Interviews

Interviews were implemented as the primary instrument for this qualitative research. Myers (2013) states that interviews are an excellent ‘window’ for qualitative research, promoting the understanding of an organisation. It can also assist the researcher in discovering individuals’

opinions, motivation, and rationale for their activities, so obtaining a comprehensive picture of the context of the study. The implementation of semi-structured interviews was helpful to clarify and explore specific information capable of being strengthened by, or conflicting with, that from the interviews (Dawson, 2009). For example, a number of participants from Co3 (in particular from the HR department in the headquarters) revealed a number of different views regarding the establishment of OCoPs within the company, which contradicted those employed in the operation and maintenance section. It was therefore important to seek information from several perspectives to establish a more in-depth understanding of the situation.

In-depth interviews were undertaken to explore views of OCoPs, as well as obtain insights into the impact of organisational factors on collective knowledge sharing in OCoPs. The views of employees, managers and OCoPs members concerning the influence of OCoPs in their organisations have been explored in-depth, with interviews enabling the researcher to

encourage interviewees to elaborate on their perspectives and discuss any issues emerging during the conversation. The main purpose of an interview is to enable interviewees to share experiences, stories and perspectives regarding a specific social phenomenon (Wahyuni, 2012). Figure 6 shows the interviewee groups:

Semi-structured interviews

Interviews in this study were semi-structured, addressing a set of themes with open questions worded flexibly to encourage interviewees to freely express their views (Wahyuni, 2012) and to change the direction of the interview to accommodate different sub-topics previously unconsidered by the researcher (Blumberg et al., 2014). The researcher prepared an interview guide, in which the wording and order of questions remained flexible; to allow participants to raise issues the researcher had not anticipated (Braun and Clarke, 2013, p. 78). Prior to conducting the interviews, the researcher tested the interview with a fellow researcher, receiving some useful feedback (Braun and Clarke, 2013).

The researcher conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a total of thirty-one participants, of which: twenty-five were face-to-face interviews; five were by telephone; and one was through Skype. The interviews generally lasted between 45 to 60 minutes. A recording device was used during all interviews (including those by telephone and Skype), with the awareness that issues could arise, i.e. interviewees refusing permission for interviews to be recorded, or disruption from faulty equipment (Yin, 2014). These eventualities did, in fact, occur, as one participant from Co3, and two from Co2, refused permission for their interviews to be recorded, as this would limit their freedom of expression. This led to the researcher taking notes. The researcher has attempted to write down everything he can remember that took place during the interviews, using keywords and phrases to reflect on the discussion at the end of the interview and elaborate on the ideas,

Interviews Members of

OCoPs

Leaders of OCoPs

Non-members of OCoPs Managers

Figure 6: Interviewee groups.

At the start of face-to-face interviews, participants were given an ‘Information Sheet’, along with a ‘Participation Consent Form’ that they signed and returned (see Appendices A and B).

These documents gave participants information concerning the research purpose and assured them of confidentiality (Braun and Clarke, 2013). The same took place in relation to the telephone and Skype interviews, with the above forms being emailed to participants, requesting them to sign and return the consent form, or reply to the email with an agreement for the interview to be recorded (ibid).

Due to a number of participants being unfamiliar with the notion of TCoPs or OCoPs, the researcher opened the discussion with a brief explanation of ‘Communities of Practice’, employing Wenger’s (2011) definition as this is the most commonly used in the literature, along with the main differentiations between these two terms. A number of examples of applications of OCoPs were also given for purposes of clarity. The discussion then commenced with general questions concerning the participant’s work experience, background, and position within the organisation. A four-section interview guide was used:

Firstly, interviewees’ views on OCoPs were elicited, enabling the researcher to evaluate the company’s understanding of the concept. Secondly, they were asked for their perspective on the top management’s support, level of control and attitudes towards OCoP activities.

Thirdly, they were requested to evaluate organisational culture in relation to knowledge sharing and rewards systems within their companies. Finally, participants were questioned concerning the impact of organisational structure (e.g. centralised or formalised) on OCoP activities (see Appendix C).

Selection of participants

Due to the exploratory nature of this research, there were considerable challenges in the selection of participants, particularly when the researcher was unsure whether OCoPs were implemented or well-known within the company.

The thirty-one participants in this present study were selected by the snowball sampling technique, along with theoretical sampling techniques, resulting in many respondents referring the interviewer to colleagues, many of whom also became respondents and, in turn, suggested other prospective respondents (Noy, 2008). Perry (1998) notes the benefits of conducting interviews at different hierarchical levels of a network of relationships, and therefore participants were generally drawn from managers and supervisors at different levels. This also ensured a diversity of perspectives, as highlighted by Braun and Clarke

(2013). Likewise, Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) suggest the potential to mitigate bias by including highly knowledgeable informants, capable of viewing the focal phenomena from diverse perspectives. This study also followed their suggestion that such informants can include organisational actors from different hierarchical levels, functional areas, groups, and geographies. In addition, OCoPs members from Co1 and Co2 were approached for their views on the influential role of the three organisational factors on the activities of their OCoPs.

Context of the interviews

In this research, interviews played a vital role as the primary source of data collection. It was therefore significant to consider their context during the process of data analysis, particularly as the venues varied according to the preferences of participants, and to ensure their comfort.

Face-to-face interviews were generally undertaken during site visits, apart from one, which took place in a restaurant. In some cases, the researcher endeavoured to undertake personal interviews with participants from the three companies; however, these were only possible in the case of Co3. As the study aims to include OCoPs’ members’ voices from Co1 and Co2, it was necessary to negotiate an interview schedule convenient for all participants (Braun and Clarke, 2013, p. 90). It was beneficial to use Skype or telephone interviews as a medium to create a convenient alternative to face-to-face interviews, avoiding the need for the researcher to travel long distances to conduct the interviews (Hanna, 2012). However, this was not always possible, due to a busy schedule or participants’ business trips (for Co1 and Co2 in particular), and thus telephone interviews were beneficial where extended access to participants was required (Opdenakker, 2006). A number of participants expressed a preference for telephone interviews that encouraged them to participate from a location of their choice (Braun and Clarke, 2013). Each technology has its own benefits and drawbacks.

Skype ensures that: “the researcher can easily record both the visual and audio interaction of the interview through simple software downloaded onto their workstation” (Hanna, 2012, p.

241). Telephone interviews can also reduce interviewer bias, particularly in relation to the interviewer’s physical appearance, actions and body language (Blumberg et al., 2014). A telephone interviewee (Co2-R14) stated that:

Face-to-face interviews are more effective, but for me a telephone interview is fit for purpose; I was comfortable, the questions were clear to me, I felt [I

was having] live interaction. There was effective listening, and this is very important for the person who is talking and that encouraged me to talk more.