In my opinion, the book "Soul of the New Machine" is a qualitative study based on the six criteria outlined in "The Enlightened Eye".
According to "The Enlightened Eye: The Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice" by Elliot W. Eisner, a first feature of qualitative studies is field focused (pp. 32). "Soul of the New Machine" tracked a team of engineers at Data General Corporation working on an innovative new computer in late 1970's.
A second characteristic of qualitative study relates to the self as an instrument (pp. 33). The author of "Soul of the New Machine", Kidder, not only exploited his own subjectivity by being with the engineers' everyday life for a whole year, but also included his own presence in the description to make the story and characters more believable, such as the night he spent at Tom West's home. Near the end of the book, with the successful conclusion of the project in view, Kidder even joined the group on a day's excursion from their Westborough, Mass. headquarters to a computer trade show in New York. Kidder reported what he saw and responded to a situation with his own signature description.
A third feature that makes a study qualitative is its interpretive character (pp. 35). One meaning of interpretation pertains to the ability to explain why something is taking place; a second meaning of interpretation pertains to what motives and experience holds for those in the situation studied. Kidder did a good job illustrating how the key characters felt and what they thought behind their action and words. Although sometimes Kidder will make the key characters look mysterious, (like fiction novels always do), leaving audience more space to image and feel eager to explore further.
A fouth feature that qualitative studies display is the use of expressive language and the presence of voice in the text (pp. 36). Empathy, which pertains to feeling or to emotion, is often regarded as the enemy of cognition thus not suggested. Being a nature journalist, Kidder transmitted his professionalism into the descriptive writing style within this literature, while avoided too much personal feeling or emotion. Rather he often stood besides the emotional engineers, observing the characters and their surrounding events, and then presented them to a high level of narrative art.
A fifth feature of qualitative studies is their attention to particulars (pp.38). And a sixth feature of qualitative studies is coherence, insight, and instrumental utility (pp. 39). Although non-traditional, Kidder's work provides a sense of the uniqueness of the case by transforming the qualities of a group of engineers' heroic dedication and hard work on creating a new computer into multiple forms of evidence, or quantitative equivalents, from characters' portraits and technology terms to dramatic description of characters' actions and political struggles.
2. What are the similarities and differences between non-fiction, documentary films, and naturalistic social science in explaining knowledge about every day life?
According to "The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge" by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann (1967), sociological research is about study and analyze the reality of everyday life, i.e., the knowledge of everyday life, particularly how this reality appear in various theoretical perspectives to intellectuals, and how to clarify such commonly available reality/knowledge (pp. 19). Berger and Luckmann stated that human expressivity is capable of objectivation, i.e., the understanding of products of human activity as elements of a common world. Although the objectivation indices are incapable of surviving beyond the vivid present of the face-to-face situation, subjective intentions of objectivations can sometimes help better understand meaning behind scenes even sometimes it is difficult to make sure (pp.34-35). Signs, symbols, and language (a system of vocal signs) have primary reference to everyday life, and are capable of transcending the reality of everyday life altogether. Berger and Luckman pointed out that the social stock of knowledge includes knowledge of one's situation and its limits; thus the validity of one's knowledge of everyday life is taken for granted by oneself and by others until further notice, i.e., when a problem arise that cannot be solved in terms of it (pp. 41-44). One's knowledge of everyday life is structured in terms of relevance, it is socially distributed, and that is, as possessed differently by different individuals and types of individuals; thus the social distribution of knowledge of certain elements of everyday reality can become highly complex and even confusing to the outsiders (pp. 45-46).
The similarities between non-fiction, documentary films, and naturalistic social science in explaining knowledge about everyday life are that they represent the above statements of how sociological research is relevant to knowledge of everyday life. They all study and analyze the reality/knowledge of everyday life, and try to clarify and share such knowledge with the society; They all use signs, symbols and language as tools to present subjective intensions of objectivation, and to transcend the reality of everyday; They are limited by selective context, time, coding technique used, the knowledge of their authors, and the knowledge of their audience.
The differences between them are:
1. Different technique used: Documentary films can benefit from in coding and staging real-time visualized face-to-face episodes, sound recording of vocal exchanges ("Two boys' days" pp. 6), sequencing and overlaying scenes and sounds ("Two boys' days" pp. 9). Naturalistic social scientists can make their interpretation or conclusions clear to audience with detailed descriptive settings (that may be neglected by film audience), and expansive and reflexive commentary from the authors("Two boys' days" pp. 6). Like Natualistic social scientists, non-fiction authors can also use detailed descriptive settings, and sometimes involve themselves into the story, such as Kidder in his book "The soul of the new machine".
2. Different viewer impact: Documentary cinema can transport the viewer to new levels of feeling and comprehending that are rarely achieved by products of naturalistic social science. Audience would hold multiple interpretations with varying degrees of clarity and confidence. In contrast, naturalistic social scientists appropriate much of the interpretative latitude by stating their own interpretations or conclusions ("Two boys' days" pp. 10). Non-fiction literature stands in-between the two aforementioned artifacts, as it both represent authors' selection of objectivities and subjective intensions of these objectivities, it also encourages readers to explore different interpretations.
3. Different values: In contrast to empirical social science traditions, non-fiction and documentary film culture values exploration and discovery more than it values confirmation and gradual accretion of knowledge about the subject.
With aforementioned differences, "Two boys' days" authors also pointed out that the two can borrow ideas from each other for further improvement: The usual grounding study and painstaking documentation and analysis, and a high level of intellectual processing and sense-making can become the source of ideas for documentary films. Documentary filmmakers can also profit from a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to the concept and theory of behavior settings. Naturalistic social scientists can use alternative and expanded interpretations and knowledge claims just as documentary film makers did ("Two boys' days" pp. 11), to leave space for audience's own thoughts, and not only share but also elaborate knowledge of everyday life from within their work with the society.