Macro-level Genre Analysis

First, in advance of analysing the textual structures, such as the moves and steps of the job interviews, a contextual framework, which examines the texts from a wider perspective, will be outlined. This will be called the ‘contextual structure’. A variety of non-linguistic features which might reflect successful interactions, such as the length of the job interview, the amount of language spoken by both interviewers and the applicants, the number of turn- takings with different patterns, and the different types of contextual situations used (e.g. discussions between interviewers and written technical tests, refer to Section 3.3), will be analysed and compared between successful and unsuccessful applicants. The findings will be examined in more detail in relation to the textual structures (i.e. moves and steps), and also with respect to the lexico-grammatical and pragmatic features.

As a next step, a textual structure analysis focusing mainly on move and step structures will be carried out. In this stage, a top-down approach will be applied since the size of the corpus data is relatively small, and the structural framework seems to be quite explicit, from

73

opening to ending, mainly based on the types of questions (e.g. biographical, competency- based, hypothetical and technical). Therefore, as discussed in section 2.4.2.1, the order of analysis will follow the general procedures of top-down approaches suggested by Biber, Connor and Upton (2007, p.11): developing communicative/functional categories, segmenting each text according to these categories, identifying and classifying the functional type of each discourse, analysing the linguistic features, describing the linguistic characteristics of each category, structuring the whole of the text as a sequence of discourse units, and describing the organisational tendencies within the discourse.

In order to establish a macro- and micro-rhetorical textual organisation in this regard, various kinds of sources were adopted in order to enhance reliability of the results based on a coherent and consistent structural formation within the common core communicative goals. Four major sources were utilised for this purpose: interview assessment forms; follow-up interview with interviewers; interviewers’ comments addressed to the applicants during the interview, which points out what interviewers expect from applicants’ answers in each stage; and a close observation of move and step collocations. First of all, three different versions of interview assessment forms designed by ODC, which include details of several interview evaluation criteria and an explanation of what will be examined at each specific stage, were utilised. Since one of these forms was actually applied during the appraisal process and served as a major source by which to judge the applicants’ qualifications, the information sorted and combined from these three different interview assessment forms was an obvious basis on which to organise the move and step structures of this study. Extracts of the samples of the three evaluation forms are shown below (the full versions of each are not presented in this thesis for business confidentiality issues).

74 Table 11. Interview Assessment Form Sample 1

POINTS with Guidelines 5 4 3 2 1 COMMENTS

NOTE: Applicants are to be assessed on the points listed. “3” represents an average performer and is considered satisfactory.

Education/Qualifications/Training:

Meets minimum required qualifications?
Has undertaken relevant training courses

(details)? Experience:

● Has minimum required years of experience? ● Has experience relevant to job applied for? ● Has sufficient technical knowledge and

work skills? Communication:

● Can be understood easily?

● Listens well and asks questions to clarify? ● Understands interviewer easily?

Table 12. Interview Assessment Form Sample 2

POINTS

(Superior-5; Good-4; Average-3; Fair-2; Poor-l ) 5 4 3 2 1 Remark Qualifications:

Education, Training & Accomplishments Experience:

Relevant experience, Relevant skills & Achievements

Characteristics:

Achievement oriented, Cooperative, Responsible, Open, Dedicated, Mature, Professional, Showing an ability to learn

75 Table 13. Interview Assessment Form Sample 3

Competency Profile Appraisal Factors:

[Use ‘Tick Mark’ or “Circle” to rate] 4 3 2 1 N.A. Rating → 4 – Excellent 3 – Satisfactory 2 – Fair 1 – Poor N.A. – Not Applicable

Personal Attributes

Initial Appearance & Confidence Attitude & Industriousness Integrity/Dedication/Flexibility Leadership/Planning Skills Stress Tolerance

Analytical and Problem Solving Skills

In addition, the discussions with interviewers during the follow-up interviews made the classifications of the move and step structures more qualitatively valid. The following example extracted from F03-P-FA effectively illustrates the interviewers’ original intention regarding one specific question relating to sexual harassment.

Researcher: What did you have in mind when you mentioned ‘sexual harassment’?

Interviewer: During the conversation, I noticed that she has a quite strong personality. So I just

posed a hard question on purpose in order to observe how she reacted and solved the given problem, even though those kinds of cases happen very very rarely in the workplace.

(Extracted from F03-P-FA, conducted in Korean and translated into English)

Questions regarding sexual harassment are not common in ordinary job interviews, and therefore it difficult to judge what was sought and expected by the interviewers in the first instance. By listening to interviewers’ own explanations after the interviews were finished, however, it was possible to understand the hidden purpose of the question, which was to verify the applicants’ problem-solving skills in an unexpected situation that might arise in the future working environment, and this ultimately helped to draw clearer guidelines on how to categorise such questions into appropriate rhetorical structures.

76

Finally, the discourse itself between and during interviews, both among interviewers and posed to applicants, also served as a useful tool by which to enhance the credibility of schematic structures. The below examples clearly demonstrate this.

Among interviewers

Interviewer 1: You have more questions on technical matters? Interviewer 2: No more.

Interviewer 1: Then, it’s okay to ask some questions on personnel matters?

(Extracted from P19-V-ME,

conducted in Korean between interviewers and translated into English)

To applicants

I1: <=>So why-why do you apply this position, (.) in this company? (1) You should know

some the: you know.

F5-P-WA: This is the: uh (.) shipment company, sir? (.) Or: I1: Shipyard.

F5-P-WA: Shipyard.

I1: Yes. (1) an:d you should know: (1) if you selected (.) an:d then (.) where you will: be

placed, (.) and what kind of work you will do, (1) an:d the: those kind of things you should understand. (.) Then, you can apply to (1) the new: you know (.) new company: (.) You don't know about this company well?

(Extracted from F05-P-WA)

The first extract is taken from a conversation between interviewers, which indicates that the verification process regarding the applicant’s technical background and qualifications was finished, and another probing phase regarding personnel matters such as career choices and personal attributes was about to start. This cue sign from the interviewers draws a clear distinction between two different moves. In addition, the latter extract demonstrated the kinds of strategic information which applicants should clearly deliver from interviewers’ points of view during the target stage (such as providing a plausible reason for the application), to make a favourable impression. These informational guidelines suggested by the interviewers contributed to exploring and establishing the foundations of the rhetorical structures, and several informational strategies within them. Finally, after categorising and coding each

77

structure from the sources, their structural collocation patterns were closely observed and analysed in order to outline the final textual structure of this study.

Based on the methods detailed above, the moves were categorised according to two different perspectives: macro-moves and micro-moves. Macro-move is a superordinate-level of rhetorical textual organisation, which encompass several subordinate-level schematic structures, or micro-moves. The series of macro-interview stages range from the beginning to the end of the interview, such as welcoming, exploring, probing and ending. The first stage is usually the welcoming macro-move, wherein hospitality is shown to the applicants by initiating interaction in a warm and friendly manner; the next stage is often the exploring

macro-move, during which the interviewers begin to verify the applicants’ personal information mostly by requesting applicants’ self-introduction; the probing macro-move is used to examine applicants’ general educational and professional backgrounds, and to scrutinise their qualifications in terms of the level of their technical knowledge in the target field. Finally, the ending macro-move is conducted to conclude the interview. In this sense, the macro-move does not have its own individual communication functions, but rather a generic and procedural stage encompassing several communicative sub-stages (i.e. micro-moves) inside.

Micro-moves are a series of practical (but optional) and functional categories of the job interviews, and form a main skeleton of the structure as sub-moves of each macro-move, to realise the overall communicative functions of specific macro-moves. For example, during the welcoming macro-move, several micro-moves, such as initiating interview, position applied

for and small talk can be included.

Finally, steps refer to the various strategies utilised within each micro-move to effectively and tactically deliver the ideas to other interlocutors. Steps can be found both in interviewers’

78

questions and interviewees’ answers (or sometimes vice versa). For example, when breaking the ice at the beginning of the interview (e.g. using small talk as a micro-move within the

welcoming macro-move), the applicants brought up various strategic topics and information, such as personal traits (e.g. a shared background and the applicant’s appearance etc.) and

acquaintances (e.g. a partner or friends of the applicant already working for ODC), which seem to be beneficial for promoting applicants themselves and thus increase their possibility of being selected. The relationship between the contextual structure (refer to Section 3.5.1) and the textual structure (macro- and micro-moves and steps) can be visualised using the examples in Figure 7.

Figure 7. The relationship between contextual and textual structures