Data collection

Qualitative data collection methods come in various forms such as interviews, observation, surveys, documents, written materials and case studies, to mention some of them (Hirsjärvi et al. 1996, 187; Ghauri & Grønhaug 2002, 85; Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016, 83). The choice of data collection method depends largely on the researcher’s overall judgement on which kind of data is required for the research problem (Ghauri &

Grønhaug 2002, 85; Hirsjärvi et al. 1996, 200). In qualitative studies, interview has been the most used method of data collection (Hirsjärvi et al. 1996, 200; Eriksson &

Kovalainen 2016, 83). As the purpose of this study is to build a holistic understanding of knowledge transfer in cross-border acquisition integrations and how it is viewed on interpersonal and inter-organizational level, an interview was regarded as the most suitable method for collecting data.

Different types of interviews exist for the researcher to select from. On a general level, interviews consist of conversations organized into a series of questions and answers (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016, 83). Commonly these different kinds of interviews are divided according to how tightly the interview is structured (Hirsjärvi et al. 1996, 203).

Structured interview has a clear order and format for each question whereas an unstructured interview has no particular order or guidelines for the course of interview and thus, it is the closest to normal discussion. A semi-structured interview provides the possibility to enrich the data by adding possibly more detailed questions as the interview goes along, but the questions asked have been determined before the actual interview.

(Ghauri & Grønhaug 2002, 100–101; Hirsjärvi et. al 1996, 203–204; Eskola & Suoranta 2000, 86.) A semi-structured interview is chosen for this study as the most suitable type for data collection. This gives the researcher certain flexibility, for instance with the wording and order of the questions that can be adjusted during the course of the interview.

Even though the interviews vary from the structured and standardized interviews to semi-formal guided conversations and free-flowing information exchanges, they all include interaction between the interviewer and interviewee (Holstein & Gubrium 2002, 112).

This makes an interview a rather unique way of collecting data with possibilities for the researcher to gain in-depth knowledge on the research subject.

In order to be certain that all the necessary topics are covered in the interview, the operationalization of the research questions was done with great effort. The aim of the operationalization of the research questions is to combine theory and real-life context with each other and thus, the operationalization of the objective of the study was done in order to ensure that the empirical part of the study is based on relevant theoretic aspects (Eskola & Suoranta 2000, 75). Table 1 presents the operationalization of the research question.

Table 1 Operationalization of the research question

Table 1 introduces the operationalization table of this study. Thus, it emphasizes the objective of the study, namely what information is sought to be acquired by conducting these interviews as data collection method. The operationalization table was applied as the foundation for the interview guide (Appendix 1). The questions from the interview guide were frequently compared with the research questions in order to be certain of the consistency between these two. Preparing the interview guide, the time needed for the questions was also considered. As an interview should ideally take around one hour, that time was set to be the aim of the length and the questions were planned accordingly.

(Ghauri & Grønhaug 2002, 103.) In the interview guide, the themes move from more general to specific in order to help the informants get acquainted with the topic discussed.

Moreover, under most of the questions, more detailed questions were included to be able to analyze the subject on an in-depth level. As it is suggested, the interview guide included both open and closed questions. Furthermore, follow-up questions outside the interview guide were posed to allow important topics emerging during the interview to be discussed as well. These features are typical for semi-structured interviews. (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016, 95–96.)

The informants for the study were selected due to their experience in post-acquisition integration processes and their expertise in the subject of the study. The subjects of the study have varying backgrounds of mergers and acquisitions and all of them are highly experienced with integrations. This method is theoretical sampling, in which the samples for the study are chosen with purpose and by non-probability. The technique of purposefully choosing informants varies fundamentally from other types of interviews

Research question Sub-research question Main themes Theoretical background

(chapter)

where respondents are chosen randomly. (Ghauri & Grønhaug 2002, 121.) In this study, the researcher makes the judgement of whose viewpoints and knowledge are relevant in terms of the objective of this study and the contextual position given by the researcher.

In qualitative studies, the criterion is not quantity but rather quality (Eskola & Suoranta 2000, 18) and thus, a large effort was put on identifying suitable candidates to approach.

For this study, introductory emails were sent to multiple persons regarding an interview. In the introductory email, the subject and objective of the study were introduced as well as an outline of possible questions. The email was sent to informants with whom the researcher had previously contact with either due to work or whom were suggested to the researcher by colleagues from university. Some were unable to participate due to lack of time and resources for giving an interview, but six respondents showed interest in the subject and managed to find time to collaborate in this study. Table 2 shows the titles of the interviewees as well as the duration and date of the interviews.

Moreover, it presents the experience of each informant in M&A.

Table 2 Summary of the interviews

Interviewee Interview Director of Development 5 years 12.2.2019

1h 15

min Face-to-face Vice President 20 years 18.2.2019 50min Face-to-face

CEO 25 years 19.2.2019 45min Skype

Senior Manager 13 years 11.2.2019 55min Skype

Senior Consultant 5 years 13.2.2019 1h 05min Face-to-face As shown in table 2, six interviews were conducted for this study. One major aspect to analyze regarding the collection of the data is the level of experience possessed by the informants. As presented in table 2, there are variations in the years of M&A experience by the subjects. However, each informant has had demanding roles in multiple post-acquisition integrations. Moreover, all of them have had the possibility to gain insights on different scale and types of acquisition integrations. Hence, the interview methods in this study can be classified as an expert interview. An expert in research purposes can be defined as an individual who is expected to have knowledge that is not available for just anyone operating in the same field. This exact knowledge is aimed to be discovered in the expert interviews. (Meuser & Nagel 2009, 18.) All of the six interviewees can be considered as experts in their field of expertise, due to long experience with the topic.

Moreover, an expert interview is a highly efficient method in regards of getting needed information for a study. Also, as experts may have contacts to other professionals in their field, they can enable the researcher new sources of viable knowledge. (Bogner et al.

2009, 2.) This was also the case in this study, since one of the respondents was suggested by another one. Thus, the researcher gained access to contact information she did not possess beforehand. Furthermore, expert interviews provide a possibility to achieve good results in quite a short period of time. This is due to the efficiency of conducting expert interviews. As this study has a quite limited amount of time resources, expert interviews were regarded as an effective way to gather knowledge on the topic. Moreover, the shared comprehension of the importance and relevance of the topic between the researcher and the respondent can be regarded as the sole motivation for the respondent to justify their participation. (Bogner et al. 2009, 2.)

A few days beforehand the interview, an email was sent to the respondents to remind the subjects about the core themes of the interview. This was done according to the wishes of the interview subjects so that they could prepare themselves for the interview, if desired. A rough draft of the interview guide was also sent to give the informants the ability to comprehend the wholeness of the purpose of the interview. As shown in table 2, the interviews were conducted within the time frame of one week and the duration of the interviews varied between 45 minutes and 1 hour and 15 minutes. Two of the interviews were conducted through skype and the rest face-to-face in offices in Helsinki.

The other skype interview was conducted due to the informant living abroad and the other one due to the informant’s too busy schedule for meeting face-to-face.

During the interview, attention was given by the researcher to make a pleasant surrounding for the interview. At first, the interviewer introduced herself and the purpose of the study to make the situation more comfortable for the participants. Moreover, the confidentiality was reinforced as well as permission to use the tape recorder was asked.

All of the participants allowed the use of a tape recorder. A promise was made to all the respondents that the information received from the interview will be kept confidential.

(Ghauri & Grønhaug 2002, 103, 105). The researcher wrote down keywords and some short notes during the interview. However, the notes were more to help the researcher make possible follow-up questions and attention was given to listen and be an active interviewer. There were no external distractions observed in any of the interviews. All the six interviews were followed through with no interruptions and the conversation flowed quite freely in the interviews.

Post-interview all important points as well as practical details were written down immediately. The researcher wrote down how long it took, some opinions about the situation and the respondent and her perception of the interaction and relationship with the respondent. All these details were useful when listening later to the recorded tape and analyzing the trustworthiness of this study. (Ghauri & Grønhaug 2002, 107–108.) Although the researcher executed interviews both face-to-face and via skype, no difference was noticed between these two methods that would affect the trustworthiness.

The researcher believes to have been able to build a trusting and open relationship with

all of the subjects, regardless of the type of the interview. Thus, it can be concluded that neither the use of the tape recorder nor the way of executing the interview affected the interviewees willingness to express themselves honestly. All of the informants wished to stay anonymous in this study but gave the researcher the permission to use their titles.

This guideline is followed in analyzing the findings in chapter 5. Moreover, the preposition used for the interviewees is from now on “he” or “him”, to ensure the anonymity of the respondents.