Appendix C
A Note on Method

Many tools are available to draw out insights about how unions operate. Given the specific nature of the questions explored in this book, I have adopted a case study approach. Case studies are often disparaged because of their narrow focus on a single subject, but they are amply suited to tackle complex, multifaceted topics. In the study of unions, the case study approach is common (for examples, see Gindin 1995; Rachleff 1993; Smith 2004), in large part because unions lend themselves well to research that draws insights from the detailed examination of one case that are relevant to broader theorizing and practice (Hartley 2004). One of the advantages to the case study is that it preserves the context within which particular actions are taken and, in fact, highlights the interactions between the context and the subject (Stake 1995). This strength is particularly beneficial to the study of unions, which, embedded as they are within capitalist relations, cannot be appropriately understood outside of their contexts.

In addition to appropriate case study design, I employed multiple data collection and analysis strategies (Yin 1994) to achieve a sufficient degree of methodological triangulation (Wolfram Cox and Hassard 2010). The data are made transparent through “thick description” (Dawson 2010). Macro- and micro-level fields of analysis were employed to ensure the preservation of context and complexity.

Data was collected from multiple sources. I procured and analyzed a wide range of documents, including legal documents (such as bylaws and collective agreements), internal reports, third-party reports (such as Labour Board decisions), media stories, and union communications. A search of eleven Alberta media outlets, from January 1996 to June 2014, revealed 487 articles related to UFCW Local 401 activities. I also received from the union copies of eighty-six pieces of communication intended for either union members or the public, including advertisements, leaflets, website content, paraphernalia, posters, issues of the local newsletter, a new-member welcome package, and a shop steward training package.

Between January and June 2014, I conducted thirty-eight semi-structured interviews at various locations in Alberta: Edmonton, Calgary, Red Deer, St. Albert, Fort McMurray, and Brooks. In addition to twenty-three current members of Local 401, I spoke to one former member, seven staff members, and four knowledgeable outsiders. I also interviewed the local’s three leaders: the president, secretary-treasurer, and executive director of labour relations. Members were recruited through a variety of techniques with the aim of ensuring that those selected were broadly representative of the local’s membership. The union provided a membership list from which I selected individuals using both random and targeted strategies. I approached the selected members, as well as other potential recruits, at union meetings and functions. I also sought referrals from the members I recruited. I considered the location, gender, occupation, and range of experiences with the local to ensure diversity in length of service with the union and functions performed. Outsiders were selected for their knowledge of the local and its practices. These interviews were supplemented by transcripts of interviews with Local 401 members, staff, and leadership conducted by the Alberta Labour History Institute (ALHI) between 2003 and 2010; there are available to the public upon request.

Finally, I spent many hours directly observing the life of the local. I attended seven general membership meetings in Edmonton, Calgary, Red Deer, and Fort McMurray (in work camps north of the city), as well as a weekend conference for shop stewards in Edmonton. I observed both formal aspects of the meetings and informal interactions before, during, and after official proceedings. These events were supplemented by informal observation of interactions at union offices in Edmonton, Calgary, Fort McMurray, and Brooks.

A central goal of the project was to deepen our understanding of the role of narratives in union action. To analyze the process through which these narratives were constructed and how they fit into the power dynamics within the local, I employed a qualitative technique known as critical narrative analysis (CNA).

CNA stands in a complementary relationship to the somewhat more familiar technique of critical discourse analysis (CDA) (see Souto-Manning 2014a). Whereas CDA adopts a macro-analytic perspective, focusing on the capacity of institutional discourses to articulate and reinforce relationships of power, CNA examines how power is embedded in everyday narratives, such as those that emerge in ordinary conversation. As Mariana Souto-Manning (2014b, 162–63) observes, “CNA allows us to learn how people create their selves in constant social interactions at both personal and institutional levels, and how institutional discourses influence and are influenced by personal everyday narratives.” CNA recognizes that narratives are created by and for particular interests and that power dynamics are thus deeply implicated in the construction of personal narratives. Narratives can be a way to express and exert power, but they can also serve to disguise that power, hiding it from public sight.

Methodologically, CNA requires the researcher to move sequentially from micro to macro levels of analysis in order to draw out various narrative elements of critical significance, in what is essentially a reflexive, iterative process (Emerson and Frosh 2004). In the course of this analysis, the power dynamics underlying the construction of narratives begin to emerge, which in turn reveals the role that narrative plays in the creation and maintenance of power relations within an organization—in this case, a union. In short, CNA allows the researcher to capture the significance of the participants’ experience while maintaining the ability to contextualize that experience from a critical perspective.

I began the multistage CNA process by identifying the factual elements within each of the narratives and comparing the information with that found in other sources to confirm its accuracy. This initial analysis pinpointed the key events that took place over the period of study. The second step was to return to the narratives, armed with an awareness of the key events, to examine how these events were described, interpreted, and understood. At this stage, the narratives were analyzed for the occurrence of common words, phrases, tones, and implications in order to draw out some broad themes, such as top-down leadership, populism, and militant approaches. These themes were then aligned with the key events to begin the process of revealing how union leadership and members were talking about those events.

The third step involved comparing the event-specific stories to identify areas of convergence and divergence. Which story elements recurred and in what context? Through this process, those stories that were more integral to shaping actors’ understanding of events were identified, allowing narratives to emerge. These narratives were then analyzed to determine how they fit together, creating a cluster of narrative families, each of which contained narratives that were related to one another thematically and functionally.

In the final step, I returned the narratives to their context within the union to reveal important power dynamics. For each narrative, I asked whose interests it served and how it did so. This part of the analysis required a conscious awareness that power relations are present in all organizations and that narratives play a role in establishing, maintaining, and shifting power dynamics. By laying bare the relationships of power within an institution, the researcher can see events, and the narratives built to explain those events, through a critical lens that reveals how those narratives contribute to the prevailing power dynamics within that institution.

In practice, the analytical steps did not occur sequentially. The process was more of an iterative spiral, in which I analyzed the data from multiple perspectives, moving back and forth between the various steps, each time gaining new insights. Through this process, the power relations implicit in the narratives were brought to the surface, revealing both the interests that these narratives served and the manner in which they did so. The end result was a richer understanding not only of the key events that occurred but of how the actors involved interpreted those events and how the power dynamics within the local were shaped by the narratives that these actors constructed.