As a researcher working full-time as a senior manager, opportunities for research beyond my organisation were limited by practicalities of travel time to other organisations and locations. Researching within my organisation was attractive due to the opportunities offered by the existing change programme and ease of access, Silverman (2013) notes that many case studies are chosen because of ease of access. In addition, the organisation was implementing an unusual change. Within the literature only one article by Harris (2003) over 10 years ago had considered imposed homeworking in the UK, this therefore afforded an opportunity to research a gap in the literature. This case study therefore is concerned with one organisation and the study of the complexity and nature of the case in question (Stake, 1995), an organisation which introduced an expectation of homeworking from all employees.
The research strategy or overall approach (Robson, 2011), was therefore an exploratory case study with focus groups as a developmental phase. Case studies allow the contextual conditions to be covered because they are relevant to the phenomenon being studied and are
56
useful where boundaries are ill-defined between the phenomenon and context (Yin, 2003). In this study, the phenomenon is expected homeworking in the context of the organisation and the way it was introduced. With a gap in the literature and a new phenomenon being explored, designing appropriate and comprehensive interview schedules would have been difficult. Focus groups prior to interviews can provide information on overarching themes and clarify the issues to be explored thus allowing interview schedules to be refined and validated (Silverman, 2013). Subsequent semi-structured interviews gathered data from three employee types, homeworkers, non-homeworkers and managers of homeworkers, ensuring different viewpoints were explored. Whether the managers themselves were homeworkers or not was not considered during selection.
3.6 Sampling
Having chosen a case study, I considered the sampling strategy required to select participants for focus groups and interviews. I decided on purposive sampling for both stages, it is a popular approach for qualitative researchers undertaking case studies allowing them to seek out groups and settings where the processes being studied are likely to occur (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). My aim was to understand the subjectively meaningful experiences of participants (Snape & Spencer, 2003), and choosing criteria for selection in purposive sampling relies on the researcher’s judgement as to typicality or interest (Robson, 2011).
The participants were chosen for their characteristics enabling detailed exploration and understanding of the central theme being studied (Ritchie, Lewis & Elam, 2003). The criteria for selecting participants for focus groups and interviews was that they were homeworkers, non-homeworkers or managers of homeworkers. No data was available on proportion of
57
employees in each category across the organisation however in my team a third of staff had laptops for homeworking. Selection was based therefore on specific roles and the experiences of fulfilling those roles, rather than socio-demographic characteristics, referred to as judgement sampling (Burgess, 1984).
A bulletin notice (Appendix 9), published in February 2014 invited employees to participate in focus groups during March. Rooms and dates were pre-booked for three focus groups and as potential participants contacted me I checked their availability. Expressions of interest exceeded requirements in each category (homeworkers, non-homeworkers and managers of homeworkers) I was therefore able to select participants who represented a range of ages and grades and different genders using information from e-mails and conversations. By asking about caring responsibilities enabled me to include carers in focus groups and interviews. Six participants were selected for each focus group, and the aim was to interview up to ten homeworkers, ten non-homeworkers and six managers of homeworkers.
Several iterations were required before arriving at the final groupings as availability was an issue, initial focus groups changed due to participants dropping out. However, with the high level of interest, 134 responses to the bulletin notice, replacement participants were identified with the necessary characteristics to maintain the diversity of the groups. Following the focus groups, interviews were conducted during April to July 2014, the total number of participants in the study including focus groups and interviews was 42 and tables showing the characteristics of participants are at Appendix 10.
58 3.7 Recruitment Procedure
Recruits were employees of the Government Department being studied. Sampling or who to access is a methodological question, but how to access participants was both a practical and ethical consideration requiring sensitivity to the hierarchy and structure of the organisation (Lewis, 2003).
Being a senior HR manager in the organisation I was perceived as being associated with the homeworking policy although, as previously highlighted, this was not the case. The researchers’ role in the organisation can be an ethical challenge as respondents may assume the researcher is an agent of the authorities (Iphofen, 2011), this aspect is addressed in the ethics section of this chapter. However, from a practical recruitment position, this was potentially a difficult problem to overcome. A supporting message from a senior leader, encouraging participation but distancing themselves and the organisation from the research, could be viewed as a cynical ploy to persuade employees to participate as management were keen to see the results.
A further challenge was that of managers as potential gatekeepers, permitting or denying access to employees. A manager could feel uncomfortable with their employee potentially talking about them. To overcome these concerns, it was essential all employees were well informed about the research during the recruitment phase. To mitigate the gatekeeper effect employees were recruited via an open invitation to everyone to participate either as a homeworker, manager of a homeworker or non-homeworker. Participation was confidential so managers were unaware their staff were being interviewed. As the intention was to recruit participants representing a gender split, spread of ages and including participants with caring
59
responsibilities (either male of female). The invitation made clear participation from employees in any group was welcomed. The invitation to staff in the weekly bulletin (Appendix 9) included the researcher’s Lancaster University e-mail address for expressions of interest or queries. This approach was designed to ensure, as far as was possible, employees did not feel coerced into participating in the research.