Interview Strategy

Central to GT, interviews (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Charmaz, 2008) formed a basic core for gathering information (Eisenhardt, 1989b) whilst allowing for a personal connection between the researcher and participant (Bailey, 2007). Although there are various interview strategies, the two most relevant for this thesis are the face-to-face interview (i.e. participant to researcher) and the group interviews (i.e. researcher to multiple participants) (Yin, 1994).

The preference is for face-to-face interviews as these can provide more data for comparative analysis within the same organisation. Additionally, compared to group interviews, responses in face-to-face interviews are less likely to be influenced by other participants, as in this specific cases the objective is to understand individual’s decision making processes.

The benefits of the interview strategy is that information will be gathered from originating sources, the screeners, where informal decisions occur (Eisenhardt, 1989b;

Peräkylä, 2005). Interviews offer the flexibility to direct questions towards interesting

-82-

research findings (Patton, 2002) and for information sharing and understanding of social constraints (Fontana & Frey, 1998; Peräkylä, 2005); however, the drawback is that interviews can present only one perspective and data obtained can be repetitive (Charmaz, 2006). Thus, GT’s categorical saturation is important in overcoming this barrier (Charmaz, 2005; Glaser, 1978) as this directs the “…next interview and observations” (Corbin &

Strauss, 1990, p. 6). Other potential pitfalls associated with interviews are the poor interviewing skills which can lead to misinterpretation and modified responses by participants (Patton, 2002; Yin, 1994).

Prior to interviewing participants, informed consent was sought and participants were offered opportunities to ask questions prior to, during, and after interviews. During interviews, the focus was on capturing informal decisions and thought processes before intense data analysis commenced (Eisenhardt, 1989a). Field notes were compiled into a supplementary report for analysis and discussion. Only three interviews were captured using a digital recording device which allowed this researcher to re-immerse himself into interviews through transcription and audio analysis (Fernández, 2004; Peräkylä, 2005; Yin, 1994). However accurate notes were taken during and after all eleven of the individual interviews. The participants who declined to be recorded cited being uncomfortable with being recorded, fear of supervisor obtaining a copy of it, the participant had little to offer to the study, and no explanation.

Face-to-face individual and group interviews were the primary method used to collect data from screeners (see Table below). Group interviews were used in two instances (i.e. S1

& S2 and S9 & S10) as participants worked together making decisions as a team. Under the case study strategy, these participants were identified by group and coded as a unit of analysis (Yin, 1994).

Table 3-3: List of Participant and Interview Types and Dates

Participants Type of Interview Date of Interview

S1 Group with S2 19 January 2010

S2 Group with S1 19 January 2010

S3 Individual 5 July 10

S4 Individual 2 June 2010

S5 Individual 8 July 2010

S6 Individual 8 July 2010

S7 Individual 15 July 2010

-83-

S8 Individual 15 July 2010

S9 Group with S10 29 July 2010

S10 Group with S9 29 July 2010

S11 Individual 6 February 2012

Since structured interviews leave little room for variation (Fontana & Frey, 1998), these interviews were semi-structured to provide for development of information under GT (Bailey, 2007; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Peräkylä, 2005). Interviews followed non-experimental controls surrounding informal decisions and filtering stories to identify critical decision stages that illustrate practise (Judd et al., 1991; Love, 1991). There were nine semi-structured interviews with screeners which were limited to not more than two per day.

Furthermore, to gain trust and a better appreciation of the organisation, the researcher participated in staff meetings and other functions (e.g. newcomer orientation and luncheons) where he was exposed to additional information and interactions with participants. Finally, this researcher dressed fairly similar to the participants to build trust and confidence as Babbie (1990) suggests that inappropriate attire could inhibit responses from participants.

Interviews normally ranged between thirty minutes to one hour. Semi-structured open ended questions (see also Appendix 26) guided interviews. Some examples of interview questions follow:

 Why was the educational degree(s) [or other skill] the first qualifications you reviewed?;

 What information was the most/least important?;

 Was ‘how the applicant came to apply for this position’ important?;

 What do you like/dislike about this application?;

 Do you know this applicant?;

 How accurate/truthful is the applicant information?; and

 Does the optional information (i.e. race, gender, nationality) help make your decision?

These interview questions will reveal screener perceptions of organisational personnel specifications and provide a foundation for understanding informal decisions.

-84- 3.6.2.1 Thinking Aloud Protocol

Case studies were designed around an embedded researcher using the thinking aloud protocol during the interviews. Information was collected during screening processes through screeners’ verbalisations describing decision processes, thought processes, application processing, and justifications for decisions (Boren & Ramey, 2000; Patton, 2002).

According to Patton (2002, p. 385) a benefit to the thinking aloud protocol is that it

“…illuminate[s] what’s going on in a person’s head during the performance of a task…” This provided a field-based and realistic understanding of screener actions and organisational events through common shared experiences (Boren & Ramey, 2000; Golden-Biddle &

Locke, 1993; Miller & Salkind, 2002). The primary difficulty in using the thinking aloud protocol was that participants had more difficulty using this technique in the field as distractions were more likely to interrupt thought processes. Additionally, this type of communication is not a common everyday technique for communicating and the concept of the thinking aloud protocol can be foreign and difficult for participants to practise.

The thinking aloud protocol was presented with examples to the participants before interviews commenced. Interviews were typically between thirty minutes and one hour per screener as category saturation had occurred since information became redundant.

However, additional time was spent when information became interesting and non-repetitive.

This follows GT’s category saturation methodology where information is probed until repetition occurs (Glaser, 1978). Although participants were directed and redirected to use the thinking aloud protocol, the researcher was careful not to offend a participant with consistent redirection as it could negatively impact the flow and quality of data.

3.6.2.2 Transcription of Case Notes and Interviews

According to Schwandt (2001, p. 255), “Transcription is the act of recording and preparing a record of the respondents’ own words…[which] may result from retyped handwritten notes or audio recordings.” With GT analysis, transcriptions and case notes provide the foundation for data analysis (Glaser, 1978). The primary drawback of transcription is there is not a universally established acceptable standard for presenting field notes (Patton, 2002). Unless the interview is captured by a recording device, some aspects of the interview will not be reflected in the written data especially as time can diminish memory recall (Bailey, 2007). According to Bailey (2007) and Glesne and Peshkin (1992), there are three types of notes: Mental, jotted, and full field notes. Mental notes are written shortly after an investigation/interview. Jotted notes are short memos that help trigger

-85-

memory recall about investigations. Finally, full field notes are sequentially written periodically to expand upon the phenomena being studied.

Primary, the researcher jotted notes during the interviews to draft a summary of the conversation. Usually within forty-eight hours after each interview, mental and jotted notes were used to produce a more detailed record of the discussions. In the cases of the digitally recorded interviews, notes were written before interviews were transcribed verbatim by the researcher to reduce unintentional errors and researcher biases. Also, interviews took much longer to transcribe as the attention to detail was crucial in ensuring the accuracy of conversations. Conversation details such as silence, laughter, and distractions were noted when possible (Gubrium & Holstein, 1997). This information was necessary to include within the initial transcription to obtain a complete record of each conversation (Lin, 1998; Yin, 1994). Transcribed interviews and notes are included in the Appendices 3 to 15 (see the table below).

Table 3-4: List of Transcripts and Notes in Appendices

Participants Transcripts Notes

S1 --- Appendix 3

S2 --- Appendix 3

S3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5

S4 --- Appendix 6

S5 Appendix 7 & 8 Appendix 9

S6 --- Appendix 10

S7 Appendix 11 Appendix 12

S8 --- Appendix 13

S9 --- Appendix 14

S10 --- Appendix 14

S11 --- Appendix 15

To achieve a deeper understanding of informal decisions, I completed the documentation of notes and transcriptions of all interviews. Brackets (“[” and “]”) were used to detail notes and to document important aspects of interviews. Transcriptions included time stamps expressed as [00:00] where the first numbers indicate minutes and the second numbers indicate seconds into the interview. This allowed the researcher to match up the transcription and the recording quickly for review and to note any time lags or pauses.

-86-

As written records were produced, each respective participant was provided with a copy of the notes; and participants having consented to being recorded were provided with a transcription of the interview. By providing participants with copies of information, the researcher’s records and interpretations were subject to review, which increases the reliability and validity of the information.

Finally, documentation and transcriptions were anonymised with respect to personal names and events which could identify a participant. Additionally, transcripts omitted selected information relating to non-participants such as phone conversations and daily interactions with co-workers and job-seekers. Where omissions occurred, the term “omitted”

with and an explanation (e.g. personal phone call, interruption) and the time was detailed within brackets (i.e. “[” and “]”). The decision to omit selected information occurred during coding processes.