Interviews as a qualitative research method in management and economics sciences

(1)

Małgorzata Styśko-Kunkowska

research method in management

(2)

Interviews as a qualitative

research method

in management

and economics sciences

(3)

(4)

Małgorzata Styśko-Kunkowska

Interviews as a qualitative

research method

in management

and economics sciences

(5)

of World Economy at Warsaw School of Economics.

The textbook is co-ﬁ nanced by the European Union from the European Social Fund.

(6)

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the background of this handbook and to provide an introduction to the further chapters. In particular, the current status of qualitative research involving inter-views, defi nition of interviewing, aims of the book and its fl ow will be presented.

1.1. The growing interest in qualitative methods

Qualitative insight has a long history in management and economics due to its contribution to knowledge development and its practical meaning (Denyer & Tranfi eld, 2006). However, for many years qualitative research as a primary source of data has been discouraged by academic journals, by academic environment and was limited in the course of MA and Ph.D. education (Cassell, Buehring, Symon, & Johnson, 2006). Undoubtedly, the current academic literature in management and economic sciences is dominated by quantitative research and positivist approach (Burton, 2007; Cassell, Symon, Buehring, & Johnson, 2006). Also, the academic environment still indicates a number of barriers toward qualitative methodology. In 2006 some British academics (Cassell et al., 2006) conducted the qualitative research to understand the current status of qualitative research in the management fi eld. The project involved 45 in-depth individual interviews with four international stakeholders groups including qualitative researchers, academic disseminators (such as journal editors and funders), Doctoral Programme Leaders and practitioners. Researchers revealed the diversity of interpretations of the concept of qualitative research and a number of barriers including credibility, diffi culties in assessing the qualitative research quality and problems with result presentation in academic articles. The results also suggest the need for more systematic training during graduate and postgraduate education. The distance toward qualitative research is not limited to academic environment in management and economic sciences. Bent Flyvbjerg (2006) described also misconceptions about qualitative methods among academics in social sciences.

(9)

Nevertheless, over the last two decades one may observe “the renaissance” of qualitative methodology (Burton, 2007; Denyer & Tranfi eld, 2006). The empirical articles involving qualitative methods have started to be published in prestigious journals such as Journal of Management Studies and Organization studies (Cassell et al., 2006), and Journal of Financial Economics (Burton, 2007). Journals in this fi eld published special issues on qualitative research in fi nances and management with Management Decision in 2006as one of the prominent examples. Additionally, the Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: International Journal was set up in 2006 to publish excellent works in this fi eld (Cassell & Symon, 2012). Moreover, the systematic approaches to synthesis of qualitative research results have been developed (Denyer & Tranfi eld, 2006). Last but not least, qualitative methods (although not only interviews) have been applied to study many different topics including organizational analysis, information systems, fi nances and accounting (Burton, 2007; Cassell et al., 2006; Cohen & Ravishankar, 2012; Merrilees, 2007; Runyan, Huddleeston, & Swinney, 2007).

One may observe many reasons of the “coming back” of qualitative methods. First, demand on the link between academic research and practice is growing and need for a better insight into various processes in a fast changing and complex social-economic environment is increasing; and both requirements are considered to be better achieved by qualitative than quantitative research (Cassell et al., 2006; Denyer & Tranfi eld, 2006; Gummesson, 2006). Second, some issues about qualitative methods have started to be clarifi ed. “Conventional” misconceptions about some qualitative methods have been addressed in the literature as being false or too general (Buchanan, 2012; Flyvbjerg, 2006; T. W. Lee, 1999); this topic will be discussed thoroughly in Chapter 3. Moreover, the number of publications including books on qualitative methods has been increasing: on specifi c applications (e.g. in information systems in business and organizational setting and on designing and conducting qualitative research projects regarding a variety of methods (one may fi nd information about them throughout the whole script). Finally, computer programs supporting qualitative analysis are rapidly being developed and completed by friendly handbooks and web-trainings (see section Additional remarks in Chapter 6). Although many authors repeat that applying qualitative methods is a way of thinking and there is lack of rigor procedure, in the last decade one may observe a movement toward the description and establishing of key procedures of conducting, analyzing and evaluation of qualitative research to enable publishing of valuable research results (Symon & Cassell, 2012a; Yin, 2003).

KEY POINTS

The qualitative research has played the growing role over the recent years for many reasons. There are opportunities to reduce the distance in academic environment (dominated by quantitative researchers) toward this methodology; however, still some misconceptions need to be addressed.

(10)

1.2. Interviews as a qualitative method

The variety of qualitative methods is huge (see Frame 1) with qualitative interviews as one of the leading methods of gathering qualitative primary data (Thorpe & Holt, 2008). Interviews may be conducted both as an independent method, as a part of mixed-method projects including both qualitative and quantitative methods (Venkatesh, Brown, & Bala, 2013), and multi-method projects including various qualitative methods such as case studies (Buchanan, 2012) and ethnography (Pritchard, 2012; Yanow, Ybema, & van Hulst, 2012).

Frame 1.1. Examples of qualitative methods applied in management research

• Individual and group interviews (and variety of their types) • Observation

• Participatory visual methods

• Other methods and techniques, e.g. diaries, analysis of documents • Multi-methods: case study, ethnography

• Others: e.g. electronic interviews

Source: Own elaboration, based on: Cassell & Symon (2004), Symon & Cassell (2012b).

The term “interview” has many meanings. The method of interviewing is not exclusively a qualitative method. Interviews are the basis of at least three main quantitative methods, such as Paper and Pen Personal Interview (PAPI), Computer-Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI), Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI). In a quantitative research the term of interviewing is being used also to name some self-reporting methods with or without the presence of an interviewer, such as Computer-Assisted Web Interview (CAWI) or Computer-Assisted Self-Administered Personal Interviewing (CASI) in which respondents complete the questionnaire available in the Internet (CAWI) or in computer in the presence of an interviewer (CASI), or Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Administered Interviewing (ACASI) when a respondent answers questions that are played back by a software. So, what distinguishes a qualitative method of interviewing from quantitative interviewing?

Intuitively every person who frequented any course on social or marketing research methods has his/her own overall idea what is qualitative research and qualitative interviewing, or at least has some selected associations in mind such as subjectivity, focus groups, etc. As some authors notice (Cassell et al., 2006), it is not easy to defi ne qualitative research as a whole given that it includes many different methods, many different paradigmatic approaches (positivism, qualitative neo-positivism, interpretivism, critical theory or phenomenology,

(11)

constructivism, realism, postmodernism1_{), many different analytical strategies} (e.g. grounded theory, template analysis, pattern matching) and individual approaches of authors. The broadest, the most generic and most conventionally used (also in management ﬁ eld) deﬁ nition recognized qualitative methods as

“those techniques of data collection and analysis that rely on non-numerical data” (Cassell et al., 2006). Although simplifi ed and potentially controversial, this defi nition is most helpful to understand the core idea of qualitative interviewing as a starting point as well. However, to enable the gathering and analysis of non-numerical data, the whole research process has also specifi c characteristics, beginning from the problem defi nition and type of main research questions via the level of standardization, number of research units and methods of sample selection, data collection and analysis till the way of reporting data and possibility of generalization. Many authors even emphasize that qualitative research is the way of thinking, thus that application of procedures is not suffi cient without good understanding of the core idea (Kvale, 1996).

Also, it is not easy to deﬁ ne interviewing because the qualitative interview itself is not uniform, not only because it shares characteristics of differences within the qualitative approach. Without any doubt, the qualitative interviewing is a type of interaction between a person who conducts the interview and a participant(s) of the study; interaction which is based on a conversation

(Thorpe & Holt, 2008). This interaction may be direct (complete) or indirect

(limited) mediated by a phone or Internet. One participant or a small group of participants may take part in this interaction. As a research method, qualitative interviews have a structure and purpose directed on achieving research goals;

however, this structure is lower than in case of quantitative interviewing. The conversation is focused on understanding and identifying meaningful parts of phenomena. To achieve it, the process of qualitative interviewing is fl exible with domination of open questioning and a huge role of active listening on the part of the researcher to obtain this goal; in each interview the researcher may ask questions differently and the interview may have different fl ow. The tool (that is called topic guide) assumes the fl exibility during the interviewing and is fl exibly applied during the conversation. Interviews are often recorded and then

transcribed what may be completed by some fi eld notes. The process of analysis is based on coding, although a wide range of analytic strategies may be applied. Reports include a description of results and may be completed with quotations, tables, fi gures, but rarely numbers of answers. The statistical generalization is not possible mostly due to non-standardized and fl exible procedures at all stages of the research process as well as due to a small number of research

1 _{In literature authors use different categorizations of approaches. For instance, Piotr Zaborek}

distinguishes positivist and phenomenological approach including critical theory, realism and con-structivism; Nigel King (2004) make a distinction of positivist, phenomenological and constructivist approach, Orlikowski and Baroudi (2007 in Myers and Avison, 2007) positivist, interpretive and critical theory approach.

(12)

1.3. Aim of the handbook and background

units and non-probabilistic methods of sampling. However, other type of

generalization is possible and is named analytical or theoretical generalization, although generalization is sometimes considered not necessary at all. These characteristics predispose this method – similarly as other qualitative methods – to achieve different aims than aims of quantitative research. They enable to explore, descript or explain some phenomena, or to generate some ideas by obtaining better insight into participant’s perspective and/or phenomena under consideration. They are best whenever the researcher expects the answer for questions such as How/which way? Why/what for?

As one may see, this deﬁ nition is extensive. Its aim is to bring closer the method of interviewing. I will come back to these characteristics in further chapters.

KEY POINTS

In short, interviewing as a qualitative “academic” method in management and economic sciences may be described as the method of data collection based on interaction between one interviewer and one or more participants. Moreover, it shares characteristics of a qualitative research as a whole group of methods including, among others, analyses that rely on non-numerical data, mainly gathered from small samples in a more or less ﬂ exible manner.

1.3. Aim of the handbook and background

Many current practical handbooks on qualitative research including interviewing refer to social sciences in general (Kvale, 1996; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Silverman, 2001; Yin, 2003) or are targeted to practitioners in market research (Maison, 2010; Mariampolski, 2006). They do not refer to management and economics sciences and they omit examples speciﬁ c for this ﬁ eld of study. The textbooks on qualitative research in organizational settings (Cassell & Symon, 2004; Gummesson, 2000; T. W. Lee, 1999; Symon & Cassell, 2012b) are very extensive and very detailed, sometimes too detailed for beginning researchers at the start of academic “adventure” with qualitative interviewing. Moreover, they rarely focus on the method of interviewing itself (with short texts of Alvesson (2012), King (2004) and Perry (1998) as exceptions).

Thus, the concise handbook with a short overview of the method of interviewing, some practical guidelines and references for further reading for academic research involving the qualitative interviewing method in management and economic sciences is still lacking. This book is trying to ﬁ ll this gap. In particular it is addressed to students in any educational programs in management and economics sciences. Its objective is to make interest in conducting interviews in organizational and economic setting, or at least to limit negative attitudes toward this methodology through introduction with its

(13)

key ideas and procedures including explanation of some detailed issues that may raise some doubts.

The choice of content and structure has several bases including my academic, teaching and practical experience. Since 1998 I has been a consultant in social and market qualitative research cooperating with various research agencies in Poland. This part of my experience includes projects with professionals and on management and organization issues as well as a broad scope of marketing

topics and a wide range of research problems. During my teaching career

I have run courses for international postgraduate students of Warsaw School of Economics (Doctoral Programme in Management and Economics), graduate courses on application of qualitative market research (specialty Economic Psychology, Faculty of Psychology at University of Warsaw) and other courses helpful in my methodological progress (on unstructured methods including interviewing in psychological diagnosis, on experimental psychology and on trainings). In my academic development, I have participated in single and multi-stage projects including qualitative interviewing methods (Hodgkins et al., 2012) as well as quantitative and experimental methods (Koenigstorfer, Wąsowicz-Kiryło, Styśko-Kunkowska, & Groeppel-Klein, 2013; Stysko-Kunkowska & Borecka, 2010; Wąsowicz & Styśko-Kunkowska, 2011). Invaluable contribution to my understanding of the application of the case study method in management and economics sciences have made publications of Piotr Zaborek from Warsaw School of Economics (Zaborek, 2007, 2009a, 2009b) as they are based on his academic experience in conducting case study research for his doctoral dissertation on information systems management in organizations (defended with honors!), his broad experience in teaching graduate and postgraduate students at Warsaw School of Economic and in leading business projects.

Due to my psychological background, the book is slightly biased into the direction of “soft” aspects of qualitative research application in management and economics sciences, in which the investigation of interview participant perspective is of key interest.

KEY POINTS

The handbook is addressed mainly to students in any educational programs in management and economics sciences. Its aim is to introduce the qualitative method of interviewing, reduce potential distances toward it and make interest in broader application of this methodology in this ﬁ eld of study.

1.4. The fl ow of the book

In this fi rst introductory chapter I have presented the background for the rest of the book including the increasing interest and application of qualitative

(14)

1.4. The fl ow of the book

methods in a ﬁ eld of management and economic sciences ﬁ eld of study and the general description of qualitative interviewing. The aim, recipients and

background of the author were also explained. In the second chapter the

process of qualitative research will be explained and its preliminary stages

will be discussed. Special emphasis will be put on general expectations toward student papers, MA thesis and Ph.D. thesis as the important starting point for any research. Next, issues related with problem deﬁ nition and formulation of key and detailed research questions will be discussed with highlighting speciﬁ c topics by examples.

The order of succeeding chapters is directed by the ﬂ ow of research stages. The third chapter introduces the issue of method choice. It presents the establishment of method consideration set, the advantages of interviews as a qualitative method including the area of applications, and limitations of qualitative methods. Special emphasis is put on controversial characteristics of qualitative methodology in academic environment and ways to deal with them. Further on, particular methods will be described. First, issues related with application of interviews in mixed designs involving also quantitative research and in a multi-method designs with particular emphasis put on the case study method as compared with ethnography method. Next, typology of interviews will be presented completed with the description of individual in-depth interviews, focus group interviews and methods of indirect interviewing

with those, which use the recent technological achievements. The fourth

chapter presents guidelines to designing the recruitment criteria and

choosing participants. It is completed by some pieces of advice how to ﬁ nd participants. In the fi fth chapter the main rules of designing a research tool

(topic guide) will be discussed including underlying psychological processes and guidelines how to use the topic guide during interviewing. The sixth chapter is dedicated to issues of analysis. It discusses general assumptions of qualitative analysis; then main analytic strategies are presented (template analysis, pattern matching and the grounded theory approach as a background) and main stages of analysis. Further, it describes the detailed analysis process via coding and displaying data. Some issues related with relying on general patterns and ways of dealing with outstanding participants will be also highlighted as well as issues of data veriﬁ cation. In the fi nal seventh chapter I present selected issues related to reporting results of qualitative interviews in academic papers with special emphasis on Ph.D. thesis and manuscripts for publication as indicating key directions of reporting qualitative data.

Each chapter begins with a short summary and is completed with examples of research in management and economic sciences whenever possible. Each section ends with key notes containing practical conclusions for academic researches when applicable. In the end of most sections I present the literature references

(15)

(16)

CHAPTER 2 First steps in research planning

This chapter presents the process of research and highlights fi rst steps in research planning – the understanding of academic environment formal and informal requirements and issues related with problem and guiding research question defi nition. Specifi c issues related to qualitative research planning will be emphasized, e.g. dealing with not uniform attitudes toward the qualitative research, wording related to qualitative research questions, examples of unique contribution of the qualitative research involving interviews.

2.1. How to begin the research process

When some researchers start thinking about a new research project, they begin with a general topic idea and start thinking about methods. For instance, they had observed very interesting phenomena in practice and they want to examine it. Some others start with the detailed review of literature that becomes the basis for the problem formulation and method choice. Whatever is the starting point, the researcher should thoroughly understand the whole process of planning, conducting, analyzing and reporting before taking the fi nal decision about the research scheme and before the start of gathering data. The whole research process involving qualitative interviews alone, or as a part of mixed-method approach or multi-methods, has certain main stages (Sinkovics & Alfoldi, 2012; Yin, 2003), which are presented in Figure 2.1. In practice, one may meet also different approaches. Buchanan (2012) presents the case study, in which data collection is a starting point. Also in grounded theory approach (described later in details) fi eldwork is a starting point. However, it is worth noticing that researchers who conduct such type of research have often great experience or at least knowledge both in their own fi eld of study and in methodology. Thus, they know well the fl ow of the research process. For graduates and postgraduate students as academic researchers, the scientifi c environment as a whole and specifi c institutions have specifi c requirements and it is good to recognize them as a starting point. Defi ning the audience and its expectations sets the general

(17)

direction of thinking about the level of self-refl ection during research process as the researcher should be able to justify almost any decision that was taken. Main stages are strictly related; they occur more or less simultaneously, and the researcher may come back to the previous stages. All the steps will be discussed in further sections and chapters of this book.

Figure 2.1. Main stages of research process including qualitative interviews

Research planning First steps in research planning

•Defining the audience and its requirements

•Research problem and guiding question definition

Method choice •Consideration set •Reasons underlying

a choice

Preparation for fieldwork •Design and sampling •Topic guide development

Fieldwork including interviewing or Interviewing completed

with other methods

Data analysis and

interpretation Results reporting

Source: own elaboration based on: Maison (2010), Malhotra & Birks (2007), Sinkovics & Alfoldi (2012), Stewart, Shamdasani, & Rook (2007), Yin (2003).

2.2. Expectations of academic environment

As mentioned, academic community and particular institutions have specifi c formal (and informal) requirements about the graduate and postgraduate students’ work, which may be applied also to other student papers. These requirements are independent of the chosen method; however, they direct attention to what has a key role when qualitative research is applied. I will present an example of Ph.D. thesis, but – in my opinion – it sets a general direction of academic expectations, even though they may be slightly “lighter” in case of seminar papers or diploma thesis.

According to the formal guidelines for Ph.D. students in Poland (Dz. U. z 2011 r. Nr 84, poz. 455), the doctoral dissertation should meet three main criteria: (1) deliver original solution of the scientifi c problem, (2) convince that candidate has overall theoretical knowledge about a given fi eld of science and (3) confi rm that candidate has the skills to conduct an academic work alone. As underlines Robert Yin (2003), the author of Ph.D. thesis is supposed to convince academics about the signifi cance of the problem and the results, the good knowledge in the theory and methodology as far as skills to conduct

(18)

2.2. Expectations of academic environment

scientifi c research of good quality. Academics may be also interested in the relationships between the current research and previous theoretical models and research ﬁ ndings (Yin, 2003).

If a student is planning to publish the work as an article, a chapter in a textbook, a book or text in conference proceedings (what is an obligation for Ph.D. students according to Dz. U. z 2011 r. Nr 84, poz. 455), he or she should think about it also in advance and have particular concern about requirements of journals or book editors in the fi eld. Good quality of the whole research process, convincing knowledge in the fi eld and in methodology and valuable contribution are again particularly worth being underlined as important for reviewers. The last one may be evaluated in various ways but with general conclusion that research should give original insight and widen the current knowledge in a fi eld (Cassell et al., 2006). Buchanan (2012) advises also to follow the guidelines of the Harvard Business Reviews that recommends to contributors to search for

“the compelling insight” (p. 361) that is expressed as “so what” and “aha” effects. Even if someone is not planning to publish research at the beginning, it is worth acting as if it was planned, than later wish that something was being neglected.

Some students may say, “What about practice?” with tacit assumption that academic research is far from it. First, currently in the ﬁ eld of management

and economy the close relation between academic research and practice is

expected (Cassell et al., 2006; Denyer & Tranﬁ eld, 2006; Gummesson, 2006) and even the “action research” methodology was developed as a separate approach (Heller, 2004; Malhotra & Birks, 2007). Second, if a student wants to focus on issues rooted mainly in practice, even then the research should have “academic bias” in the whole research process for successful academic results.

Deﬁ ning the audience and its requirements is particularly important in qualitative research due to inconsistent, often distant or negative, attitudes in academic environment. Thus, not only formal but also “informal” beliefs within academic community are important. To deal with potential critics, any research author which work is reviewed should be able to justify any decision that was undertaken in a research process. Some other ways of dealing with possible critics are highlighted in the section about limitations in Chapter 3.

Expectations of the academic community in the ﬁ eld one may identify by

reading the most valuable journals in a given ﬁ eld. Formal and informal requirements of academics within a given institution, one may examine by talks with a supervisor and other academic workers, other students and by reading the most successful papers of other students.

KEY POINTS

In graduate and postgraduate student work, understanding of the aca-demic formal and informal requirements is important to achieve

(19)

success-ful results in writing any paper, thesis, etc. These requirements are particu-larly important in research involving qualitative methods due to its still un-clear status as a valid method in management and economics sciences. The main expectations include: (a) original and valuable contribution, (b) con-vincing presentation of knowledge in a ﬁ eld and in methodology, (c) “good quality” of research, (d) reasons underlying any decision in a research process.

More about expectations of journal editors toward qualitative

research process one may ﬁ nd in a publication of Catherine Cassel et al. (2006) that conducted qualitative research on the current role and status of this methodology in the management ﬁ eld (some issues from this research were highlighted in the introductory chapter of this handbook).

2.3. A problem well-defi ned is half solved

The statement in the title of this chapter in this or similar form has been attributed to many authors including John Dewey (an American philosopher, psychologist and educational reformer), Charles Kettering (an American inventor and social philosopher), or to Albert Einstein, and was repeated many times in many different contexts, as one may see in Google search. Most of handbooks on qualitative research (and other research methods as well) also emphasize the research problem identiﬁ cation having a key role for any further steps of research process.

After the preliminary choice of a topic and identiﬁ cation of rationale of the study, the researcher should conduct a thorough, critical and rigorous review of literature including theoretical models and research and establishment of practice needs. This is important for at least two reasons. First, it helps to determine the potential contribution of the research because the topic could have been investigated by other researchers. Second, the gaps existing in the literature may be identiﬁ ed, so the research has a better chance for valuable and unique contribution. Further, the theoretical and conceptual foundations may be developed. The literature reviewing process should end

with a preliminary problem statement and identiﬁ cation of a guiding

research question.

From technical point of view, at least two issues are important in a problem deﬁ nition. First, to identify when qualitative methods involving interviews are the most appropriate solution. Second, to understand how to formulate the problem statement so that it ﬁ ts for qualitative research. In this section I highlight only the latter one – formal issues of this process. The remaining topics will be developed in the section about method choice.

(20)

2.3. A problem well-defi ned is half solved

In qualitative research the problem formulation includes most often such terms as “to explore”, “to recognize”, “to investigate”, “to determine” 2_with the most qualitative terms “to thoroughly, deeply, in-depth understand”, “to extensively and in-depth describe”, “to gain deep insight.” In turn, research questions may include such terms as “how” and “why” or questions about specifi c role of some variables within a given phenomena. Frame 2.1. presents some examples of research questions in qualitative research involving interviews. The way of the formulation of the research problem and the guiding research question may help researcher to understand which type of methodology to use in the given occasion and will help to avoid “the gross misfi ts”(Yin, 2003) meaning that another method may be more benefi cial than the chosen one.

Frame 2.1. Examples of key research questions in qualitative research involving interviews

• “How is relationship marketing implemented in a modern accounting practice?” (Perry, 1998, p. 788)

• “How does the marketing infrastructure of a foreign country impact on its own internationalization process?” (Perry, 1998, p. 788)

• “How do Australian high value-added manufacturing companies develop their market entry modes into China?” (Perry, 1998, p. 788) • “Do the resources of brand identity and social capital mitigate a hostile

local environment for small retailers” (Runyan et. al., 2007, p. 392) • “How do factors such as gender and race play into participant accounts

of their works and professional identity” (Ashcraft, 2005, 2007 and Ashcraft and Mumby, 2004; see Alvesson & Ashcraft, 2012)”

In this introductory stage the researcher aim is also to refi ne the guiding research question by explicating a few (not too many) objectives (in a form of issues or questions). If they are too many, it may be unrealistic to investigate them within a given time framework. If deductive approach to theory development is applied (see Chapter 5), specifi c issues/questions are followed by theoretical model presentation (e.g. as a fi gure) and set of hypothesis. It is worth underlining that neither the guiding research question, nor detailed questions or issues, should be identifi ed as questions to be asked directly during interviews. They work more as a research goal and research objectives.

The researcher will return to the literature review, problem and guiding

question formulation many times during the research process, to develop

them further and to establish the consistent design. After the establishing the problem and guiding research question, and after the next stage of method

2 _{Although these terms are not exclusively “qualitative”, because most of methods including}

(21)

choice it is also worth thinking about the predicted contribution to the science development and to the practice. It is helpful to establish if a given problem is important enough to be investigated. Some examples of the contribution of qualitative research involving interviews are presented in Frame 2.2. I will develop this topic while discussing qualitative research advantages.

Frame 2.2. Examples of an innovative contribution of qualitative methods involving interviewing, which were presented in papers published in the fi eld of management and organization fi eld

• Theoretical value, e.g. the development of coherent conceptual frame-work; lack of investigation of some variables as mitigators of some outcomes

• Filling empirical gaps, e.g. lack of research in a given ﬁ eld, or small number of published research on a given topic , or application of a given theory to a given target group, methodological rigor beyond those identiﬁ ed within previous studies

• Overpassing of limitations of quantitative methods, e.g. unfeasible with quantitative methods, qualitative insight into practitioners’ deci-sions such as perception of some aspects of the phenomena; empha-sizing the important role of studying phenomena within its natural “real-life context” as complex relationships

At this preliminary stage, the researcher should also make preliminary decision about the title that is evolving but gives some boundaries of the area under consideration (Sinkovics & Alfoldi, 2012).

KEY POINTS

Researcher tasks in this preliminary stage include: • preliminary choice of a topic,

• a thorough, critical and rigorous literature review including potential contribution of the research and identiﬁ cation of the gaps existing in the existing literature,

• research problem deﬁ nition,

• development of theoretical and conceptual foundations, • identifying a guiding research question,

• articulation of research objectives/speciﬁ c questions (not too many) – in some approaches – hypothesis; if they are too many – and deﬁ ning priorities,

• initial decisions about further steps.

Nevertheless, the process of problem deﬁ ning is evolving till closing the stage of planning.

(22)

2.3. A problem well-defi ned is half solved

The perfect example of the research planning one may ﬁ nd in the

publication of Piotr Zaborek (2009b) that describes the process of planning the study involving qualitative research for his Ph.D. dissertation. For better understanding of the planning process in academic student work, one may also read the article of Chad Perry (1998). Worth reading is also a more general paper of Rudolf Sinkovic and Eva Alfoldi (2012) about the usage of computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software in all the stages of the qualitative research process beginning with literature review, problem deﬁ nition title management, etc.

(23)

(24)

CHAPTER 3 Method choice

In this chapter the issues related with the choice of interviews will be presented. In a beginning section the broader context of choice will be discussed. Next, main characteristics, advantages and limitations of qualitative methods will be completed with propositions how to deal with limitations, particularly with potential criticism in the academic environment. The fi nal sections present different types of interviews. First, interviews as part of mixed-method and multi--method approaches will be discussed. Next, both face-to-face (Individual In-depth Interview, Focus group interview) and indirect (interviews via internet and telephone) will be presented.

3.1. Consideration set of methods and method choice

When the reader understands the main idea of qualitative research involving interviews, it is time to establish which type of method or group of methods to apply. Sometimes, the method choice is obvious from the research problem and research question; however, sometimes the borders in the application of some methods are not so apparent. Additionally, the qualitative method is not leading methodological solution in the ﬁ eld of management and economic sciences and its choice requires supporting arguments (which may be either explicitly presented in the ﬁ nal report, or at least ready to be presented for reviewers). Thus, the researcher should ascertain that a given method is the most appropriate for a given research question, or at least to avoid “gross misfi ts” (Yin, 2003).

The researcher should start with initial consideration of wide range

of methods, including qualitative methods of gathering primary data,

quantitative methods, mixed methods, and analysis of secondary data,

not to omit any method that may be best applied for a given aim. Next, the researcher should undertake the following steps:

• to establish a preliminary “consideration set” of core methods or sets of methods (e.g. qualitative, quantitative or mixed approach; if qualitative –

(25)

case study, ethnography or just interviews) and then speciﬁ c method types within a given method (e.g. if case study – interviews, observation, etc.; if interviews – individual or group interviews, standard interviews or variants),

• to identify their advantages and limitations regarding research problem and guiding research question,

• to chose the method defi nition, because in literature one may ﬁ nd many of them,

• to determine the underlying epistemological approach,

• to justify the choice regarding research problem and guiding research question,

• to check possible “gross misﬁ ts”,

• to check if the problem and guiding research question isformulated in an appropriate manner for a chosen method and reformulate it if necessary. In management and economics sciences literature, one may ﬁ nd at least four types of interviews applications in relation to other methods: interviews as a separate method3_{, interviews as}_{the only method in case-study research}_{, interviews as}

a part of multi-method design4_{(part of case-study or ethnography method) and}

as a part of mixed-design approach including both qualitative and quantitative methods. The possible paths of decision are presented by the Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1. Path of possible choices in a preliminary consideration set

Preliminary consideration set

Qualitative

Qualitative multi-method design

Case studies Ethnography

Interviews

Mixed method design Quantitative Secondary data, archives etc.

Source: own elaboration.

3 _{In the current publications in the ﬁ eld, whenever separate research including only interviews is}

presented, it is described mainly as explorative, or as a part of case-study approach.

4 _{The terms “multi-method” and “mixed-method” designs is being used interchangeably in}

lit-erature; however, some authors distinguish them for better understanding of each concept (Ven-katesh et al., 2013). I will use the term multi-method to name the set of one type of methods, e.g. only qualitative or only quantitative, while the term mixed-method include both types of methods: qualitative and quantitative.

(26)

3.2. Main characteristics of interviews as a qualitative method KEY POINTS

After the problem deﬁ nition, the researcher’s task is to consider a wide variety of methodological designs to choose the one which ﬁ ts problem the best. If a qualitative method is considered, one may consider qualitative interviews as a separate method, the only method in the case study method, a variety of mixed-method designs, or multi-method designs. The aim is to establish the preliminary consideration set of methods and underlying rationale.

3.2. Main characteristics of interviews as a qualitative

method

Taking into account that readers of this handbook are probably most familiar with quantitative methods and that the quantitative methods are the most widespread in academic environment in management and economics ﬁ eld of studying, but also the tradition in literature on qualitative methods, as well as the deﬁ nition of qualitative methods given at the beginning of the chapter, the qualitative methods are best characterized by opposition to quantitative methods. Various authors underline different aspects in this comparison (T. W. Lee, 1999), but jointly and independently of the approach, they create the consistent pattern. The main differences between the qualitative and quantitative approaches and then differences between interviews in both approaches are presented in Tables 3.1. and 3.2. They are discussed and completed thoroughly in further two sections in which the strengths and limitations of qualitative approach as a whole and interviews in particular are discussed as well as in next chapters of this book regarding the subsequent stages of the research process.

I presented the comparison of qualitative methods with quantitative methods as a whole; nevertheless the researcher should also remember that some speciﬁ c quantitative methods may be relevant to the project problem as well. For example, Robert Yin (2003) notices that experimental and quasi experimental methods may achieve similar research aims to some extent because they are designed to explain a phenomenon (identify its causes and answer questions such as “how” and “why”) and under some circumstances they may include small samples. However, experimental and quasi-experimental procedures of data collection and analysis share characteristics of quantitative methods such as the rigid procedure of data collection, structured questionnaire with mostly closed questions, analysis based on statistical inferences, and as a consequence the opportunities of statistical generalization and ﬁ nally, presenting numbers, percentages and tables and results of statistical analysis. However, differently than qualitative and “quantitative methods” they require behavioral control over

(27)

events. Another quantitative method relevant to establish complex relationships within results is the structure equation modeling.

Table 3.1. Main characteristics of qualitative and quantitative methods

Qualitative methods Quantitative methods Research

problem

Need for understanding and identiﬁ cation of meaningful parts of phenomena with the aim of exploration, description or explanation plus ideas gener-ating, see also further sections

Exploration, description or ex-planation by: assessment of a scale of - a phenomena; focus on predicting outcomes explanation by searching of -

causes and effects between a small number of variables

Research questions

How/which way? Why/what for? Who? What? Where? How many? How often? How much?

Level of standardization

Low

General rules as a basis Some rules for systematization

High

Precisely deﬁ ned uniform pro-cedures

Number

of research units

Relatively small samples: several – a dozen or so interviews (20-50 persons) or one to several cases

Relatively large samples: 200-1000 units of analysis

Method of selection

Non-probability sampling, main-ly purposive

Random

Data collection Flexibility in research procedure; focus on understanding and identiﬁ cation of meaningful parts of phenomena

Rigidity, standardization of all the actions

Data analysis Looking for repetitive patterns of results, analysis of meaning, analysis of similarities and differ-ences , rarely counting of an-swers and statistics, sometimes counting what is countable

Statistical analyses

Generalization Analytical or possibility of trans-ferability of results (generaliza-tion to theory)

Statistical, based on statistical representativeness of sample Generalization to general popu-lation

Reporting Description, ﬁ gures, tables, rare-ly numbers of answers

Numbers, percentages and tables, results of statistics Source: Own elaboration, based on: Buchanan (2012), Cassell & Symon (2012), T. W. Lee (1999), Malhotra & Birks (2007), Noga-Bogomilski (2007), Saunders (2012), Yin (2003), Zaborek (2009a).

Table 3.2. presents the comparison of more speciﬁ c issues related with interviewing in qualitative and quantitative approaches.

(28)

3.2. Main characteristics of interviews as a qualitativemethod

Table 3.2. Main characteristics of interviews as the qualitative method as compared with characteristics of quantitative methods

Qualitative interviewing Quantitative interviewing Level of

interaction

Two levels of interaction between the researcher and participant(s):

complete (face-to-face) or limited

(via phone, via Internet)

Three levels of interaction between the researcher (or his representative) and respondent from complete

by limited to lack of interactions

Interviewee Called participant or – in some types of case studies – informant

Called respondent The person that

conducts the research

Researcher, interviewer, moderator in case of group interviews; researcher itself, experienced or well-trained representative of researcher

Interviewer being

representative of researcher, rarely researcher itself

Level of standardization

Non-standardized

Flexible, but documented, structure at all the stages of the process

Standardization of all the actions including recruitment, place of ﬁ eldwork and the tool

Tool Topic guide with different levels of generality: general including main topics or detailed including speciﬁ c question and procedures

Structured questionnaire including uniform content, order and way of questioning

Questions Mostly open questions Mostly closed questions

Tool application Flexible, ﬁ tted to the research objectives, the participants and ﬂ ow of the talk

Question included in a topic guide should not be read by interviewer The huge role of active listening, going beyond guidelines in a topic guide

Precise uniform instructions that enable to conduct the interview according the same procedures

Process of analysis

It is based mostly on transcripts completed by ﬁ eld notes

The process of analysis is directed by epistemological approach, with template analysis, pattern matching, grounded theory as some of examples

Generic approach to analysis include coding

Based on statistical inferences

The interviewer goal

To achieve answers to research objectives; To understand and identify the meaningful parts of phenomena

To gather respondent’s answers and conduct the interview according to the same precise uniform procedures

Reporting Compare Table 3.1. Description may include quotations

Compare Table 3.1.

Source: Own elaboration, based on: Maison (2010), Malhotra & Birks (2007), Noga-Bogomilski (2007), Stewart et al. (2007).

(29)

To conclude, qualitative methods including interviews are worth being applied whenever problem and research question require qualitative approach. However, the boarders are not clearly established – both types of research may achieve explorative, descriptive and explanative aims. Good understating of the problem and typical features of qualitative methods and speciﬁ c types of interviews, as far as their beneﬁ ts and limitations (presented in the next sections) should help to choose the method of interviewing appropriately.

KEY POINTS

After the problem deﬁ nition, the researcher task is to consider a wide variety of methodological designs that ﬁ t problem the best. If a qualitative method is considered, one may consider qualitative interviews as a separate method, the only method in the case study method, a variety of mixed-method designs or multi-method designs. The aim is to establish the preliminary consideration set of methods and underlying rationale.

For further reading about main characteristics of qualitative

approach in organization and management research, one may see publication of Thomas Lee (1999), Evert Gummesson (2000), and the dictionary edited by Richard Thorpe and Robin Holt (2008).

3.3. Advantages of interviews as a qualitative method

As a qualitative method, interviews share some of the beneﬁ ts of this methodological approach. The key advantages of qualitative methods including interviews one may attribute to two main categories that are presented by the Figure 3.2. Functional advantages include the unique contribution of qualitative research into theory testing and development. Procedural advantages contain the features that are the mean to achieve research goals such as appropriate understanding of the phenomena or preparing the list of statements for the questionnaire. Some further advantages refer to concrete methods and will be presented in further sections.

Although some opponents may perceive the open frame and fl exibility

as a risky feature of qualitative approach, the open frame is being perceived also as the biggest advantage as it enables to go beyond the knowledge that the researcher already has, or that is diffi cult to be captured with structured questions. Nevertheless, fl exibility at different stages of the research project should be controlled, justifi ed and – in case of gross changes in the research design – well documented (the topic of fl exibility will come back in further chapters). The “controlled” open frame enables to capture the holistic dimension of the phenomena and understand its essential characteristics. An example one may fi nd in Frame 3.1.

(30)

3.3. Advantages of interviews as a qualitative method

Figure 3.2. Advantages of qualitative methods including interviews as a method applied independently, or in combination with other methods (qualitative or quantitative)

Source: Own elaboration, based on: Flyvbjerg (2006); Malhotra & Birks (2007).

Frame 3.1. Example of multi-method approach including qualitative interviews

The aim of June Worley and Toni Dolin exploratory research was to examine the role of management support and communication in facilitating lean manufacturing implementation. They conducted a case study with the usage of a variety of qualitative methods such as participant observation and structured and unstructured interviews in an electronics manufacturing company in the USA. Non-supervisory employees and executive or managerial personnel participated in the structured interviews. In unstructured interviews and observations took part all the executives and managers, majority of department leads and minority of production employees. They represented various departments of the ﬁ rm. Interviews lasted approximately one hour and were transcribed for analysis.

Source: Own elaboration, based on: Flyvbjerg (2006); Malhotra & Birks (2007).

The holistic dimension: comprehensive

and complete picture of the phenomena

The holistic dimension: comprehensive

and complete picture of the phenomena

ADVANTAGES OF QUALITATIVE METHODS FUNCTIONS

PROCEDURES

Examining complex phenomena: description of what is

difﬁ cult to capture with structured questions

Insight & understanding of peoples’

perspectives, mechanisms and outcomes of the phenomena

Subconscious, implicit, difﬁ cult to verbalize, sensitive

reasons, beliefs and emotions, styles, values, behaviors

Exploration of unknown phenomena

Development of a new theory Testing and completing of an existing theory

Natural, real-life context

“Controlled” open frame and fl exibility

Application of supportive techniques that enable to understand better

people beliefs, emotions and behaviors, explain discrepancies

For every type of participant, including

children, low-educated, professionals

Usage of everyday language,

deﬁ nition of notions

Interviews: More convenient, accessible and economical

(31)

The ﬂ exible frame may lead also to unexpected results, what in turn may

enable to develop a new theory or new elements of an existing theory

(Flyvbjerg, 2013; Malhotra & Birks, 2007), with this second situation being more common in academic literature. For instance, David Douglas (2006) investigated complexity of management processes (see Frame 6.2. in Chapter 6 about data analysis for detailed description of this study).In turn, in the research of Abimbola and Kocak (2007) theoretical aim was to develop a “resource-based view” model by determining a key role of some factors (brand, organization identity and reputation) in small and medium-size enterprises (see Frame 4.4. in Chapter 4 for detailed description of this study).

Qualitative research including interviews may also deliver deep insight into people perspectives and beliefs, and – if necessary for research aims – emotions and mainly when complemented by other methods such as observation – in their behaviors. Researcher may observe people behaviors and their non-verbal communication (gestures, smiles, etc.) and may use many techniques that will help to, with techniques of questioning, active listening and wide range of supporting and projective techniques as examples (I will develop this topic in a chapter about topic guide). For example, Erna Szabo (2006) conducted qualitative individual interviews with middle managers in ﬁ ve European countries to understand the meaning, performance and context of participation in managerial decision making (see also Frame 4.2. in Chapter 4 for more detailed description). Moreover, the perspective of one group of

participants may be well completed with perspectives of other parties

(as in example of Douglas’s study in the previous paragraph).

Finally, during qualitative interviews, the participants use their own

language to describe a given phenomena (opinion, emotion, behavior) and also a researcher may ask additional questions that will help him or her to understand how people deﬁ ne notions, what are differences between notions. It is helpful to understand the participants’ point of view or the issue under consideration but also it becomes very useful when one plans a questionnaire. Slight differences in the understanding of notions (e.g. their evaluative meaning) may lead to a wide range of different reactions toward the statements in the questionnaire. Thus, qualitative research before the quantitative one may help to avoid an additional source of error and false understanding of the phenomena in quantitative research.

Last but not least, thanks to the ﬂ exible structure of interviewing, it is possible

to conduct the research with people who may have diffi culties in completing questionnaires, including children and low educated persons or people who may have opinions too complex to capture with closed questions as it happens in case of professionals in many organizational studies. An example one may ﬁ nd in research of Calum Middleton, Suzanne Fiﬁ eld and David Power (2007) who investigated the perception of opportunities to undertake investments in

(32)

3.4. Limitations, myths about limitations and dealing with them

Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) among institutional investors (see Frame 4.1. in Chapter 4 for more detailed description).

In Chapter 5 about topic guides more details about functions and procedural advantages of various interviews will be discussed.

KEY POINTS

Qualitative interviews as a qualitative method give some theoretical advantages both in building, development and testing theories. They are particularly valuable whenever a researcher is going to “catch” the holistic picture of the phenomenon, to understand complex phenomena, or to describe or understand issues difﬁ cult to capture with structured questions.

For further reading about functions of the qualitative approach

and chosen methods, one may see publications on a given method in further sections. They mostly describe both advantages of a qualitative method as a whole and advantages of particular methods.

3.4. Limitations, myths about limitations and dealing

with them

The most important – but also obvious – limitation in applying qualitative research is related with areas of its application. They are not the universal solution, they are more appropriate in case of some research questions, but not the others (e.g. they do not enable to predict the frequency of phenomena in population).

Qualitative researchers – both representing management and organization research and social sciences – often describe criticism that they met in practice in academic environment from quantitative researchers. The objections include mostly the area in which the qualitative research may deviate most explicitly from quantitative research including different assumptions, quality of research (credibility, validity and reliability), generalization, subjectivity and other pragmatic issues. However, the current approach toward qualitative methods claims that most of the differences are rather a “myth”, “misconception”, or “conventional” stereotypical beliefs than the description of real differences between two approaches, or at least are too simplifying (Buchanan, 2012; Flyvbjerg, 2006; T. W. Lee, 1999). The reservations and some ways of dealing with them are summarized by Figure 3.3. and are discussed in next paragraphs. Some other limitations refer to concrete methods and will be presented in further sections.

(33)

Figure 3.3. Limitations of qualitative research

Source: Own elaboration.

Different assumptions. Creswell’s model – summarized here based on Thomas Lee publication (T. W. Lee, 1999) – describes ﬁ ve main differences between quantitative and qualitative research. Regarding ontological differences, among quantitative researchers there is a typical assumption about existence of objective reality. Qualitative researchers rather assume coexistence of multiple subjective realities. Considering an epistemological distinction, quantitative research is considered as independent from the phenomena under study, whilst qualitative researchers assume the need for interaction with the phenomena. An axiological

dissimilarity refers to the beliefs about inﬂ uence of researchers’ values: with the claim of being unbiased and value-free in case of quantitative methods, and a value-laden and biased approach in case of qualitative research. A rhetorical

difference regards the more impersonal, formal and rule-based language style of quantitative researchers and more personalized, informal and context-based way of reporting in case of qualitative researchers. A methodological assumption includes the deductive (testing theory), context-free and limited causal inferences in quantitative methods and inductive inferences (theory based on data), complex relationships and context-speciﬁ c qualitative methods. However, Lee – who reviews this model –underlines that beliefs about inductive, subjective, non-positivist, only theory-generating process in qualitative interviewing are too simplistic and rather stereotypic.

Not always accepted among scholars of economics and management as a valid

research method Not following positivist,

quantitative approach

• Not uniform approach to qualitative research including neo-positivist / realism approach

• Lack of uniform speciﬁ c criteria of evaluation • Following positivist criteria

• Findings can be generalized analythically

• The growing interest, knowledge and publications on qualitative research (see Chapter 1)

• Good understanding of requirements and following good practices

• Following good practices in published papers (see Chapter 6)

• Appropriate preparatory stage

• Usage of computer-aided qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) to organize sources and data

• Change of the reserach problem and method if someone is not ready for time requiring tasks

Doubts about qualitity of research in “quantitative

terms” Results can’t be generalized

statisitcally

LIMITATIONS • HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM

Difﬁ culties in consice reporting

Time consuming analysis and interpretation

(34)

3.4. Limitations, myths about limitations and dealing with them

First, qualitative research is not a uniform methodology. One may distinguish at least two main traditions (Lee, Collier & Cullen, 2007; Malhotra & Birks, 2007):

positivist tradition that dominates in the USA and non-positivist tradition that is more wide-spread in UK. The fi rst is represented among others by Yin (2009), the author of one of the leading books about case-study research.5_The other is presented in publications by Lee (e.g., Lee, Collier & Cullen, 2007) in a fi eld of organizational research or by Flyvbjerg in more general fi eld of social sciences. A short summary of these two approaches one may fi nd in Table 3.3. that gather descriptions present in works by many authors (e.g., Duberley, Johnson, & Cassell, 2012; Malhotra & Birks, 2007; Perry, 1998). However, even this simplistic categorization does not exhaust the variability of approaches. For instance, Joanne Duberley, Phil Johnson and Catherine Cassell (2012) mention eight different approaches having some shared and some different characteristics with positivism, qualitative neo-positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and others (rarely mentioned in publications by other authors on qualitative research in management and economics) such as post-modernism and poststructuralism, postcolonialism and indigenous epistemologies, with most of them consisting of a variety of philosophical approaches. Thus, Creswell’s model is far too simplistic. Specifi cally, neo-positivist approach and realism deny the assumption about only deductive approach to theory development (theory testing) while they share the belief about objective status of reality and commensurability. Moreover, mix of induction and deduction in current approach to qualitative research is preferred, except followers of classic ground theory (see Chapter 6).

Qualitative researchers counteract to the criticism that qualitative research is more susceptible to biases related with subjectivity of researcher including the tendency to confi rm the researchers’ preexisting views, assumptions, concepts and hypothesis (Flyvbjerg, 2006). This way of thinking is correct in the sense that philosophers, sociologists and psychologist argue that subjectivity is a fundamental human characteristic. However, all the methods are susceptible for researcher’s subjectivism. For example, also in case of quantitative methods a researcher to some point arbitrarily chooses the method of sampling, variables, the way of their operationalization and structure of the questionnaire what may become the source of biases. Bent Flyvbjerg (2004) argues that (a) verifi cation bias may be reduced, (b) qualitative methods have its own rigor although it is different than in quantitative methodology, (c) there is more tendency to falsifi cation than verifi cation of pre-existing concepts and theories, (d) the close contact with reality in qualitative methods requires continuous verifi cation of pre-existing views. Thus, in case of any method the great role of self-consciousness

5 _{Buchanan (2012) notice that this book is well welcome by reviewers of Ph.D. thesis, while Lee,}

Collier & Cullen (2009) emphasize that this approach deﬁ nes a narrow range of case study applica-tions at least in accounting, management and organizational disciplines although they appreciate his merits for case study development.

(35)

and experience of the researcher as far as proper research design and following best practices may help to reduce at least some of the unwanted biases.

Table 3.3. Two main traditions in qualitative research

Non-positivist

(wide range of philosophical and epistemological approaches:

phenomenological, interpretative, critical, constructivist, grounded theory)

Positivist

Neo-positivist, realism

Inductive approach Deductive approach Theory building Theory testing

Generating theory based on data To conﬁ rm, challenge, or extend the existing theory

Reality is subjective and relative (critical theory, constructivism) or objective (realism)

Reality is objective; Fixed rules underlie the social and natural phenomena; “facts” and reliable information are the basis for science

Research on non-observable and observable phenomena

Results possible to evaluate →

commensurable (critical theory, realism) or difﬁ cult to evaluate → incommensurable (constructivism)

Commensurability

• Qualitative research

o Origin in psychology, sociology and anthropology

o Aim: exploration and going in-depth

o Less structured, analysis taking place during a group

o Emphasis on understanding

• Quantitative methodology as a crucial method of gathering data

• Qualitative research

o Origin in quantitative research

o Aim: Looking for objective “truth”, establishing “facts”, preliminary to quantitative research

o More structured procedure

o Emphasis on external validation More idiographic More nomothetic, developing normative

decision models Phenomenological richness Analytical reduction Threats:

• More difﬁ cult comparisons between cases due to different ﬂ ow of interviews

• The risk of “discovering existing theories” (Perry, 1998, p. 790)

Threats:

• The risk of biases toward existing theory and hypothesis

British tradition of qualitative research USA tradition of qualitative research Source: own elaboration.

Quality of qualitative research. There is a wide discussion in literature how to evaluate a quality of qualitative research. Some criteria are considered as shared by both type of research – qualitative and quantitative (Symon & Cassell, 2012a) such as:

Interviews as a qualitative research method in management and economics sciences

Małgorzata Styśko-Kunkowska

research method in management

Interviews as a qualitative

research method

in management

and economics sciences

Interviews as a qualitative

research method

in management

and economics sciences

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1. The growing interest in qualitative methods

1.2. Interviews as a qualitative method

1.3. Aim of the handbook and background

1.4. The fl ow of the book

CHAPTER 2

First steps in research planning

2.1. How to begin the research process

2.2. Expectations of academic environment

2.3. A problem well-defi ned is half solved

CHAPTER 3

Method choice

3.1. Consideration set of methods and method choice

3.2. Main characteristics of interviews as a qualitative

method

3.3. Advantages of interviews as a qualitative method

3.4. Limitations, myths about limitations and dealing

with them