CREACIÓN DE SubVI’s

Creswell (2003) presented five different approaches for undertaking qualitative research: narrative research, phenomenology, grounded-theory research, ethnography and case-study research. If one were to embrace a mixed-methods approach, one could blend these with other research strategies, such as survey, experiment and action research, depending on three conditions: the type of research questions, the investigator’s control over actual behavioural events and the focus on contemporary, as opposed to historical, phenomena (Yin 2003).

Given the nature of the research questions, the case-study methodology within a qualitative paradigm is considered the most appropriate strategy to adopt. Yin defined a case-study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident…” (2003: p.13).

The use of a case study allows the investigator to cover contextual conditions relevant to the phenomenon; meanwhile, other research strategies have limited and identified variables to investigate with regard to the specific phenomenon.

Additionally, a case study provides an opportunity to study one aspect of a problem in some depth within a limited timescale, as well as producing a “thick”

description to deliver the richness and depth of evidence of a specific phenomenon (Robson 2011). The case-study approach can include single and multiple case studies; the present study has adopted an approach using multiple case-studies (comparative design). The rationale for selecting this type of case study, as advocated by Yin (2003), is that the reliance on more than one case study at a time enables the researcher to analyse, compare and contrast, which may perhaps enable one to validate the process and the emergent outcomes.

Additionally, adopting multiple cases is akin to conducting multiple experiments that help to build strong evidence of a phenomenon. Furthermore, Bryman and Bell (2011) argue that the key advantage of this kind of design is its ability to allow the distinguishing characteristics of two or more cases to act as a springboard for theoretical reflections on contrasting findings.

The strength of the case study is its ability to explore and illustrate the situations that emerge from phenomena that are too complex for the survey or for experimental strategies in details (Yin 2003). In the TM literature, scholars such as Meyers et al. (2013) also call for comparisons between industries in order to enrich our understanding of TM. Therefore, in order to explore the nature of TM systems, this study aims to compare two different industries in an Omani context in order to produce a more meaningful understanding of the nature of TM. The study has selected two cases from each industry. The selection of two cases, rather than one, is intended to produce variation and the limitation to two cases, rather than three or more (as proposed at the outset), is because of time and resource constraints when gathering research in a developing country such as

Oman. Specific criteria were also used to identify these two industries. The first criterion is the presence of a formalised TM system. The second is the structure of the case rationale.

Previously, the researcher conducted a pilot study for exploring the nature of TM in public and private organisations in Oman. A pilot study is referred to as “a feasibility study that comprises small-scale versions of the planned study, trial runs of planned methods, or miniature versions of the anticipated research in order to answer a methodological question(s) and to guide the development of the research plan…” (Prescott and Soeken 1989: p.60). Initially, the researcher sent emails to public and private organisations’ human-resource managers and decision-makers, explaining the initial aim and objectives of the study. The researcher was able to conduct six informal face-to-face interviews with two general directors, three human-resource managers and one TM adviser from three organisations (two public organisations and one petroleum company). It was found that public organisations have not yet implemented TM, while just a few private organisations have formally adopted it and these organisations are mainly operating in the banking and petroleum sectors. Therefore, this study’s approach has shifted from making comparisons between public and private organisations to comparing banking and petroleum sectors in order to meet the above criteria.

In the selection process, the researcher compiled a list of banking and petroleum organisations that have adopted TM, based on information from the Ministry of Manpower which is responsible for all private organisations in Oman. This list contained a few (four to six) organisations that have formally recognised TM, as confirmed through five informal interviews with one decision-maker, two human-resource managers and two TM advisers in the banking and petroleum sectors.

From this, it was possible to identify two cases from the banking industry and two cases from the petroleum industry. In order to achieve the aim of the study, which is to explore the nature of TM in these four organisations, semi-structured interviews were adopted. To select the participants for this study, the researcher chose participants involved in TM and affected by it. In other words, the research selected two groups from each case; both sets of interviews were conducted using semi-structured interview questions.

However, one common pitfall associated with the case-study method is the researcher’s tendency to attempt to answer a question that is too broad or to explore a topic that has too many aspects for one study (Baxter and Jacks 2008).

Yin (2003) suggests that, in order to avoid this problem, the researcher should place boundaries on the study. In this research, time, place, activity and definition of the TM issue and the context were determined and this was to ensure that the study remained reasonable in its scope.