Choosing a set of research tools to use within
Choosing a set of research tools to utilize within a undertaking is possibly one of the most critical set of determinations related to the behavior of any undertaking, ( Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2003 ) . Steering these determinations there must be the realisation that there are inherently no hapless research tools merely the possibility of a hapless choice of research tools with which to transport out a research undertaking, or in other words that there is a mismatch between what the declared aims of the undertaking are, what is the necessary informations to be collected and hence choice of tool ill-equipped to fulfill these two demands, ( Bryman, 2004 ) . A research worker needs to closely analyze the virtues of each peculiar research tool and buttocks those virtues on the specific fortunes under which their research is to be conducted to guarantee the best possible result in footings of informations aggregation for the undertaking they are engaged with. In footings of the appraisal in this instance our model for a subject trades with organizational civilization and hence our appraisal of semi-structured interviews must be grounded within the specific fortunes of this subject.
Culture has been defined as the form of basic premises that a given group of people has invented, discovered or developed in larning to get by with external version and internal integrating, ( Schein, 1990 ) . Thus the construct of civilization is widely used in organizational theory as it has a critical impact on people’s values and public presentations within organizational contexts. Kahn ( 1998 ) argues that constructing an administration can be seen as the procedure of re-establishing people’s civilization in footings of a shared sense of history and democratic values making norms of acceptable behaviors. Therefore organizational civilization is expressed as the thoughts and feelings that are consistent with corporate beliefs and which have distinct powerful effects on persons in footings of their mundane contexts within an administration. Organizational behavior in footings of invention, determination devising, communicating, organizing and honoring are mostly affected by organizational civilization. Schein ( 1999 ) suggests that organizational civilization is both general development in which the administration adapts to the environment and besides specific development in footings of different squads and sub-groups’ environments. Understanding organizational civilization should arguably so be understanding procedures of how people from different or similar civilizations are brought together and what they have done, what they are making but besides what they will make and the readings persons place on these factors within an administration. Therefore the growing of an administration is related to the development of its civilization dependant on the environment it has been established in.
In footings of specifically turn toing this so we can detail the advantages and disadvantages to utilizing semi-structured interviews relatively against both other types of interviews and against other types of qualitative research tools. This definition or organizational civilization instantly suggests a possible constellation of research tools that could be used to bring forth utile informations. If civilization is to be taken as readings within an administration from which possible actions are derived in an external and internal sense to the administration so the significances and symbols bound up with these readings will hold a critical bearing and finding influence on the organizational civilization, ( Bryman, 1989 ) . In footings of explicating and entering significances so it can be argued that interviews in general excel at roll uping informations from respondents about the significances they attach to things and the readings they make of such significances, ( Gubrium & A ; Holstein, 2002 ) . In peculiar and farther to this a semi-structured interview with its mix of flexibleness and rigidness is best suited to an geographic expedition of significances with the interviewer able to inquire inquiries about events and besides allow clip and infinite for the respondent to research those issues so in more deepness and item, ( Kvale, 1996 ) .
Qualitative based research is a strong tradition of research within concern subjects, ( Cooper, 2003 ) . The overall general strengths to qualitative research can be described in a figure of ways. In peculiar we can determine that qualitative research is first-class in bring forthing informations utile to analysis with a peculiar set of characteristics. Qualitative research in general so can be said to bring forth peculiar sets of informations which features are similar across the assortment of qualitative research tools that can be used. Interviews in peculiar have long been associated with being one the key tools of qualitative research and 1s besides of peculiar relevancy to specific signifiers of concern research. Some of the jobs we can tie in with all qualitative research demand to be considered besides as this allows us to border in peculiar our treatment of semi-structured interviews both in footings of failings and strengths for the behavior of a research undertaking. By holding this frame of general points covering with qualitative research we can concentrate and specifically analyze the parts of semi-structured interviews to these and comparison these besides so to other signifiers of qualitative research that could be used, ( Drever, 2003 ) .
Possibly the first consideration that can be discussed is to compare semi-structured interviews with other signifiers of interviews. Thus we can discourse this peculiar signifier of interview and its virtues against structured interviews, unstructured interviews in the instance of one to one scenarios and the usage of focal point groups which can be construed as one to many or group interview, ( Ghauri, 2005 ) . To get down with our treatment focuses on the different signifiers of one to one interviews but before this we make some general remarks on semi structured interviews themselves. A typical semi-structured interview entails that the research worker will hold some preparatory or steering inquiries in head for the behavior of the interview. This construction could take a figure of signifiers ; it may be for case that the interviewer will inquire fit inquiries for the first half of the interview to be followed so by a freer signifier treatment for the remainder of the interview. A discrepancy of this signifier would be for the interviewer to hold prepared inquiries which when asked allow for an reply which so moves to a more free treatment of the replies, ( Foddy, 1994 ) . Thus a semi structured interview granaries data to specifically reply certain inquiries but besides allows room for an geographic expedition in more item of the respondent’s replies or ideas and or experiences refering the inquiry being asked, ( Gummesson, 2000 ) .
In some ways so it can be argued that a semi-structured interview combines the best elements and ingredients of the other two signifiers of interviews. A structured interview for illustration agencies that the interviewer will inquire a preset set of inquiries to which the respondent replies ; there is hence small room for more in-depth treatment of the respondent replies to the inquiries, ( Ruane, 2005 ) . This format of an interview is really near so to a more quantitatively based questionnaire. Such interviews could be used and may be helpful to see where a big sum of interviews are to be conducted say for illustration with the staff of a peculiar organisation. It allows for comparatively easy comparing between replies from a larger set of respondents, ( Somekh and Lewin, 2005 ) . At the opposite terminal of this spectrum so lies the unstructured interview which is possibly better described as an unfastened ended treatment. Other than possibly a really unsmooth list of subjects and subject with which to motivate the respondent with the interviewer is by and large at a phase of inquiring as small inquiries as possible leting the respondent to speak and discourse freely the relevant countries open to discussion within the interview, ( Maynard & A ; Heritage, 2005 ) .
As can be seen so possibly arguably what are at the bosom of utilizing the different types of interviews is the relationship between the interviewer and respondent. As such so this clarifies nomenclature sorting structured interviews as interviewer led and unstructured interviews as being respondent led state of affairss, ( Holloway & A ; Jefferson, 2000 ) . This categorization neatly encapsulates the opposing doctrine and methodological analysis implied in the execution of these differing signifiers of informations aggregation techniques. As mentioned above so a semi-structured interview ideally so attempts to busy the in-between land between the other two types of interview. It does this by uniting structural elements of the other two types of interview in that the interviewer will hold both a preset set of inquiries to seek replies from the respondent and besides clip is allowed for the respondent to speak freely or discourse in more item replies or subjects by and large and specific brought up during the class of the interview, ( Wright, 1996 ) . In footings of the other typology we mentioned so semi-structured interviews are a mix of interviewer led and respondent led depending on the wane and flow of the interview in inquiry.
Focus groups are another interview-like information collection tool but one premised on the aggregation of informations from legion beginnings at one time, or a one-to-many state of affairs where the interviewer is more a facilitator or treatment leader as a group replies and discusses amongst themselves a inquiry, set of inquiries or subjects raised by the research worker, ( Krueger, 2000 ) . The authoritative usage of focal point groups is in marketing research where information is gathered from people refering feelings of new merchandises or new selling runs. They can if used decently generate big sums of informations but can endure from significant jobs in footings of personalities and group kineticss which the research worker has more control over in a one-to-one state of affairs. Ideally it can be argued that focal point groups could organize a preliminary exploratory tool from which subjects or an docket of inquiries could be collected for more elaborate probe through the usage of interviews with selected members of the focal point group, ( Litosselliti, 2003 ) .
Whereas focal point groups have been associated with selling research the usage of participant observation originated within and is strongly associated with the subject of societal anthropology, ( Silverman, 2004 ) . Simply characterised participant observation is the observation and recording of what people do within institutional, cultural or societal contexts and scenes. Participant observation is therefore a state of affairs where the research worker efforts to incorporate themselves to the full into the lives of people who are the objects of the research, . Historically such research was characterised by the research worker staying anon. and unknown to those being researched such as Roy’s ( 1952 ) survey of the operation of a piecework fillip system. This state of affairs has been modified nevertheless by increased ethical consciousness in the behavior of research to the point where such anon. invasions into the lives of people would be earnestly frowned upon as a pick of method in carry oning research, ( Jorgensen, 2003 ) .
The following tool we consider is both it must be admitted a research scheme and arguably a research tool as it influences the nature of informations collected, the model in which information is to be collected and the eventual utilizations of the informations collected. This is what is referred to as Action Research. As a qualitative method used in the concern field action research has grown in popularity particularly within consultancy and other action-orientated direction research. Characterizing action research as a type of research tool is arguably based on the grade to which action research incorporates the objects of research into the procedure of making research, ( Costello, 2003 ) . Hence unlike participant observation above action research is non about passively prosecuting with the topics of the research but about making active battle between research worker, capable and the nature of the issue being researched. In organizational contexts this has been most applied to the solution of some organizational job or the research of some organizational job or failure, ( Coghlan & A ; Brannick, 2005 ) . The premiss of such research is that by the decision of the research information will hold been generated, collected and analysed which allows those being researched to move upon in work outing any organizational or institutional elements highlighted by the research.
So far our treatment of research tools has focused on those which are ocular and lingual in footings of the information generated. An of import tool in the repertory of any qualitatively minded research worker is the usage of documental analysis. Documentary is frequently non distinguished decently from a literature reappraisal or is implemented in such a manner as to do its usage non effectual. The easiest manner to characterize it is by mentioning to it in footings of while interviews record what people say, observation what they do documental analysis seeks out what they have written, ( Hodgson, 1999 ) . This word picture is of class excessively simple in ways but does neatly characterize the types of beginnings with which would be examined utilizing documental analysis these being memos, proceedingss of meetings, assignment or other signifiers of journals, letters, functionary records to call a few possible documental beginnings. Like other signifiers of qualitative research documental analysis is besides a strict analysis of these beginnings. Like interview transcripts or experimental notes material from paperss would besides be coded, sorted and shifted through to be analysed thematically and structurally harmonizing to the demands of the research worker in footings of the aims they have set for themselves, ( Altheide, 1996 ) .
In footings so of measuring civilization or trying to characterize and depict the specific signifiers of civilization nowadays within an administration the usage of semi-structured interviews should be complimented by utilizing other signifiers of qualitative research tools. In this sense in order to do the most effectual usage of semi-structured interviews and mediate against the disadvantages associated with this type of research tool other signifiers of tools should be used to triangulate any research job. Thus a suggested research program doing usage of qualitative methods could be an initial documental analysis aimed at bring outing the processs and workings of the administration, little graduated table participant observation particularly at meetings within the administration, focal point groups so with selected strata of persons at different degrees of the administration followed in bend so by semi-structured interviews with a choice of these persons at different degrees of the administration.
This program would travel somehow towards covering with some of the major concerns associated with semi-structured interviews in footings of dependability, prejudice, cogency and generalisability. Covering with dependability foremost even where a semi-structured interview at the clip it is conducted outputs a significant sum of utile information in footings of the undertaking it is frequently the instance that should one behavior the same interview with the same individual at say a day of the month six months subsequently it can be rather possible that the information generated will be different from the old interview, ( Velde, 2004 ) . This is because as a subjective record of a person’s experiences and ideas refering a subject it would be apparent plenty that the possibility exists for people’s perceptual experiences of things to alter and change over clip. This would perchance be even more true where the interview was conducted by another interviewer introducing as it does new kineticss into the interviewee/respondent relationship. There is therefore ever a job with the repeatability of consequences from semi-structured interviews. The common defense mechanism to these jobs is that flexibleness in analyzing complex jobs outweighs the issue of repeatability through the usage of standardized techniques of roll uping informations such as those used with quantitative agencies, ( Gill & A ; Johnson, 1997 ) .
However the program mentioned above besides goes somehow through its accent on triangulation in footings of following up in phases subjects and issues identified towards cut downing this job of repeatability. In kernel the initial usage of documental analysis, participant observation and focal point groups would let the research worker to place common and perennial issues from the persons within the administration. Such points may still be conditioned by temporal factors, for case a period of extremist transmutation within an administration would do such elements be characterised by concerns over this transmutation but this type of longitudinal consideration would be a job for any research, ( Bulmer, 1988 ) . The job of prejudice is of class non confined entirely to semi-structured interviews although with semi-structured interviews signifiers and jobs of prejudice can surely be pronounced in instances. Semi-structured interviews can endure from both respondent and interviewer prejudice and there are no simple difficult and fast agencies for invalidating the effects of prejudice, in semi-structured interviews or all signifiers of qualitative analysis, ( Kvale, 1996 ) .
Cogency is besides a cardinal concern to be addressed when utilizing semi-structured interviews. Cogency can besides be expressed as generalisability or how in other words the findings from one survey can be transplanted to others to successfully explicate phenomenon. By and large talking within the context of organizational cultural appraisal broader signifiers of cogency should non be seen as a critically disputing job as organizational civilizations will differ widely from one another across different contexts, sizes, signifiers and any other method through which administrations can be said to differ from one another, ( Remenyi, 1998 ) . However where cogency is a concern with the usage of semi-structured interviews is in the differences in perceptual experience in footings of organizational civilization which can be expressed by different individuals within the administration. As such so a critical fact is that one person’s treatment and reply to inquiries about organizational civilization may differ well from another’s, for illustration between a senior figure and a junior figure within an administration around issues of answerability, ( Bryman, 1989 ) . Our research program given supra would it can be contended travel someway towards increasing the cogency of any findings produced in this regard through its combination of methods and accent on triangulating any informations collected from a figure of positions using different research tools.
To reason merely as the nature of things which qualitative research sets out to analyze are complex, multi-faceted and inter-dependent so excessively so a research program using such agencies must expose similar features in order for the research to be successful. All research tools have disadvantages and advantages which it must be stressed are entirely dependent on the aims which are set and the contextual footing under which the research will be conducted. No research tool is weak but some are weaker than others at replying specific inquiries. Thus the types of informations at which semi-structured interviews are strong at roll uping must in a good research program be complimented through the usage of other tools which cover the lacks in informations aggregation which are engendered by the usage of semi-structured interviews. Therefore in other words disadvantages and advantages to the usage of a research tool are merely marked when an wrong blend, or pick of tools is made to reply the research worker set inquiries as portion of their research.
Altheide, D. L. ( 1996 )Qualitative Media Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA
Bulmer, M. ( 1988 ) ‘Some Contemplations on Research in Organisations’ in Bryman, A. ( ed. )Making Research in Organisations, Routledge, London
Bryman, A. ( 1989 ) Research Methods and Organization Studies, Unwin Hyman, London
Bryman, A. ( 2004 )Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cooper, D. R. ( 2003 )Business Research Methods, McGraw Hill, Boston MA
Costello, P. J. M. ( 2003 )Action Research, Continuum, London
Coghlan, D. & A ; Brannick, T. ( 2005 )Making Action Research in your ain Administration, Sage, London
Drever, E. ( 2003 )Using Semi-Structured Interviews in Small Scale Research, Scots Council for Research in Education, Edinburgh
Foddy, W. ( 1994 )Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ghauri, G. ( 2005 )Research Methods in Business Studies, FT Prentice Hall, Harlow
Gill, J & A ; Johnson, P. ( 1997 )Research Methods for Directors, Paul Chapman, London
Gubrium, J.F. & A ; Holstein, J.A. ( 2002 )Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA
Gummesson, E. ( 2000 ) Qualitative Methods in Management Research, 2nd ed. , Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Hodgson, R. ( 1999 )Analyzing Documentary Histories,Sage, London UK
Hollway, W. & A ; Jefferson, T. ( 2000 )Making Qualitative Research Differently: Free Association, Narrative and Interview, SAGE, London.
Jorgensen, D. L. ( 2003 )Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies, Sage, London
Kahn, S. ( 1998 )Forming: A Guide for Grassroots Leaders, NASW Press, USA
Kvale, S. ( 1996 )Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage, London
Krueger, R. A. ( 2000 )Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Sage, London
Litosselliti, E. ( 2003 )Using Focus Groups in Research, Continuum, London
Maynard, D. W. & A ; Heritage, J. ( 2005 ) ‘Making Sense of Qualitative Research: Conversation Analysis, Doctor-Patient Interaction and Medical Communication,Medical Education, Vol. 39 No. 4
Remenyi, D. ( 1998 )Making Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method, Sage, London
Roy, D. ( 1952 ) ‘Quota Restriction and Goldbricking in a Machine Shop’ ,American Journal of Sociology, Vol 57
Ruane, J. M. ( 2005 )Necessities of Research Methods, Blackwell, Malden MASS
Saunders, M. , Lewis, P. & A ; Thornhill, A. ( 2003 )Research Methods for Business Students 3rdedition, FT Prentice Hall, Harlow
Schein, E. ( 1990 ) ‘Organizational Culture’ ,American Psychologist, Vol.45 Issue 2.
Schein, E. ( 1999 )Corporate Culture Survival Guide,Jossey-Bass, USA.
Silverman, D. ( 2004 )Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice 2neodymiumedition, Sage, London
Somekh, B. & A ; Lewin, C. ( 2005 )Research Methods in the Social Sciences, Sage, London
Velde, M. V. D. ( 2004 )Guide to Management Research Methods, Blackwell, Malden MASS
Wright, L.T. ( 1996 ) ‘Exploring the In-depth Interview as a Qualitative Research Technique with American and Nipponese Firms’ ,Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 14 No. 6