IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/woemps/v27y2013i5p880-890.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why are social scientists still reluctant to embrace email as data? An ethnographic examination of interactions within virtual teams

Author

Listed:
  • Yee Wei (Carol) Au

    (Heriot-Watt University, UK)

  • Abigail Marks

    (Heriot-Watt University, UK)

Abstract

This research note examines why email is underused as a source of data within work and employment studies and provides an example of the usefulness of email for gaining a more detailed understanding of behaviour in the workplace. Three main reasons are identified for the hesitancy to use email as a source of data. Firstly, the confused role of email as formal and informal archival data as well as concerns regarding the immediate often non-deliberated exchanges; secondly, issues with access to and confidentiality of email data; finally, the challenges of triangulation of a data set which includes email data. The analysis of emails between virtual team members, alongside observational and interview methods, demonstrates how interactions between colleagues via email are subtly different to the way in which organizational members describe relationships in an interview situation and reveals how access to email data provides an additional resource in understanding behaviours within the workplace.

Suggested Citation

  • Yee Wei (Carol) Au & Abigail Marks, 2013. "Why are social scientists still reluctant to embrace email as data? An ethnographic examination of interactions within virtual teams," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 27(5), pages 880-890, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:27:y:2013:i:5:p:880-890
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wes.sagepub.com/content/27/5/880.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:27:y:2013:i:5:p:880-890. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.