Question design and application

Having adopted a semi-structured approach for the interviews, the design of the interview guide is crucial to extract the most relevant and appropriate depth of data.

Punch (2014) recommends that good questions are clear, specific, empirical,

interconnected and substantive. This was all achieved through the careful drafting of the interview guide in line with both the research aim and objectives but also the existing body of literature.

Kvale (1996) suggests nine types of interview questions:

1. Introducing questions.

2. Follow up questions (what do you mean?).

3. Probing questions (could you say more?).

4. Specifying questions (What did you do then? How did you react?).

5. Direct questions.

6. Indirect questions (Broad questions on a topic).

7. Structuring questions (Moving topics).

8. Silence.

9. Interpreting questions (where you interpret a response and then ask a new question).

These criteria were considered when designing the interview guide as they are logical and allow the interview to provide the additional depth and richness of data that is associated with this type of research method.

The structure of the interview was designed to discover an actor’s journey through the diffusion process in accordance with the research aim and objectives. Therefore, the first line of questioning was focused on the actors existing conditions to ascertain a benchmark position. These questions considered items such as the type and size of the company, the most commonly encountered procurement routes and most importantly the actor’s current measurement practices.

From this initial stage the questions were composed around Rogers (2003) innovation-decision process, as the development of this is part of the main research aim. Questions were segregated into the various stages and unique questions were written for adopters and non-adopters of the NRM. This was necessary for two reasons, firstly it was not known how the NRM was diffusing amongst the construction industry and therefore one had to be prepared to explore both adoption and rejection, and secondly, research into rejection decisions was unusual (Rogers 2003) and therefore this was seen as an essential contribution to this research. Questions were structured in accordance with the guidance provided by Kvale (1996) and commenced with a key point which was then followed up with more probing questions to unearth the required detail of the actor’s diffusion journey. No direct questions were asked about the innovation-decision process itself, neither were respondents alerted to the various stages of the innovation-decision process. The intention was to identify the actor’s journey without influencing their response and in turn allow later assessment of the relevance of the process to QSs within the construction industry through a more inductive approach. Rogers (2003) existing model purely provided a logical sequence of questioning to provide consistency and flow to the interview proceedings. The use of the NRM as the main ‘hook’ for the line of questioning was important, as it was critical to avoid direct questions around existing diffusion theory. Although these questions are not as explicit as those posed by Larsen (2005) the subtler embedded approach to these questions provided a greater response rate and also, as they are contextualised with regard to a specific innovation, a less abstract final result.

Larsen (2005) received several responses to his line of questioning that suggested that the work was too complicated, too abstract, too intrusive and of little use. These can be judged as harsh responses but maybe not unexpected when approaching abstract theoretical concepts to members of the construction industry. The use of a particular

innovation, the NRM, added some much needed context to this research and in turn avoided the problems experienced by Larsen (2005). The use of the NRM allowed consistent and relevant questioning and also encouraged deeper and more meaningful conversations with all respondents owing to their interest and previous experiences with the subject at hand, which aided the development of the contextual diffusion model presented at the end of this thesis.

In addition to the five stages of the innovation-decision process it was also necessary to address the Rogers (2003) concept of innovation attributes. This line of research is quite common in product innovation studies (Kale and Arditi 2010) but is more complex when considering a professional practice innovation. Although analysis of innovation attributes is not the sole focus of this study it was felt that a line of enquiry was

necessary to add data to the persuasion stage of the innovation-decision process and also to ascertain if this type of innovation has any specific attributes that may influence the analysis of the data relating to the innovation-decision process, and in turn if any further research is required in this area. Once again, no specific mention was made of the attributes identified by Rogers (2003) but rather more open-ended questions were posed to allow later analysis of both the suitability of those suggested by Rogers (2003) but also any additional factors.

Questions within specific stages were written to both identify that stages suitability in the process and also to allow further comparison with the work of Larsen (2005) where he identified the positioning of the three main diffusion concepts of cohesion, structural equivalence and cohesion along the innovation-decision process timeline.

The interview guide was developed as the data collection progressed to fine tune the guide and maximise the usefulness of the interviews in achieving the research aim and objectives. One area that this was particularly important was where a respondent to the initial request for interview admitted that they were not aware of the NRM. This in turn required a new line of questioning that focused on their existing practices, and the felt need for a new method of measurement. In addition, it was decided that this would also be a good opportunity to explore in more detail why the respondent felt that they were unaware of such a significant innovation within the industry. Full discussion of this can

be found in the analysis chapter. A final version of the interview guide can be found in Appendix A.

4.5.3 Sampling

Miles et al (2013) suggest that specific questions are asked when considering a sample and these have been addressed as follows.

Is the sampling relevant to your conceptual frame and research questions?

The sampling was undertaken purposively with a focus on senior QSs in a position of influence. This was necessary as the respondents needed to have been through the diffusion process themselves, and not just be at the receiving end of an authoritative decision. This would allow the interviews to explore the respondent’s diffusion journey and the various factors that influence this in line with the researches conceptual frame.

A mixed sample was undertaken with regard to private practice QSs and contractors QSs. This was necessary as it was identified in chapter two that these two differing sectors are part of the wider construction industry, but actually have different

approaches to professional practice, and in particular measurement of building works. In addition to this, it was also deemed necessary to gain a wider sample that included respondents from all parts of the industry from regionalised SME level up to internationally active consultants and contractors.

A full list of the respondents, their respective professions and company size can be found in Table 4.1, the coding of which is explained in full detail in the next chapter. As can be seen, nineteen codes are shown from a sample of twenty-six respondents. This is a result of the use of multiple actor interviews as discussed earlier in this chapter, which are broken down as follows:

1 x 4 respondent interview.

4 x 2 respondent interview.

14 x 1 respondent interview.

This provides a sample that covers the four main extremes of the QS profession namely the large PQS and CQS actors and the SME level PQS and CQS actors. The QS

profession is a large and diverse group, so no attempt is made to suggest that this is representative of the profession, only that the sample is deemed suitable given the research philosophy and aim, and is as broad and pragmatic as it could be given the research constraints.

Table 4.1 - List of respondents and codes

Will the phenomena appear?

By selecting such a wide sample in terms of profession and size of company it was hoped that the phenomena under investigation would appear. As it transpired there were many more rejecting the NRM than adopting which was initially surprising, but not a concern as all but one respondent was aware of the NRM and could therefore discuss their journey through the diffusion process. This diffusion journey discussion was the

No. Initials Position RICS? Sector Turnover (£)

key aspect of the interview process, so the fact that all respondents could contribute towards this discussion was a welcome relief. The interviews were conducted across twenty-six actors and it was at this stage where a decision was taken to stop collecting any more data. The interviews had covered the main extremes of the QS profession as discussed earlier, and the data being collected was starting to reach a saturation point.

The author would not be as bold as to suggest that a ‘theoretical saturation’ point had been reached as this research has not adopted a grounded theory methodology, however, the responses were starting to repeat and it was felt that at this stage there had been sufficient data collected to begin the analysis process.

Can believable descriptions and explanations be produced?

From the sample identified it shows that a broad spectrum of the QS profession has been considered and as such the sample would provide the relevant data to be able to address the research aim and objectives. The focus of this research is on an actors’

diffusion journey and the sample had provided twenty-six accounts of the diffusion journey from the various parts of the industry. This was deemed suitable to provide the basis of an inductive analysis of the data and allow the development of the

contextualised diffusion model.

Is the plan feasible?

Access to respondents was gained through a variety of sources. Initially the main focus was on industry contacts from the author’s previous professional practice experiences, then utilising current colleagues professional contacts. Once these were exhausted respondents were contacted through formal contracts that Nottingham Trent University (NTU) has with various industry related companies. Finally, assistance was sought from the current cohort of part time QS students studying at NTU. This purposive approach was supplemented by a snowballing process where each respondent was asked if they knew any other QS practitioners that would be willing to partake in this research. Once again, care was taken not to influence this process and no respondents were known to the author to avoid any bias in the interview proceedings. This approach yielded all of the required respondents to satisfy the sample criteria identified here. The author did utilise his available contacts as described above from a purely pragmatic perspective, but he had not met any of the respondents before the interview and had not discussed the details of the interview either to avoid any preparation on behalf of the respondent.

All potential respondents were contacted via email in the first instance with a brief description of the research and a request that they partake in an interview. Once responded to this was followed up with more information if requested and a suitable date/time arranged.

Time was a big factor in the collection of the interview data, and this was conducted around current work commitments. This restricted the speed in which interviews could be undertaken, but overall all of the interviews were conducted within a twelve-month period. Financial considerations did not prevent the undertaking of any of the

interviews, and all were conducted at the respondents work place to minimise disruption to them and also to allow them to be in familiar surroundings to minimise any

discomfort during the interview process. The various locations of the sample have not been disclosed on the grounds of confidentiality, but all respondents were interviewed in England as far north as Newcastle and as far south as Exeter, with some respondents working for international consultancies or contractors but based in the UK.

Is the plan ethical?

This research follows the guidelines for the ethical conduct of research set by the NTU Graduate School. All respondents were asked to approve the use of audio recording equipment and the use of their names, organisation names and any other data before interviews began. Some respondents reserved the rights to have their data remain anonymous subject to inspection of the finished research. This was undertaken and the result of this can clearly be seen. All interview recordings and transcripts were kept on secure, password protected, computers and backed up on individual password protected cloud storage.