Methods of Data Collection

Data can be gathered from various sources using different methods, and they can be primary or secondary data. Primary data are original data collected at source, while secondary data are those that already exist and that can be explored through, for instance, content analysis (see Boyd et al. 2005; Bhatnagar 2007). To address the research questions for this study, primary data was collected from the fieldwork undertaken with employees in each case.

A research method, as defined by Bryman and Bell (2011), refers to a technique for collecting data and involves a specific instrument such as a questionnaire, interview or observations. Oppenheim (1992) argued that the questionnaire and the interview are the most reliable and popular data collection methods in social research; however, only the latter is feasible for addressing the particular research questions. Additionally, from a research strategy standpoint, ‘multiple case-studies’ will garner multiple evidence in order to produce a thick description of the TM phenomenon. As a result, there was a strong justification for this research to use interviews as a suitable research instrument. The study used the semi-structured interview tool in order to explore the nature of TM in more depth.

Proceeding to qualitative data analysis, it draws categories and themes from interview data in order to understand and interpret how differences in practices and contexts affect the nature of relationships between employees and organisations.

4.4.1 In-Depth Semi-Structured Interviews

The interview is a method commonly used in qualitative research for data collection. There are various types of interviews, including structured, semi-structured and unsemi-structured (Robson 2011). Saunders et al. (2009) argue that the structured interview is used to collect quantifiable data, while the semi-structured interview is non-standardised and thus referred to as the qualitative research interview. Semi-structured interviews are defined as “a list of themes and questions to be covered, although these may vary from interview to interview…”

(Saunders et al. 2009: p.320). In other words, the order of questions may vary depending on the discussion and the researcher is sometimes prompted to ask further questions as a form of laddering to explore an issue in more depth. Using a structured interview tool will not help the researcher to gain a great deal of in-depth knowledge in the area of TM because this type focuses on asking specific questions within a limited time period (Robson 2011).

On the other hand, using unstructured interview tools will enable the researcher to develop the conversation much further, but they are not without their limitations pertaining to, for instance, time and volume of data. The interview questions are based on the literature review in Chapter Three. As a result of the literature review, the present study has identified themes and questions covered in the interviews, acting as an interview map. The interviews focused on exploring the nature of TM in both industries and the questions were drawn from the TM academic literature review, which indicated that they were not empirically tested or explored (Chapter Three: Section 3.6). These questions seek to do the following: 1- To find out the factors involved in selecting the TM approaches (inclusive vs exclusive) in these two different sectors; 2- To determine the impact of external and internal contextual factors on the TM; 3- To discover the role of stakeholders in TM practices and policies. Consequently, the interview questions produced a better understanding of the conceptual landscape surrounding the research objective based on actual practice (see the interview guide in Appendix 3). This provided the researcher with a good foundation for exploring relevant emerging themes in the interviews. Therefore, the research relied on semi-structured interviews because they enabled the researcher to ask further

questions to follow up on what the interviewees said, thus helping the researcher to probe particular issues in greater depth.

Prior to interviewing the participants for the main study, the researcher aimed to pilot the interview questions in order to enhance the study’s chances of success.

The aims of this test were to ensure that the questions were clear and to delete irrelevant questions. Two pilot tests were conducted for the instrument. First, the interview questions were sent to two senior lecturers with backgrounds in Talent Management at the University of Bradford’s School of Management. The lecturers were asked to review the questions and to give their opinions on how they could be improved to achieve the overall aim of this study. As a result of this pilot, two questions were changed as a result of ambiguity and the possibility of misleading the participants.

The second pilot aimed to provide preliminary insights about the implantation of TM in the banking and petroleum organisations and to test the instrument practically. The pilot participants were HR managers and TM advisers, involved in TM, from one bank and one petroleum organisation. This gave the researcher experience of how to conduct the interviews, interact with respondents and record the conversations. In addition, those pilot interviews proved useful in gaining feedback from the organisations’ practitioners prior to undertaking the main empirical study.

The respondents for the interviews were chosen through purposive sampling in order to gain an in-depth understanding of how TM is realised in two different contexts; they were drawn from the decision-makers and experts involved in TM as well as those affected by TM (line managers and employees who have been in the talent pool). The advantage of applying purposive sampling, as discussed by Patton (2002), is that any common patterns that emerge from great variation are of particular interest and value in capturing the core experience and central, shared dimensions of a setting or phenomenon. The first interview set targeted one Strategic Director, one HR manager and two talent advisers from each case organisation in the banking and petroleum industries through face-to-face interviews and the interviews focused on specific themes for each group, as

shown in Table 4.1. In total, 17 face-to-face interviews were conducted across the four cases. The second set of questions targeted line managers and employees who were in the talent pool. A total of 22 interviews were conducted across the four cases and therefore 39 interviews were conducted for the two groups: the management (strategic directors, HR managers and TM advisers), line managers and talented employees across the four organisations.

The four cases were coded as BA, BB, PA and PB to ensure the anonymity and confidentiality of each organisation’s identity. BA and BB refer to the first and second case study respectively in the banking sector, while PA and PB stand for the first and second case-study respectively in the petroleum sector. Prior to the interviews, participants were informed of the aim of the study by the provision of an information sheet and consent form. Interviewees were all fluent in English, so all interviews were conducted in English. The researcher used the laddering technique, suggested by Easterby-Smith et al. (2008b), in order to encourage interviewees to reveal additional information and clarification, as necessary, about the phenomenon. The interviews were conducted at the participants’

workplaces as this was perceived to be convenient for both the participants and the researcher and it ensured that they were able to communicate freely. The interviews lasted for about one hour and were recorded (with interviewees’

permission), transcribed and analysed by the researcher.

By recording the interviews, it was easier for the researcher to re-visit and recode text as more evidence emerged and patterns became clear. Recording also allowed re-listening to the interviews and the use of direct quotes to support arguments in the writing-up stage. Furthermore, transcripts were fact-checked with key stakeholders to ensure that the researcher offered an accurate reflection of their world. However, one common problem encountered in data collection is the personal involvement of the researcher. This often raises the issue of validity in cases where the researcher has become too involved to remain impartial and objective (Dooley 2002). In this research, the researcher’s beliefs and culture might influence her perceptions and actions in the research setting. In order to tackle this problem, Gall et al. (1996) suggest conducting a subjectivity audit in which the researcher lists her positive or negative influences in the research situation. This was carried out by the researcher in order to minimise any influence of personal involvement especially in data interpretation.

Table 4.1: Case-Summary of Data Collection and Number of Interviews

Note: The number of each interview participant is indicated in brackets (1, 2…)

The next section discusses the different forms of qualitative analysis and provides a justification for the thematic analysis.