Interviews’ underlying principles

Interviews can be classified into three types: structured, unstructured and semi- structured (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). Hussey and Hussey (1997) further argued that a structured interview or researcher-administered survey is a type of survey where the interview questions are predefined. The aim is to present the same questions in the same manner in order to make comparisons with confidence. It is quite straightforward but its disadvantage is that it involves a rigorous set of questions that will not allow the interviewee to enlarge on his/her answers. Unstructured interviews are more spontaneous and the questions are not predefined. The questions develop spontaneously as the interview progresses. The major downfall is that it may lose reliability, which is important in order to debate the themes set for the research. The final type of interview is semi-structured. This type adds balance to the research. Like structured interviews, it requires interviewees to focus on the themes but, at the same time, it is sufficiently unstructured to enable interviewees to offer some insights into the topic (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). There are many advantages of conducting semi-structured interviews. The researcher is free to modify and adjust the questions as and when the situation demands (Creswell, 2007). Hussey and Hussey (1997) argue the researcher is not only able to line up questions according to the situation but can also ‘probe’ if necessary. The response rate remains high, leading to better cooperation between the two (Saunders et al., 2009).

As discussed earlier, while interviews have several advantages they also have a few shortcomings. Sometimes the information may become biased due to the presence of the interviewer and due to the personal views of the informants (Creswell, 1994). This type of research generally involves a higher cost and is more time-consuming (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). Another form of bias can occur when the data are interpreted by the researcher, as qualitative research requires a judgement which itself is prone to bias (Creswell, 2007). Despite these shortcomings, the current study

100

adopts semi-structured interviews as they not only offer a great deal to a qualitative inquiry but are also relevant to the research strategy adopted in this study.

Interviews can be conducted by using different techniques such as personal interviews (face-to-face), telephone interviews, and video calls (Creswell, 2007). The literature recommends the use of face-to-face interviews where possible (Creswell, 1994). In the current study, the researcher conducted face-to-face interviews; however, in situations where this was not possible, video calls were used to conduct semi-structured interviews.

3.3.2.1 Interview schedules

The researcher conducted forty-three interviews for this study (see Appendix 3). Twenty interviews from both case-studies were conducted with the marketers responsible for their schools’ marketing activities. Twenty interviews from both case-studies were targeted at the schools’ subject specialists (academic experts) in the field of reputation and marketing. Apart from these forty interviews, three further interviews were conducted with industry experts to provide an external view on the research topic.

The informants were sent a letter and information sheet via email requesting them to attend the interviews. The information sheet (see Appendix 6) described the purpose of the current research and mentioned the supervision received from the University of York. It was stated that face-to-face interviews were preferred, and to arrange these interviews the researcher used different correspondence alternatives such as letters, phone calls, personal visits and emails. In some cases, where face-to- face interviews were not possible, the researcher opted for video calls using Skype. The interviewees were invited via the following procedure. First, an official, signed document (scanned in the case of email) was sent along with the information sheet to interviewees, seeking their participation in the research study. Prior to the interviews, two consent letters (see Appendix 7) were provided to the participants

101

and a copy of the signed consent letter was collected from the participants in person or via email. The interviews were conducted on the agreed dates and at the arranged times. On average, the interviews lasted for sixty to seventy minutes during which the researcher asked a number of questions relevant to the study. The researcher requested the appointments well in advance to provide sufficient time to the informants as most of them had busy schedules. The researcher preferred to conduct interviews in their offices (where possible) for the convenience of the interviewees. The interviews were recorded on a digital voice recorder with the interviewees’ consent. The interviewees were assured that their data would be confidential and their names and institutions would be anonymised. In some cases, interviews conducted via video calls were also digitally recorded.

3.3.2.2 Interview design

The current study followed qualitative research methodology and collected data by conducting semi-structured interviews. As discussed earlier, the objective of the current study focuses on ranking and reputation relationship within business education field. Therefore, the researcher adopted open-ended questions for interviews relating to the rankings and reputation literature. A recent study debated the HE globalisation process in the Taiwan HE sector from the standpoint of rankings (Lo, 2014). The current study adopted the interview protocol presented by Lo (2014) for structuring the interview questions. In addition, the current study considered a synthesis of the literature and research objectives of the current study for structuring the interview guidelines (see Appendix 4). The interviews were semi-structured, meaning that several questions emerged as the interview progressed. The purpose of interview guidelines is to ensure that the researcher does not drift away from the key topics/concepts that are important for the study and that the interviews are conducted in a timely manner (Creswell, 2007).

102

The interview has three sections (see Appendix 4). The first section has a set of questions designed to achieve familiarisation with the institution and personal context of the informants. The second section of the interview relates to the understanding, issues and responses to the ranking system(s). The interview questions reflect on the literature review presented in chapter two (Crisp et al., 2012; Espeland and Sauder, 2007; Hazelkorn, 2009; Hazelkorn, 2011; Jobbins, 2005; Wedlin, 2010; Usher and Savino, 2006). The final section relates to business school's reputation strategy and rankings’ influence on these strategies. Similar to section two, the researcher asked a series of questions guided by the literature review, which was discussed in chapter two (Crisp et al., 2012; Fombrun and Van Riel, 2004; Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006; Jobbins, 2005; Pakir, 2014).

The interview questions also varied depending on the type of respondents, such as academic experts, industry experts, and marketers, and the researcher adjusted his interview questions to render them applicable to the respondents. For example, the external experts (industry experts) were not asked about school’s research strategy but they were asked to reflect on a wider (global) influence of rankings on HEIs. For the two locations (UK and Pakistan) of the case studies, the questions about rankings were asked by considering their respective ranking systems that we earlier discussed in chapter two.