Eliciting Metaphor through Clean Language: An Innovation in Qualitative Research
| Author | James Lawley,Paul Tosey,Rupert Meese |
| Published date | 01 July 2014 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12042 |
| Date | 01 July 2014 |
Methodology Corner
Eliciting Metaphor through Clean
Language: An Innovation in
Qualitative Research
Paul Tosey, James Lawley1and Rupert Meese2
Surrey Business School, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK, 1The Developing Company,
PO Box 349, Lisburn BT28 1WZ, UK, and 2Clean Change Company Ltd, 18 Byfield Road, Isleworth,
Middlesex TW7 7AF, UK
Corresponding author email: P.Tosey@surrey.ac.uk
This paper shows how an innovative method of questioning called Clean Language can
enhance the authenticity and rigour of interview-based qualitative research. We investi-
gate the specific potential of Clean Language as a method for eliciting naturally occur-
ring metaphors in order to provide in-depth understanding of a person’s symbolic world;
despite substantial interest in metaphors in the field of organizational and management
research there is a lack of explicit, systematic methods for eliciting naturally occurring
metaphors. We also demonstrate how Clean Language can improve qualitative research
more widely by addressing the propensity for researchers inadvertently to introduce
extraneous metaphors into an interviewee’s account at both data collection and inter-
pretation stages. Data are presented from a collaborative academic–practitioner project
in which Clean Language was used as a method of interviewing to elicit the metaphors of
six mid-career managers, relating to the way they experienced work–life balance. The
first contribution of this paper is to demonstrate the potential of Clean Language for
eliciting naturally occurring metaphors in order to provide in-depth understanding of a
person’s symbolic world. The second contribution is to show how Clean Language can
enhance the rigour and authenticity of interview-based qualitative research more widely.
Introduction
There has been considerable interest in metaphor
in the organization and management literature
(e.g. Cassell and Lee, 2012; Cornelissen, 2006;
Cornelissen and Kafouros, 2008; Cornelissen
et al., 2008; Grant and Oswick, 1996;
Hatch and Yanow, 2008; Marshak, 1993;
Morgan, 1986; Oswick and Jones, 2006; Oswick
and Montgomery, 1999; Oswick, Keenoy and
Grant, 2002). However, according to Cassell and
Lee (2012, p. 248), ‘most research focuses on the
deductive application of metaphors, rather than
on inductive explorations of metaphorical
language-in-use’. Of those that do pursue induc-
tive explorations, Cassell and Lee (2012, p. 254)
distinguish between those that use ‘already pro-
duced language’ and those that purposefully elicit
metaphors. The former type often emphasizes the
function of metaphor as a rhetorical device
(Amernic, Craig and Tourish, 2007; Pablo and
Hardy, 2009; Tourish and Hargie, 2012), and
We wish to acknowledge Wendy Sullivan and Margaret
Meyer (Clean Change Company) who were members of
the project team that collaborated on the work–life
balance study and co-authored the project report. Sarah
Nixon (Liverpool John Moores University) was academic
advisor to the project. The project was made possible by
pump-priming funding from the Faculty of Management
and Law, University of Surrey, and was a partnership
with the Clean Change Company (http://www
.cleanchange.co.uk/cleanlanguage/). A previous version
of this paper was awarded the Alan Moon prize for best
paper presented at the 12th International HRD Confer-
ence, University of Gloucestershire, 25–27 May 2011.
bs_bs_banner
British Journal of Management, Vol. 25, 629–646 (2014)
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12042
© 2014 British Academy of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4
2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
because it relies upon texts such as transcripts it
cannot probe for further detail of a person’s meta-
phors. The latter type seeks to capture metaphors
that are elicited by interventions by researchers.
There are few explicit methods for eliciting
naturally occurring metaphors. Heracleous and
Jacobs (2008) and Jacobs and Heracleous (2006),
for example, designed workshop activities involv-
ing construction materials in order to elicit
embodied metaphors. Cassell and Lee (2012)
employed interviews, which they subsequently
analysed for metaphorical content.
The first contribution of this paper is to dem-
onstrate the potential of Clean Language as a
specific method for eliciting naturally occurring
metaphors in order to provide in-depth under-
standing of a person’s symbolic world. To explore
this potential, Clean Language was used as a
method of interviewing in a collaborative
academic–practitioner project to elicit the meta-
phors of six mid-career managers, relating to the
way they experienced work–life balance (WLB).
The second contribution is to demonstrate how
Clean Language can enhance the trustworthiness
and authenticity (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) of
qualitative research more widely by addressing the
propensity for researchers inadvertently to intro-
duce extraneous metaphors into an interviewee’s
account at both data collection and interpretation
stages. The issue of quality in qualitative methods
has been the subject of continuing debate in the
field of organizational and management research
(Amis and Silk, 2008; Bryman, Becker and
Sempik, 2008; Cassell and Symon, 2011;
Easterby-Smith, Golden-Biddle and Locke, 2008;
Gephart, 2004; Johnson et al., 2006; Pratt, 2008,
2009; Sandberg, 2005; Symon and Cassell, 2012;
Van Maanen, 1979) and has been the subject of a
government report in the UK (Spencer et al.,
2003). While most authors reject the idea that
uniform criteria for quality can be devised, espe-
cially given the complexity and methodological
pluralism that characterize qualitative research
(Amis and Silk, 2008; Easterby-Smith, Golden-
Biddle and Locke, 2008), the potential for
improved rigour and transparency in both the
elicitation and interpretation of qualitative data is
widely acknowledged. Hence Van Maanen (1979,
p. 523) noted not only ‘widespread skepticism sur-
rounding the ability of conventional data collec-
tion techniques to produce data that do not
distort, do violence to, or otherwise falsely portray
the phenomena such methods seek to reveal’, but
also that ‘interpretive frameworks which make
such data meaningful have grown looser, more
open-ended, fluid, and contingent’ (1979, p. 522).
Gephart (2004, p. 458) suggests that submissions
to the Academy of Management Journal that are
based on qualitative research need to ‘show what
was done in the research process and to articulate
how research practices transformed observations
into data, results, findings and insights’.
These concerns are relevant to interviewing,
which is probably the most commonly used
approach to data-gathering in qualitative research
(King, 2004; Roulston, 2010), as indicated by
the prevalence of studies involving qualitative
interviews in British Journal of Management,
for example Berg, Barry and Chandler (2012),
Glaister, Husan and Buckley (2003), Li et al.
(2012), Lindebaum and Cassell (2012), Linehan
and Walsh (2000), Nentwich and Hoyer (2013)
and Noon et al. (2013). As Roulston (2010) points
out, diverse theorizations of qualitative interview-
ing exist. Our concern is with phenomenological
interviews (Kvale, 1983), which aim to understand
and represent interviewees’ worlds authentically.
Although researchers who utilize this type of inter-
view may believe that their interviews are free of
prejudices and presuppositions, this paper demon-
strates how the practice of Clean Language
enables further refinement.
The paper is structured as follows. We com-
mence with an overview of Clean Language, its
origins, and its relationship to the work of Lakoff
and Johnson (1980, 1999) on metaphor and the
philosophy of embodied mind. Next we demon-
strate how researchers’ metaphors can be brought
into data collection and interpretation inadvert-
ently, with reference to two published studies. We
then outline how Clean Language was used as a
method of interviewing to elicit metaphors relat-
ing to WLB. After reviewing the findings from
that project, we discuss implications for research-
ers and draw conclusions about the potential
methodological contribution of Clean Language
to metaphor elicitation specifically and to enhanc-
ing the quality of interview-based qualitative
research generally.
Background on Clean Language
Clean Language is an approach to questioning
that facilitates exploration of a person’s inner
630 P. Tosey et al.
© 2014 British Academy of Management.
To continue reading
Request your trial