The Research Participants

The present research holds the individual as the level of analysis and not the team or organisation, and this stance guided the sampling strategy. There is an ‘erroneous’ notion that numbers are inconsequential in qualitative research strategies, and irrelevant to some qualitative researchers (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 12). Qualitative researchers who hold that they are opponents of a numeric approach note the number of participants,

questionnaires, cases or reports are assigned an evidential tag; created by measurement, tested by comparisons, and are aligned with the validity and ‘proof’ of the quantitative paradigm. Yet, questions are often raised about the ability of qualitative research to provide the same substantive, quantifiable base; with numerals being regarded as ‘the queen of science’ (Bygrave, 2007, p. 29). The power of numbers, and the influence of their label of accuracy, is reflected in the behaviour of some qualitative researchers where they undertake to demonstrate a suitably large sample size, aim for a balanced gender count or ensure they visit a different number of sites. Granted, the research may require this approach but the need to offer greater figures to demonstrate a true-to-life picture is a common one.

Qualitative researchers questioned on the number of participants, despite their purported belief in its irrelevance, often meet this challenge by referring to ‘big name’ studies which feature small sample sizes such as Piaget’s famous study of his two children, Mintzberg’s influential examination of managerial behaviours in which he studied five participants, and Mangham’s inclusion of eight interviewees in his leading research of power in organisations.

Other recent in-depth studies have also recruited eight (Linna, et al., 2010; Pyett, 2003), fifteen (Jacobson & Choi, 2008), twenty (Yuan, et al., 2009), and five participants; (Harrop &

Gillies, 2007) and with the increase of the univocal voice of autoethnography (Holman Jones, 2005; Vickers, 2007), these studies show that the small in-depth approach is held as robust.

Numbers are, however, implied within the terminology and practice of a significant proportion of qualitative research studies, with the present research being no exception; ‘finding that a few, some, or many participants showed a certain pattern, or that a pattern was common, thematic, or unusual in a group of participants’ is an integral part of qualitative research (Sandelowski, 2001, p. 231). Replication and confirmation in participants’ responses leads to the categorisation of themes and concepts; with counting being implicit in each of these terms. Yet the counting has a differing emphasis, descriptions are not increasingly valid when accompanied by other similar reports; ’it is the quality of the insight that is important, rather than the number of respondents that share it’ (Wainwright, 1997, p. 13). In qualitative

research it counts when the process of research increases understanding, represents meaning-making in the site of interest or explains a phenomenon. With concern being centred around assessing whether the data is sufficiently rich to bring refinement and clarity (Polkinghorne, 2005), to what are typically complex social phenomena (Morse, et al., 2002).

The increasing conceptual representation assures the qualitative researcher that meaning-in-situ has been effectively explored, and thus within the present study data collection

ceased at the point where the present researcher deemed that saturation point was reached.

As will be demonstrated within the later chapters confidence was gained by paying due regard to a ‘stopping criterion’ (Francis, et al., 2010, p. 1229). In the present research this criterion was the emergence of recurring patterns and themes, aiding ‘comprehension’

(Eisenhardt, 1989; Morse, et al., 2002, p. 18). This assurance related to the increased understanding of the lived reality of participants, their perception of doing public service and specifically their perception of CV.

For the present research fourteen public servants were interviewed, they are employed in a range of sectors, and at differing hierarchal levels in public service organisations in Wales;

this mix was judged by the researcher and for variety only. The present researcher’s sampling strategy takes the lead from Stake (2005) who notes ‘balance and variety are important; opportunity to learn is often more important’ (p. 451). Given statistical concerns, such as population size or representation, are not of significant concern within the present in-depth qualitative research, the sampling was purposive (Patton, 2002). Purposive sampling in this study explicitly focused on accessing participants with whom the research phenomenon is relevant; specifically that the participants are working within public services.

Consideration was given to geographical location, for pragmatic reasons, and also the sample reflected the availability of participants; but the aim of the sampling was not to access and present interesting cases, or to represent a population which could be generalised but rather to access participants who provided the opportunity to explore the research question.

Participants were identified via either: a) being attendees at a public sector conference in July 2009, discussed earlier; or b) were individuals in the researcher’s wider workplace network; but none were known to the researcher personally. The participants were contacted via email and requested to take part in the research, which was described as a study of the perception of behaviour in public service organisations. The participants were told that the interview was expected to last approximately one hour and would be recorded, specifically with regard to the desire to accurately record the events, and they were expressly assured of

organisational and individual confidentiality. Participants received a participant guide / informed consent form via email prior to the research interview, see Appendix B, which explains the process. The demographic of the research participants is shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Demographic of Research Participants

Sector : LA – Local Authority, NHS – National Heath Service, Central – Central government, Police or Other governmental body.

Angela LA Masters 24 years Middle

management F 45-54

Bernard Central Professional 8 years Lower

management M 35-44

Cal LA Masters 22 years Senior

management M 35-44

Dorothy Central Professional 19 years Senior officer F 45-54

Emma NHS School 36 years Lower

management F 45-54

Glenn LA Higher

Education 14 years Senior officer M 25-34

Humphrey Central Professional 31 years Middle

management M 45-54

Liza Central School 15 years Senior officer F 45-54

Malcolm NHS Higher

Ollie LA Masters 10 years Lower

management M 25-34

Robyn Central

/ LA Masters 25 years Lower

management F 45-54

Sam NHS Professional 18 years Lower

management F 35-44

Terri Central Higher

Education 14 years Senior officer F 45-54

Each participant underwent the same process, the form of which is discussed next.