Data Collection

The purpose of qualitative research is to understand the context in which phenomena gain significance and the way in which they are conditioned within the particular and broader social context. An interview is one of the most essential means of

investigation in qualitative research (Lewin, 1952). “Conversations with a purpose” (Mason, 2002:225), interviews combine attention to dynamic processes as well as static categories (Gerson and Horowitz, 2002). It is interactive research, co-produced between interviewer and interviewee. The knowledge produced is relational,

conversational, contextual, linguistic, narrative and pragmatic (Kvale, 2009:53). Sample sizes tend to be small, with no statistical grounds for guidance (Punch, 2001:46). Even knowing this, how many companies, and how many participants to collect enough information needs to be decided. There are two criteria for ‘enough’. Sufficiency is the first. Are there sufficient numbers to reflect typicality and difference in process and experience? The second criterion is saturation of information. This is the notion of keeping going until further data collection appears to add little or nothing to what you have already learned (Robson, 2002; Seidman, 2006).

Mason’s analysis of 179 PhD studies identified 36 as the mean number of interviews (2010). Creswell (2009) suggests a range of 5-30 interviews depending on the method. Research by Guest et al. (2006) shows that for studies with a high level of homogeneity among the population a sample of six interviews may be sufficient to enable development of meaningful themes and useful interpretations. There are however a number of other, outside determinants that influence the answer to ‘how many’. These include the nature and scope of the topic, the time given to complete a research project, the skill of the interviewer, finding and keeping in contact with

participants, and the institutional demands of ethics committees (Robson, 2002; Guest

89 5.3.1 Sample Identification

The traditional way of sampling is to identify a population and then select a random or stratified sample from that population (Voss et al., 2002; Hair et al., 2007). The first task is to identify a ‘typical’ client organisation. An analysis detailing the industries buying consultancy services, showing the latest available data by sector, lists the Financial Services and Utilities sectors as the biggest private sector UK consultancy buyers (Figure 5-2).

Figure 5-2: MC Market Composition by Client Sector (%of Turnover) 2009 (Poór et al., 2012)

The second task is to decide which and how many companies should be approached to obtain enough information by company and sector to see if different contexts use different approaches. The research guidelines by Mason, Guest et al. and Creswell showed a wide variation, highlighting the difficulty of knowing what is right for a given context. Using the principles of additionality and sufficiency, five people in five

companies per sector seemed a sensible target. This was based on the logic that one interview gave a personal view, and two or three people ran the risk of being too similar, while five could reveal a ‘company’ bias, if there was one. It would also allow checking for additionality (Robson, 2002; Seidman, 2006). Despite Mason’s (2010) comments about the contrived nature of sample sizes ending in a zero account, 50 thus became the target sample size in the combined sectors. This research therefore appears at the high end of a ‘norm’ for qualitative research, with the complexity and volume of data posing potential analysis issues. Choosing companies to target was a simpler task. Given that utilities and financial services companies are generally household names, a list by sector was compiled from memory. This yielded twelve

90

utilities companies and eleven financial services companies to start from. If suitability is an important criterion, accessibility is a crucial one (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008). Having identified the target number, the next step was to find actual participants. This was done in a purposive way (May, 2001:95). Non-probability sampling is known to be useful in achieving valuable insights into the studied

phenomenon (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2005:155-6) not “made with the aim of being statistically representative” (Hair et al., 2007:181). Purposive targeting of individuals also referred to as ‘judgment sampling’ (ibid), is required because participants had to be familiar with the phenomenon of engaging management consultants.

5.3.2 Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire design was based on the themes identified in the literature review, covering operational and relational aspects. The questions asked about what matters to clients when they hire consultants. These questions were piloted with a Director of a Financial Services company (Appendix F1). Having been interviewed, the questions were then discussed. The feedback was that the questions were too project-oriented and seemed to be detached from the research goals and stated outcomes, almost asking governance-type questions but with a broader scope. A second set of questions was created, drawing on the areas highlighted in the literature review

(Appendix F2). A further interview scenario was enacted. This time the feedback was that the questions were more about the mechanics of the process and less about the critical success factors of an engagement and the unique selling points of consultancy. The actual experience should be questioned more and the questions should be much longer, trying to evoke feelings and memories. The interview script with the questions grouped into the exploration themes identified in the literature review (shown in

Appendix E) was finalised following discussion about the questions with the second interviewee (FS1.1).