Comparative Research: Theory, Methods and Practice. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-137-06884-2_5Search in Google Scholar
Hobson, Barbara. 2014. Worklife Balance: The Agency and Capabilities Gap. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199681136.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Israel, Mark, and Iain Hay. 2006. Research Ethics for Social Scientists. London: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781849209779Search in Google Scholar
Kottkamp, Robert B. 1990. “Means for Facilitating Reflection.” Education and Urban Society 22 (2):182–203.10.1177/0013124590022002005Search in Google Scholar
Leighton, Patricia, and Duncan Brown. 2013. Future working: The rise of Europe’s independent professionals. London: Professional Contractors Group (PCG).Search in Google Scholar
Mangen, Steen. 1999. “Qualitative Research Methods in Cross-National Settings.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2 (2):109–24.10.1080/136455799295087Search in Google Scholar
Newbury, Darren. 2001. “Diaries and Fieldnotes in the Research Process.” Research Issues in Art Design and Media 1:1–17.Search in Google Scholar
Pillow, Wanda. 2003. “Confession, Catharsis, or Cure? Rethinking the Uses of Reflexivity as Methodological Power in Qualitative Research.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 16 (2):175–96.10.1080/0951839032000060635Search in Google Scholar
Quilgars, Deborah, Marja Elsinga, Anwen Jones, Janneke Toussaint, Hannu Ruonavaara, and Päivi Naumanen. 2009. “Inside Qualitative, Cross‐National Research: Making Methods Transparent in a EU Housing Study.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 12 (1):19–31.10.1080/13645570701804292Search in Google Scholar
Rapelli, Stéphane. 2012. European I-Pros: a study. London: Professional Contractors Group (PCG).Search in Google Scholar
Tracy, Sarah J. 2010. “Qualitative Quality: Eight ‘Big-Tent’ Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 16 (10):837–51.10.1177/1077800410383121Search in Google Scholar
Weiner-Levy, Naomi, and Ariela Popper-Giveon. 2013. “The Absent, the Hidden and the Obscured: Reflections on “Dark Matter” in Qualitative Research.” Quality & Quantity 47 (4):2177–90.10.1007/s11135-011-9650-7Search in Google Scholar
Wiles, Rose. 2012. What Are Qualitative Research Ethics? London: Bloomsbury Academic.10.5040/9781849666558Search in Google Scholar
Williamson, Deanna L., Jaeyoung Choi, Margo Charchuk, Gwen R. Rempel, Nicole Pitre, Rhonda Breitkreuz, and Kaysi Eastlick Kushner. 2011. “Interpreter-Facilitated Cross-Language Interviews: A Research Note.” Qualitative Research 11 (4):381–94.10.1177/1468794111404319Search in Google Scholar
©2017 by De Gruyter
