of the ERP system and standardization of processes at Norrmejerier, the history in terms of mergers and ownership was found to significantly affect events. Further, all of the studies involved site visits which substantially increased the understanding of the social context. At Norrmejerier I also conducted observation for a number of weeks to better appreciate the organizational culture. Finally, in reporting the studies I have strived to provide “thick descriptions” to the audience by detailing historical and social contextual aspects. 3. The Principle of Interaction Between the Researchers and the Subjects. The subject-subject relationship in “double-hermeneutics”, as pointed out by Giddens (1976), suggests that researchers carefully must consider how they generate data (Mason 2002). Interviewees are describing their interpretations, these descriptions are affected by the researchers presence and interaction. Further, the researcher makes new interpretations in analyzing the generated data. Hence, the researcher needs to reflect on how interactions affect data collection and analysis. Managing these interactions is a challenge in any qualitative research and
52 these studies do not constitute an exception. In interacting with people in the studied contexts I have tried to communicate my role as a researcher and sought informed consent, both in terms of being interviewed and in addition recorded. I have conducted all data collection at the informants’ work place to avoid (or possibly decrease the “lab rat feeling”) and, I have tried to gain feedback on my analysis, i.e. my interpretation. 4. The Principle of Abstraction and Generalization. While interpretive research acknowledges uniqueness and contextual influence, most researcher conducting studies with interpretive approaches agree on the value of abstractions and generalization. Knowledge claims of interpretive research do however mainly rely on understanding rather than causality. For example, Walsham (1993) describe how validity of generalizations rely on “plausibility and cogency of the logical reasoning used in describing the results from the cases, and in drawing conclusions from them”(p.15).He also describes four types of generalizations: developments of concepts, generation of theory, drawing of specific implications and rich insight (Walsham 1995, p. 79. In this dissertation I contribute these types of generalizations, of which the reader is the referee the “plausibility and cogency”. I provide development of concepts (digital capability, performative and transformative trading zones in paper 2), in paper four I present an extended digital options theory, in paper 2, and 3 I draw specific implications, and in paper 5 I contribute rich insights on effects of digitalization. 5. The Principle of Dialogical Reasoning. The researcher also needs to reflect on the preconceptions that he or she brings into the study. During the studies I mainly did this by engaging in constant analyses of the generated data e.g. while transcribing interviews.