Leonardi could again indicate a more interpretive
Leonardi (2011) was aware that interviews had to be conducted to understand the process behind the development of Crashlab.The reason behind this is that Crashlab’s development already happened between 1995 and 2005. The type of interview that was used was an ethnographic interview which indicated qualitative research and an interpretive approach (Lee & Lings, 2008). The interview process started with determining which people had been a factor in the development of Crashlab. All interviews aimed to solicit the recollection of events surrounding the development of CrashLab, as well as the interpretations about why certain actions occurred. Focusing on human actors is a key characteristic of interpretative research. Each Interview began with general questions to the informants. After the general questions more specific questions regarding crucial factors that influenced the development process were asked. Leonardi (2011) also wanted to conduct more objective material, this is a part of the ethnographical way of interviewing. To ensure the trustworthiness of the data, multiple participants were asked the same questions on various occasions. Not only was he interested in the objective part, but also in the more subjective interpretations of the informants such as feelings towards the evolution of Crashlab. Which could again indicate a more interpretive approach. During the interviews there were a lot of references to archival data. To support claims made by informants as much data as possible was collected. Every department was treated as a separate case so a clear distinction between departments could be made. The data that was collected was used for three purposes. Firstly, to determine the order of events. Secondly, to see what problem each department focused on and finally to find out which technology advanced to solve that problem. For the next step a coding scheme was constructed to identify cultural resources. He used a software program for qualitative analysis so that he could identify the core cultural principal of and within the departments. Then the same process was repeated for constitutive elements. Finally, the collaboration between departments was analysed through a “selective” scheme.