In contrast to result-driven publications in which the academic narrative constructs the
process of data analysis and the conceptual framework as purposefully designed and
inevitably leading to the findings, this article will take a closer look at the concrete
development of interpretative schemes and the openness of this process. We will do so by
referring to an extensive empirical study of the German theatrical employment system.
Following the course of our research project, the article will explicate and discuss (1)
the decision for conducting qualitative rather than quantitative research, (2) the
identification and definition of ‘what is the case’ and how this decision was influenced
by ongoing data interpretation and changing and new theoretical inputs, and (3) the
question of the generalisability of our findings. The main focus of the article, however,
will be to explore the relationship between data and theory. We hope to encourage
researchers to creatively use the inherent openness of data interpretation, and we argue
that the freedom of qualitative research can only be used in a productive way if
methodological decisions and data interpretations are driven by theoretical reasoning.
BourdieuP.
(1984): Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of
taste. London.
8.
BourdieuP.
(1993): The field of cultural production. Essays on art and
literature. New York.
9.
BrooksD.
(2000): Bobos in Paradise. New
York.
10.
CappelliP.
(1995): Rethinking employment. In:
British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33,
563–602.
11.
CavesR.E.
(2000): Creative Industries. Contracts between art and
commerce. Cambridge/Mass.
12.
ColemanJ.S.
(1988): Social capital in the creation of human
capital. In: American Journal of Sociology94 (Supplement), S95–S120.
13.
DeutschmannChr.
(2002): Postindustrielle Industriesoziologie.
München & Weinheim.
14.
EikhofD.R.
(2006): Transorganisationale Arbeit am Theater: Eine
empirische Untersuchung vermarktlichter Arbeitsformen. In: Stiftung
Körber (Ed.): Mythos Markt? Die ökonomische,
soziale und rechtliche Gestaltung der Arbeitswelt.
Wiesbaden,
139–155.
15.
EikhofD.R.
(2009a): Does Hamlet have to be naked? Creativity between
tradition and innovation in German theatres. In: JeffcuttP.PrattA. (Eds):
Creativity and Innovation in the Cultural Economy.
London,
241–261.
16.
EikhofD.R.
(2009b): The logics of art: Analysing theatre as a cultural
field. In: TownleyBBeechN. (Eds):
The Discipline of Organizing Creativity: Exploring the Paradox.
Cambridge, (forthcoming).
17.
EikhofD.R.HaunschildA.
(2004): Arbeitskraftunternehmer in der Kulturindustrie. Ein
Forschungsbericht über die Arbeitswelt Theater. In: PongratzH.J.VoßG.G. (Eds):
Typisch Arbeitskraftunternehmer? Befunde der empirischen
Arbeitsforschung. Berlin,
93–113.
18.
EikhofD.R.HaunschildA.
(2006): Lifestyle meets Market. Bohemian Entrepreneurs in
Creative Industries. In: Creativity and Innovation
Management, 15,
234–241.
19.
EikhofD.R.HaunschildA.
(2007): For Art's Sake – Artistic and Economic Logics in
Creative Production. In: Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 28,
523–538.
20.
EisenhardtK.M.
(1989): Building theories from case study
research. In: Academy of Management Review,
14, 532–550.
21.
EisenhardtK.M.GraebnerM.E.
(2007): Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. In: Academy of Management Journal,
50, 25–32.
22.
FerlieE.FitzgeraldL.WoodM.HawkinsC.
(2005): The (non) spread of innovations: The mediating role
of professionals. In: Academy of Management Journal,
48, 117–134.
23.
FloridaR.
(2002): The rise of the creative class and how it's transforming
work, leisure, community and everyday life. New
York.
GlaserB.G.StraussA.L.
(1967): The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Chicago.
26.
GläserJ.LaudelG.
(2004): Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse.
Wiesbaden.
27.
GrimshawD.
(2005): Using qualitative data to understand employer
behaviour in low-wage labour markets. In: BazenS.LuciforaC.SalverdaW.
(Eds): Job quality and employer behaviour.
Basingstoke,
111–131.
28.
HaunschildA.
(2003): Managing Employment Relationships in Flexible Labour
Markets: The Case of German Repertory Theatres. In: Human
Relations, 56,
899–929.
29.
HaunschildA.
(2004): Employment Rules in German Theatres: An Application
and Evaluation of the Theory of Employment Systems. In: British
Journal of Industrial Relations, 42,
685–703.
30.
HaunschildA.
(2008): Challenges to the German Theatrical Employment
System: How long-established national institutions respond to globalisation
forces. In: SmithC.McSweeneyB.FitzgeraldR.
(Eds): Remaking Management Practices: Beyond Global and National
Approaches. Cambridge/UK,
251–270.
31.
HaunschildA.EikhofD.R.
(2009): Bringing Creativity to Market. Theatre Actors as
Self-employed Employees. In: McKinlayA.SmithC. (Eds):
Creative Labour. Working in the Creative Industries.
Palgrave,
156–173.
32.
HildebrandtE.
(Ed.): Reflexive Lebensführung. Zu den sozialökologischen Folgen flexibler
Arbeit. Berlin,
151–205.
33.
HollingsworthJ.R.BoyerR. (eds)
(1997): Contemporary Capitalism. The Embeddedness of
Institutions. Cambridge.
34.
JonesC.
(1996): Careers in Project Networks: The Case of the Film
Industry. In: ArthurM.B.RousseauD.M.
(Eds): The Boundaryless Career. A New Employment Principle for a New
Organizational Era. New York,
58–75.
35.
KellerB.SeifertH.
(1995): Atypische Beschäftigung. Verbieten oder gestalten?Köln.
36.
KingN.
(1994): The qualitative research interview.
In: CassellC.SymonG. (Eds):
Qualitative methods in organizational research. A practical guide.
London,
14–36.
37.
KreuzerH.
(1968): Die Boheme. Analyse und Dokumentation der intellektuellen
Subkultur vom 19. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart.
Stuttgart.
38.
MarsdenD.
(1999): A theory of Employment Systems. Micro-foundations of
Societal Diversity. Oxford.
39.
MarsdenD.
(2004): The ‘network economy’ and models of the employment
contract. In: British Journal of Industrial Relations,
42, 659–684.
40.
MauriceM.SorgeA. (eds)
(2000): Embedding Organizations. Societal Analysis of Actors,
Organizations and Socio-Economic Context. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia.
41.
MaxwellJ.A.
(2002): Understanding and Validity in Qualitative
Research. In: HubermanA.M.MilesM.B.
(Eds): Qualitative Researcher's Companion.
London,
37–64.
42.
MilesM.B.HubermanA.M.
(1994): Qualitative data analysis. 2nd
Ed.London.
43.
MinssenH.
(Ed.): Begrenzte Entgrenzungen. Wandlungen von Organisation und Arbeit.
Berlin,
225–247.
44.
MoldaschlM.
(2002a): Ökonomien des Selbst: Subjektivität in der
Unternehmergesellschaft. In: KlagesJ.TimpfS. (Eds):
Facetten der Cyberwelt: Subjektivität, Eliten, Netzwerke, Arbeit,
Ökonomie. Hamburg,
29–62.
45.
MurgerH.
(1988/1851): Scènes de la vie de bohème.
Paris (first published in
1851).
46.
PolivkaA.E.NardoneT.
(1989): On the definition of ‘contingent
work’. In: Monthly Labor Review,
Washington: Bureau of Labor
Statistics, December,
9–16.
47.
RidderH.G.HoonC.McCandlessA.
(forthcoming): The Theoretical Contribution of Case Study Research to the
Field of Strategy and Management. In: KetchenD.J.BerghD.D.
(Eds): Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. Vol.
5. Elsevier.
48.
SchmidG.
(2000): Arbeitsplätze der Zukunft: Von standardisierten zu
variablen Arbeitsverhältnissen. In: KockaJ.OffeC. (Eds):
Geschichte und Zukunft der Arbeit. Frankfurt/M. &
New York, 269–292.
49.
ScottW.R.
(2001): Institutions and Organizations. 2nd
Ed.Thousand Oaks et al.
50.
SiggelkowN.
(2007): Persuasion with case studies. In:
Academy of Management Journal, 50,
20–24.
51.
StakeR.E.
(2005): Qualitative case studies. In:
DenzinN.K.LincolnY.S.
(Eds): The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd
Ed.Thousand Oaks/CA,
443–466.
SteinkeI.
(2007): Gütekriterien qualitativer
Forschung. In: FlickU.von KardorffE.SteinkeI.
(Eds): Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch. Reinbek bei
Hamburg, 319–331.
54.
StraussA.L.CorbinJ.
(1990): Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques. Thousand
Oaks/CA.
55.
SchulzeG.
(1992): Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Kultursoziologie der
Gegenwart. Frankfurt/M. & New
York.
56.
SennettR.
(1998): Corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work
in the new capitalism. New
York.
57.
SuddabyR.
(2006): What Grounded Theory is Not
(Editorial). In: Academy of Management Journal,
49, 633–642.
58.
TolbertP.S.
(1996): Occupations, Organizations, and Boundaryless
Careers. In: ArthurM.B.RousseauD. M.
(Eds): The Boundaryless Career. A New Employment Principle for a New
Organizational Era. New York,
331–349.
59.
Van MaanenJ.BarleyS.R.
(1984): Occupational communities: Culture and control in
organizations. In: StawB.B.
(Eds): Research in Organizational Behavior.
Greenwich/Ct.,
287–365.
60.
VaughanD.
(1992): Theory elaboration: The heuristics of case
analysis. In: RaginC.C.BeckerH.S.
(Eds): What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry.
Cambridge,
173–202.
61.
VesterM.
(2005): Class and culture in Germany. In:
DevineF.SavageM.ScottJ.CromptonR.
(Eds): Rethinking class. Culture, identities and lifestyles.
Houndmills/Basingstoke,
69–94.
62.
VoßG.G.PongratzH.J.
(1998): Der Arbeitskraftunternehmer. Eine neue Grundform der
Ware Arbeitskraft? In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und
Sozialpsychologie, 50,
131–158.
63.
WhitleyR.
(1999): Divergent Capitalism. The Social Structuring and Change of
Business Systems. Oxford.
64.
WindelerA.SydowJ.
(2001): Project networks and changing industry practices –
collaborative content production in the German television industry. In:
Organization Studies, 22,
1035–1060.
65.
YinR.K.
(2003): Case study research. 3rd
Edition. Thousand Oaks.
