Chapter 3
Methodology

Accessing the Experiences of Others

The research presented here investigates the development of interpersonal trust between entities that span national borders in the emerging Russian market economy of the 1990s. From a research perspective, this focus on cross-cultural strategic alliances in post-communist Russia almost inevitably meant exploring issues and generating theory in an emerging field: although the republics of the former Soviet Union had been attempting to build a market economy for over half a decade at the time of the research, and despite western organisations providing the countries of eastern Europe with financial aid, investment and expertise, in such a volatile environment, systematic research and definition was still emerging.

Exploratory research, employing qualitative techniques, is especially useful to establish theoretical constructs from the ground up. The research philosophy and approach towards the data used by this researcher are well summarised by the following:

In analysing the data gathered through the research process: '[w]e need to understand the patterns, the recurrences, the whys... the bedrock of inquiry is the researcher's quest for "repeatable regularities'" (Miles and Huberman, 1984: 67). In searching for repeatable regularities and emergent themes, rather than imposing predetermined hypotheses, qualitative techniques appeared the most suitable way forward, capable of yielding 'thick descriptions' (Geertz, 1973, cited in Miles and Huberman, 1984: 54) which are 'a source of well-grounded rich descriptions and explanations of processes in identifiable local contexts' (Miles and Huberman, 1994: 1).

To achieve this, it is essential to mine the experiences and perceptions of those individuals involved in western invested enterprises in Russia at first hand. This research has concentrated on obtaining the reports of the individuals themselves in order to gain some kind of access to their lived experience.

Data Collection

There are two major sets of data: semi-structured interviews of western and Russian staff working in a variety of western organisations investing in Russia conducted in 1996,¹ and one major week-long case study of a western organisation operating a joint venture in Russia - 'Moose' - carried out in 1997. Some focus groups were also conducted during 1997, both in Moscow and at the case study location, of western and Russian staff; these were single nationality - ie they were either Russian or western focus groups - as the researcher felt they would feel less inhibited talking about each other if the other 'side' was not present. Published materials about the interviewee organisations were helpful supplements to all of the interviews and the case study.

Allowing relevant issues to emerge and gathering data with as open a mind as possible - though the aim - had to be carried out in real-life conditions: it had to be accepted that busy people are not going to be terribly impressed by a researcher turning up with no schedule for discussion, and no apparent grasp of the issues they face. So, prior to data collection, a literature review of key themes and challenges facing western investors in Russia was essential. The interview schedule was developed on this basis.

The aim behind the questions was to gain an insight into the 'typical' workings of a western invested enterprise in Russia, to develop some understanding of the work-place behaviour of Russian managers and staff as perceived by the westerners, to find out where possible the views of the Russian managers and staff of their experience of working with their western colleagues, and to gain a general feel for the Russian business environment and the challenges it presented to western investors and their representatives in Russia. It was an inductive approach to data gathering not intended to predict from the outset what the answers would be and test theory, but instead, by employing semi-structured, open-ended instruments, to allow the respondents to tell the researcher what were the significant issues.

The first data set was gathered during 1996. Seventeen expatriate managers were interviewed, and, in five cases, their Russian counterparts,² of 17 western businesses with operations in Moscow (10), St Petersburg (5), and Tatarstan (2).³ Interviews lasted between 45 minutes and 1 hour 30 minutes; Russians were generally interviewed through an interpreter unless they were fully fluent in English. The interviews during this year yielded some 23 hours of interview material, all transcribed verbatim into 140 pages of data.

The second set of data gathering was a single case study. This involved one week living on site at a UK-Russian joint venture in a northern Russian republic (close to the Arctic Circle) in March 1997. The research took the form of indirect participant observation, which 'occurs when the researcher is constantly in and around the organization, but does not possess a work role in it. The researcher may participate in events, such as parties and lunches, and discuss people's work with them, but does not have a formal work role' (Bryman, 1989: 143). The major advantage of participant observation is that it 'allows the researcher to peep behind the formal aspects of organizational settings and to reveal a rich, and often deliberately concealed underlife' (Bryman, 1989: 142).

For the formal interviews at the case study, questions were a mix of opportunism - following up on leads suggested at meetings and during informal conversations or observations - together with relevant questions based on the interview schedule of the previous year, and questions related to the existence or otherwise of trust.

Once again, the key aim was to make the questions semi-structured, and sufficiently open-ended to permit informants to follow up on those areas that they deemed relevant and important. By grounding many of the interview questions around observed issues and incidents, an element of reflexivity was built in to the process, allowing those topics and themes most relevant to interviewees to be explored in more depth. Interviews at the case study generally lasted between 30 minutes and one hour. In total, nine expatriates and 14 Russians were formally interviewed, yielding 77 pages of interview notes all transcribed verbatim.

But any emphasis in this summary on the formal interviews would hide the central contribution of informal conversations, lunch time discussions, social events, meeting attendance (the contribution of meetings cannot be overstated), observations and impressions, ad hoc stories etc gained in the researcher's role as a participant observer. Notes were taken throughout the day of everything that seemed relevant, and these were written up into an in-depth diary. This is reflected on in further detail below.

Data Analysis

Qualitative data analysis can be troublesome: 'so much of the field being observed is potential "data" that there is a problem of knowing what to record, or if almost everything is recorded, what it all means' (Bryman 1989: 166). But it all has to be reduced, selected, simplified and, in the final analysis, interpreted into a 'plausible' version of the reality being observed, based on repeatable regularities and a consensus-based view of the truth.

Once the 1996 responses were transcribed, the transcripts were read in-depth, one at a time, over and over again, approximately paragraph by paragraph as appropriate, with notes being taken all the while, and tentative thematic codes and categories being noted in the margins. The aim was to keep an open mind as to what would be found, looking for emergent themes, patterns or explanations. When this process was complete, interviews were compared and contrasted with each other to join together, develop and enrich the categories and codes that had emerged in each individual interview.

Following this process of data collection and analysis, trust emerged as a recurrent theme - a 'repeatable regularity' (Kaplan, 1964, quoted in Miles and Huberman, 1984: 67) in the data. So, prior to conducting the 1997 case study, the researcher carried out a brief review of the trust literature to introduce herself to concepts and models that may be subsumed under the title of trust.

When immersed in the local context of the case study, the researcher was able to draw on the 1996 data and the trust literature review to home in on questions, issues and incidents that appeared to relate to trust. In practice, this meant that although many of the questions and answers were locally grounded, they were formulated by the researcher with an awareness of and emphasis on potential trust issues.

Blumer's (1954) argument in favour of 'sensitising concepts' perhaps best describes this approach to data collection and analysis. 'This approach to the connection of concepts and data means that a concept provides a set of general signposts for the researcher in his or her contact with a field of study. While the concept may become increasingly refined, it does not become reified such that it loses contact with the real world. One concomitant of this approach is that the qualitative researcher is attuned to the variety of forms that the concept may subsume. As such, a sensitizing concept retains close contact with the complexity of social reality, rather than trying to bolt it on to fixed, preformulated images' (Bryman, 1993: 68). As a result, such concepts 'provide a general frame of reference at the outset and are also refined by the researcher during the field-work period' (Bryman, 1993: 69).

In practice, the 1997 data analysis was less tied to sensitising concepts than Blumer's approach might suggest. In the analysis of the responses, some form of distance from concepts and models put forward in the literature was deliberately introduced. Transcripts were coded using a 51-point, two-page key points list entitled 'Signposts to trust', which was always in front of the researcher during coding. This list was created prior to the data analysis (but after the data collection and transcription⁴) by carrying out an in-depth review of the trust literature aimed at listing all of the attributes that are claimed by theorists to predict the absence or presence of trust. These attributes were then stripped away from the models on which they appeared and placed in no particular order on the 51-point list - ie analysis was carried out having metaphorically 'thrown away' the literature review from which the factors leading to trust or mistrust which make up the analysis were drawn. The aim was to approach the data with as open a mind as possible, while still retaining a focus on trust.

Once the coding of the 1997 data had been carried out in the same way as for the 1996 data, and concepts and categories had been developed, attention was turned again to the 1996 data. This time, the 1996 data were re-analysed for trust issues specifically (as stated above, this had not been done prior to 1997 data collection), using the 51-point signposts to trust list. These findings were then compared with the 1997 findings, and the 1997 data were reviewed again and recoded where necessary. Finally, the findings were formalised into a description of determinants of trust in east-west strategic alliances in Russia. These determinants form the theoretical basis for the discussion of trust presented in this book.

Potential Strengths and Weaknesses of the Methodology

The stated aim of this research is the investigation of factors that build or reduce interpersonal trust between expatriate and Russian management and staff in western invested enterprises in Russia. The intention is to identify the causal factors leading to trust or lack of trust in these relationships. As described above, data gathering consisted of in-depth interviews with western and Russian personnel, supplemented by focus group discussions with Russians and westerners in separate groups, and one case study. The data, once gathered, were analysed by means of a 51-point list entitled 'Signposts to trust'. Perhaps the first point to note is the fact that some 51 possible bases of trust or distrust could be identified from the trust literature prior to data analysis highlights the importance of developing a practical business model. Some other issues related to the researcher's data gathering and analysis are summarised next.

Trust Determinants have Multiple Bases and Outcomes

A key point of difficulty has been that trust has proved to be multidimensional in both its bases and outcomes. Although labels have been applied to distinct trust determinants in this research, the operation of one determinant will often impact on another, and some will have causes and results in others. This multidimensionality caused difficulties with the data presentation in particular, as will become evident in the data chapters.

However, the strength of the trust determinants identified here is that they arise out of the data themselves - they have the advantage of reflecting what has been observed by the researcher in real-life situations, and hopefully their complex interaction is explored fully. Some may view this as a drawback of taking an iterative, multidisciplinary approach, however, this researcher believes that the end result is greater precision. An example of the clarity, rather than the confusion, this approach engenders is provided in, eg, the competence determinants. By dividing out functional and local competence, precision is introduced to the data analysis, and more clarity is provided to concepts that other authors have subsumed under one heading (eg Arino et al, 1998 in task-related criteria; Child, 1998 in low- and high-trust options; Jennings (1973) and Gabarro (1978) under competence).

A Reflection of the Western Experience

Another potential methodological weakness is that the data have been gathered by a western researcher, and reflect mostly the western experience and perspective on building trusting business relationships in Russia. This situation endures on account of the superior access to the western experience enjoyed by the researcher in comparison with the access to the Russian one.

The interview (largely 1996) data had a preponderance of information on what made the westerners trust more or less their Russian partners and the Russian environment, and what they saw as necessary to building successful business relationships in Russia. There was a degree of information from the Russians on 'complaints' about western partners - eg not respecting locals and skills, insisting on their own approach, not extending credit. Further, some good balance was permitted to this state of affairs through the number of interviews with Russians and increased access to the Russian perspective in the Moose case study about what made them trust or distrust western partners. However, the obvious limitation of having only one, relatively brief case study, is the question of how far its findings can be generalised to other joint ventures.

The findings, therefore, largely represent what makes westerners trust the Russian business environment and Russian partners more or less, and their views on the functioning of the Russian business environment and the role of trust in it. The data also represent, but far less rigorously due to the researcher's position as a westerner, the views of Russians as to what makes them trust the westerners more or less. The fact remains that there is an inevitable western bias in this research, and thus the model of trust development presented in Chapter 14 is described as an 'ideal' one from the western perspective, because the researcher does not feel qualified to develop an explicit model that lays claim to knowing the full Russian perspective.

Moose

As stated above, both interviews and a case study were used to gather data for this research. While the interview data gave important signposts on the significant features of working in Russia from a western business perspective, it was through the Moose case study that issues came alive, and could be more accurately ranked in a real, local context for their true impact. During the case study week, the researcher kept a diary of everything that seemed significant at the time. The following section reviews the key insights that the observations recorded in the diary offer about conducting this type of research.

Never the Detached Scientist

One issue that is clear at the outset of the diary is that this researcher is no 'detached scientist'. In documenting the long 5am check-in at Moscow Airport for the charter flight that ran to the case study location, the researcher recorded feelings of being an outsider: 'I felt I got off to a bad start, alone and noticeable as one of three females, the other two clearly both known to the approximately 30 men checking in at 5am for the shuttle... People stood around mostly in groups US/UK; some westerners also seemed to chat outside groups with some of the Russians present, who were also standing around in groups. I felt so tired, having slept no more than three hours, badly. They were dressed mostly casually - t-shirts, check shirts, leather or Gore-tex-type jackets, all wearing boots; me in jeans, sweatshirt and boots, but with a long coat rather than casual jacket. Raisa, who is a Russian coordinator on-site at the joint venture, introduced herself to me; that was the only contact I had with anyone during the long check-in.'

This feeling of isolation was made worse on arrival when a clamour of people crossed shifts with each other at the airport, and the researcher was quietly standing, apparently quite easily recognisable as a 'girl in a long brown coat' for the expatriate logistics manager to come and find. The bus journey to the 'camp' with the shift workers was 'a journey I didn't want to end - it was so much easier just to sit on a bus for a week than to make all these new connections with people'.

Arrival time coincided with lunch; the researcher sat at a spare seat on a table of Russian girls, and the expatriate deputy director was able to locate the researcher straight away: 'I realised at that point that I was very conspicuous to those around me as a newcomer'. These feelings of being conspicuous were to remain, although much reduced as time went on, throughout the week. In fact, the researcher was told that there had been much advance discussion amongst the Russians and the westerners about the research visit - the Russian women were reportedly against a young female student visiting the venture, and there was also suspicion amongst the Russians as to the researcher's true purpose there, and whether it would cost the venture money.

When to Stop Gathering Data

It remained throughout the visit a difficult task to tread the 'right' line, if one exists, between balancing the desire to seek out every opportunity to develop relationships and gather data, with the need not to be a researcher for 24 hours a day. For example, on the first evening at the venture, the researcher was trapped between the need to take advantage of every data gathering opportunity and still feeling tired: 'I turned down an invitation to join a handful of western staff at one of the permanent expat's bungalows for cheese and wine... I was feeling exhausted, and wanted time to myself and away from scrutiny... I then spent an hour giving myself a hard time for undermining the business relationship and not being a good researcher.'

This is a repeated theme in the earlier stages of the visit, and a source of irritation by the end. For example, breakfast on the second morning at the venture is described thus: 'Breakfast sat on own, didn't join a small table of westerners, unfortunately this small table kept turning over with new westerners, making me feel an outsider, especially as I was sitting there a while.' On the penultimate day, it was noted: 'Distinctly tired of hustling and persisting all the time'.

Western Bias

Of course, much of the above reflects a concern to gain the maximum access to the 'reality' at hand. An issue with the Russians that could not be overcome was their suspicion that the researcher was a spy for Mammoth (the western half of the venture). For example, one senior Russian manager in his interview was keen to claim he was being absolutely honest, but others may not: 'People are a little afraid to be honest. People are not telling the truth because they are afraid that Mammoth will get information and in this case they might lose their jobs'. {Even though I don't work for Mammoth?} 'I don't care who you work for'.

The researcher, her visit organised by Mammoth, undoubtedly made matters worse through speaking very little Russian and socialising with the westerners. From the point of view of reflexivity, the researcher unwittingly adopted exactly the same behaviour patterns as most of the western members of the venture, and therefore, in the minds of the Russians, became one of 'them' rather than 'iz nashich' - 'one of us'. The result was that while the researcher was able to gain strong insights into the experiences of the western workers, this was less so for the Russians, for which more reliance, but not total, was made on the formal interviews.

The Importance of Social Events

On many occasions, the diary recorded the researcher's feelings of social ineptitude and discomfort at social gatherings, where she often felt the object of polite conversation attempts. However, attendance at these social events was a very important source of data. On the way to or at parties or bars, stories would be told - shootings here, punch ups there, firebombs somewhere else. And wherever the westerners went, the same Russian youth in black jeans, black leather jacket, black beret and closely shaved head - the local mafia look-out - would follow.

At social events, key background information was gained on both western social interaction, and, for example, the changes that had taken place in the venture in its five-year history. For instance, in the formal interviews, many of the senior male Russians made a point of telling the researcher how bad things had become in the venture since the original American partners had pulled out and Mammoth had taken over the 50% shareholding. The Russians had loved the Americans, so the story went, but not the Brits. Not so, said American veterans of the venture during a St Patrick's day party, claiming that 'if anything things have calmed down since then'.

Something else the encounters, the story telling, the chance to show off, helped to achieve was to glue relationships with the western informants, and as a consequence give the researcher further access to information about informal politics and activities going on behind the formal face of the enterprise that perhaps would not have been so accessible otherwise.

The Informal Life of the Formal Organisation

The researcher mimicked the westerners' 12 hours a day, seven days a week routine during the week at the venture, in order to make every minute count towards data collection, and to help staff to see the researcher more as a member of the venture. The researcher was set up in a spare office, with a computer, phone, access to an interpreter etc - something that probably made the Russians even more suspicious.

By following the standard routine, the researcher believes she gradually became more an accepted part of the scenery, expected to join some of the groups of westerners when going about their informal activities such as having lunch or dinner, or watching a video in the evening. When, for example, the crucial meeting took place between the expatriate and Russian deputies (see Chapter 5), which was such a key event in the joint venture's history at that time, the researcher was sitting with an expectant group of westerners in the canteen awaiting news of its outcome - as the diary extract explains: 'Sat on side "top table"⁵ for dinner and chatted - trying to be careful not to stay too long so that others could discuss things they wanted to. Had been waiting to talk to John, but he's been in an often noisy meeting with Mikhail that didn't finish until 7.20. When John eventually turned up, everyone seemed to be waiting for him expectantly - in answer to the first question "did you draw blood?", there was a reply from someone else "you should have seen the other bloke!".'

This chance happening, and the questions the researcher asked following it, enabled the researcher to more knowledgeably quiz the two deputies on the meeting and its outcomes in the days following. Further, this chain of unfolding events provided insights that would otherwise not have been possible into the many sources of east-west conflict in the venture. This, in the researcher's opinion, truly represents peeping behind the formal facade of the organisation.

Informal chats, usually with westerners, but also with Russians, yielded pithy insights on the external as well as internal environments, which would often be backed up elsewhere, especially in meetings. For example, the sympathetic story of a Russian geologist trying to hold up the drilling process that the westerners were keen to get started, and who finally blurted out 'But what about the oil for our grandchildren?' (see Chapter 9, footnote 3), was gained in this way. Also, one of the Russian interpreters whom the researcher was close to was always willing informally to give the researcher follow up points on eg interviews she had interpreted for the researcher. She one day showed the researcher a notice board of photos of staff pets as an example of integration - 'you would never find such things in a Russian company', she explained.

Another example of the types of issues surfaced during informal chats was an alternative American view of the changes that Mammoth had implemented since becoming 50% shareholders. The bad feeling created by Mammoth's insistence on proper procedures for everything was something the researcher had suspected during formal interviews. The field visit provided a number of informal 'moans' from American contractors about that, along with some flag flying from the Mammoth side proud of how they had taken 'proper control' of projects.

Meetings

It is not possible to overstate the value gained from attending meetings. At first, the researcher was reluctant to just breeze into a meeting as a complete outsider, sit down and start taking notes. But this is exactly what was expected. The expatriate deputy quickly put the researcher straight, stating on the first morning 'that two meetings were going on that I should be at'. Obviously in a venture of 300+ people of whom the researcher knew at that stage maybe two or three, this was not easy, but through wandering around, chatting with people casually over tea and in the canteen, and gradually through the formal interviews, it was possible to put together a meetings schedule.

Such notes in the end provided vital information about the workings of the venture - the researcher's depth of understanding would have been more inhibited and interviews more superficial had they not been grounded in the information gathered in this way. To clarify understanding of a meeting, after a meeting the researcher would always ask a western participant or a Russian interpreter something like 'what was going on there' - this often helped to identify, for example, underlying politics that may have gone unnoticed. Then, leads on key subjects could be followed up during interviews, and the researcher would also come to interviews armed with a much clearer idea of the role an interviewee held within the organisation, and the issues they faced.

Also, through such meetings it was possible to grade in importance the main issues affecting the venture both internally and externally - the predominance of discussions over the difficulties of getting things through customs was a case in point. Further, meetings often bring to the surface internal politics, and their attendant symbols, to which the researcher would have no access, or of which the researcher may fail to grasp the significance, had interviews been the sole research method. As is shown in Chapter 10, access to showers, car allocations, use of satellite dishes, even hot water provision for workers out in the field, all became political footballs in the venture in one way or another, but the researcher would not have known this without attending meetings.

Finally, through meetings, it was possible to meet, or at least gain information about, individuals whom for some reason or another were unable to agree to an interview. Certain Russians were notably reluctant to talk to the researcher. These were often some of the more powerful Russian members of the venture - and there were examples of specific individuals who were generally considered by the westerners to be against them and who never had time to be interviewed. Similarly, the accounts department, who were severely criticised by Russian and western interviewees alike, had 'no time' for interviews. But at least I could observe them in meetings, or get some gossip on them afterwards.

Some Comments on the Case Study Data Gathering

The researcher has been quite open about the fact that she felt personally unable to access the experiences of the Russian members of the venture in the same way that access was possible to the western experience. This was due to the informal contact with the westerners that was not achieved with the Russians. That is not to downplay the significance of the information and data gained from Russian respondents. Indeed, the researcher did have a number of informal relationships with some Russians - notably but not exclusively amongst the interpreters - that yielded helpful insights. Further, even though much of the data from the Russians were gathered during formal interviews, rather than informally, this does not mean that formal interviews necessarily make a lesser contribution. Many Russians appeared to spend time to consider their answers, often responding with personal examples, and earnestly enquiring as to whether they were giving the 'right' sort of answer, telling the researcher to come back if anything else were required and so on. The younger local females seemed to appreciate the more 'touchy-feely' form of questioning and the researcher's deliberately adopted 'dim but amiable' personal style.

The Effect of the Interviewer on the Interviewee

The issue 'of how interviewees respond to us based on who we are - in their lives, as well as the social categories to which we belong, such as age, gender, class, and race' (Miller and Glassner, 1997: 101) was undoubtedly significant, both during the interview-based and the case study data gathering. However, while in the interview-based data gathering during 1996, the interviews were more of the 'hit and run' variety, in which the interviewee had little time to make an assessment of the interviewer and respond accordingly, during the case study, the researcher's ongoing presence on-site permitted a number of informal assessments to be made by interviewees before one had even entered a formal interview situation. Miller and Glassner spend some time discussing the issues that arise 'when we study groups with whom we do not share membership. Particularly as a result of social distances, interviewees may not trust us, they may not understand our questions, or they may purposely mislead us in their responses' (Miller and Glassner, 1997: 101).

Obviously, during the case study, social distance was a trap that the researcher fell into fairly easily through adopting 'western' behaviour patterns. Distrust on that basis, plus that borne of the fear of the researcher being a Mammoth spy, may well have affected Russian responses: on the subject of 'purposely misleading', certain senior Russians appeared to have a pre-prepared response to give the researcher - if they thought the researcher was a Mammoth spy, they were going to use her as a conduit for getting their message to the Mammoth top!

The most impenetrable group for the researcher (and possibly, reflexively, western members of the venture) was senior Russian males who appeared to form something of a clique, perhaps based on old relationships in the state apparatus, and/or their closeness to the Russian president of the enterprise and his deputy. They were sometimes not the easiest of interviewees, but this cannot be generalised to all of them, and the same was sometimes, although rarely, true of some western personnel. The researcher interpreted the senior Russians' behaviour as based on power rather than fear - it was members of this group who would be at pains to explain that they were not afraid to be honest.

Also, during interviews with senior Russian members of the venture, the researcher felt some sympathy with the views of Baruch (1981), who is sceptical as to the reality of 'atrocity stories' told by parents of handicapped children about their treatment at the hands of medical personnel to another researcher, Burton (1975): 'Burton treats her findings as an accurate report of an external event and argues that parents' early encounters with medical personnel can cause psychological damage to the parents as well as lasting damage to the relationship with doctors. On the other hand, I see parents' talk as a situated account aimed at displaying the status of morally adequate parenthood' (Baruch, 1981, quoted in Silverman, 1993: 109). The senior Russians ran a generally similar story of the 'atrocity' of the Mammoth takeover of the American shareholding in the venture. Was this an 'accurate report of an external event', or were the senior Russians instead trying to run a consistent story setting out their 'status of morally adequate' parents of the venture?

The Researcher's Need to Speak the 'Local' Language

One area of knowledge that the researcher needed to acquire during the time at the joint venture was a nodding acquaintance with the more technical side of the oil and gas industry. One western interviewee was open-mouthed in astonishment that the researcher knew nothing about the functioning of an oil reservoir, and helpfully drew an explanatory diagram. Such ongoing 'local' knowledge gathering was necessary, as making sense of some of the information would have been difficult without it.

Other researchers have reported this experience: 'Bryman et al found that their respondents emphasized factors that were fairly specific to the construction industry... Gouldner (1954) found that the interviewing of miners was made easier by periods of observation, since it enhanced his ability and that of his research team to talk meaningfully with respondents about the work' (Bryman, 1989: 156).

The Researcher as a Person

The researcher's ability to circumvent her undoubted knowledge gap on occasions could be put down to the role the researcher was perceived in by interviewees: "when the researcher appears to us not as an invisible, anonymous voice of authority, but as a real, historical individual with concrete, specific desires and interests' the research process can be scrutinized' (Harding (1987: 9), quoted in Miller and Glassner, 1997: 103). The diary gave a full account of the researcher's feelings, some of which are described above, but getting to know the researcher should not be taken too far: 'these dictates do not necessitate, as some excessively revealing authors have taken them to mean, engaging in confessionals either with one's interviewees or with one's readers, boring them with excessive details about oneself. It is precisely the "concrete, specific desires and interests" that merit airing, not everything that might be aired' (Miller and Glassner, 1997: 3).

Parker (1995), in his PhD thesis, takes seriously the need to open himself, the researcher, to scrutiny in order to make his research more transparent. He produces an excellent account of the many roles in which he was perceived during his case study research, commenting that his case studies 'are written from the standpoint of an ominiscient and emotionless observer but my experiences of being that observer were actually confusing, partial and emotionally draining. Reading the studies gives no clue as to whether I was tired or bored, upset or disturbed, thrilled, guilty or angry'. He then presses on with something of a 'confessional' of being 'male, white and [was] under thirty. Maleness and whiteness were a definite status advantage in most of the situations I found myself in' (1995: 122-123).

Perceptions of This Researcher

So what of this researcher? Well, without falling into the 'confessional' trap, the researcher is white, female, and [was] early thirties. The researcher's insecurities and challenges during the research are discussed above, particularly the feelings of social inadequacy and fear of being an outsider, and the limitations this may have posed on developing relationships. As to how the researcher was perceived by others, four possible roles can be distinguished⁶ (although across all of them the researcher was perceived as generally lacking knowledge of the oil and gas industry - even so, interviewees still couched responses in terms that assumed a certain level of knowledge).

Older western members (late 40s/early 50s and older, always male) of the venture readily took the researcher into their social group, and seemed keen to teach the researcher all about themselves, their families, their work, their previous experience, the venture etc, and to show the researcher around if at all possible; they seemed to enjoy the researcher's company.

With the western members of the venture who were younger than this ranging from early twenties through to mid-forties (once again, all male), the researcher enjoyed a socially more egalitarian relationship as someone to have a chat with, over lunch or down the pub, or on an 'office gossip' basis; they took trouble to explain things and tell stories to help with the research.

On the Russian side, the researcher was commonly perceived as a management spy of Mammoth. That said, many Russian interviewees, whether older or younger, appeared thoughtful in their responses, and the older males who were not part of the senior clique would often volunteer literature and helpful items as much as they were able. Once again, how truly honest they were being is difficult to gauge.

On this point, the senior 'clique' of Russians only seemed interested in putting across their pre-prepared story about how bad Mammoth were as business partners. From a number of the Russian females, the researcher felt she was perceived as someone it would be nice to get to know socially had she been there for any length of time, although the perception of being a spy may have held them back in their responses.

Reactivity

Finally, given the considerable contribution of meetings to data gathering, a brief comment seems appropriate on reactivity which 'may occur, implying that subjects' behaviour may be affected by the observer's presence' (Bryman, 1989: 145). It is a common concern that the researcher's presence may inhibit or change discussion during meetings. The researcher would make two comments.

First, members of the venture were always working under considerable pressure to get the work done, always running to catch up, let alone keep up, and meetings were a key point of communication and progress for meeting deadlines, establishing new priorities etc. The researcher's opinion is that, in the vast majority of cases, these people simply did not have the time to care whether the researcher was monitoring what was said and done in sufficient measure for that to inhibit what they were attempting to achieve.

This could be a mistaken view, but it seems likely that, given a choice between toning down what they were doing/saying on account of the researcher's presence, and not achieving what so desperately needed to be achieved, the researcher simply was not deemed an important enough element in the equation; perhaps some of the less powerful Russians may not have felt this way, but the researcher does not have sufficient access to their experience to say so definitively.

The second point reverts back to how the data were analysed. The researcher is looking for repeatable regularities, for a plausible consensus of the truth from which to proceed. Through attendance at meetings, and through following up the key aspects with other informants, through seeing certain issues recur time and time again, it is hoped that these aims are achieved.

A Caveat

The researcher has been at pains to state that, although key data on both the western and Russian experience of working in a western invested enterprise in Russia has been gained, access to the western experience has been superior to that of access to the Russian one. This does not necessarily mean that the researcher can lay claims to truly knowing either the western or the Russian experience. Therefore, the researcher would put forward a caveat: 'The fieldworker's understanding of the social world under investigation must always be distinguished from the informant's understanding of this same world... To argue that we have become part of the worlds we studied, or that we understand them in precisely the same way as those who live within them do, would be a grave error' (Van Maanen and Kolb, 1985, p27, in Bryman 1989: 164).

¹ The sectors that these companies were involved in were: pharmaceuticals and related consumer products, food, mining, telecoms, consulting, clothing retail, and machinery. They varied in size from major multinationals to medium-sized companies.

² Unfortunately, space restrictions prevent a discussion of the challenges of accessing these individuals.

³ Three early interviews were carried out in London, to help to refine the questionnaire and data gathering technique - these were the pilot interviews to check questionnaire design. An example of a finding that this process surfaced was the difficulty interviewees have answering a generic question such as: 'Describe some issues you would characterise as cultural differences to be resolved' - they would either require further prompting, or, as was more often the case, enlarge on an earlier answer as fitting this issue.

⁴ The trust literature review carried out following the tentative 1996 finding on the importance of trust in the post-Soviet investment environment was not exhaustive, but instead aimed to overview key arguments, models, concepts etc in order to sensitise the researcher to possibilities. Before analysis could be carried out on the 1997 data, it was considered necessary to conduct a more in-depth literature review, from which the 'Signposts to trust' list could be formulated and analysis could proceed.

⁵ There were two what the researcher denoted 'top tables' in the canteen. One was a table that always had westerners seated at it, usually those more strongly attached to a socialising group. The other top table was for the 'in-crowd' of Russian interpreters from Moscow what one of the western contractors referred to as the 'brat pack', as many of them had spent time living in the US or abroad with their parents, spoke with American accents etc. This group was referred to, disapprovingly, by one of the researcher's Russian informants as a flock of sheep with whom the interpreters were expected to conform.

⁶ Gill and Johnson observe: 'it is interesting to note that a young female researcher in a predominantly male preserve had the advantage of being regarded as a naive student doing a project, in that it enabled her to probe and elicit information which might in a male have been regarded as impertinent or have met with a contemptuous response' (Spence, 1983, cited in Gill and Johnson, 1991: 106). Such an advantage may have been present during this researcher's data gathering. Also, for example, the older western members of the venture did not think it was safe for the researcher to go into the local town alone (in fact, the researcher went alone several times quite safely). During the field visit, the researcher noted: 'The facility looks grim .. a heavily snowed-under construction site... I was shown around the facility - someone in the distance took my photograph. Basic meal facilities in the field canteen to put it mildly, and I was very noticeable and stared at quite openly (but at least no one took a photo this time). I was driven around by a chap who Peter said would be over the moon... to have a 'bonny lassie to drive around the place'.