Instrumentos y/o Técnicas para la Investigación

Richards & Morse (2007) state that appropriate selection of participants is necessary to facilitate good qualitative inquiry and to reach the research objectives. A distinction can be made between different non-random (Richards & Morse, 2007) or purposeful (Creswell, 2008) sampling techniques by which individuals or sites are selected that can best inform a researcher in understanding a phenomenon (for a more detailed discussion see Creswell,

80

2008). Based on the relationship between the epistemological and theoretical orientations of the present dissertation, a theoretical sampling approach was appropriate. Using this approach, the researcher seeks out persons deliberately in order to gain a deeper understanding from the emerging data (i.e. theory-driven samples), intending to develop conceptual categories and relationships (di Gregorio & Davidson, 2008). It is regarded as one of the most rigorous purposeful sampling approaches (Creswell, 2008; Richards & Morse, 2007). As suggested for theoretical sampling, the start of the sampling was purposive sampling, but it then continued as an iterative process by letting the theories and findings which emerged from the data influence the next round of sampling (Lee & Lings, 2008).

4.1.2.1 Sample Units

Appropriate to the HE context, where the primary customer is the student, the primary sampling unit was male and female undergraduate business students. Six specifications were made as regards the student sample, which are outlined as follows.

1. The study was restricted to undergraduate students in the field of business, because CS and Perceived Employability perceptions can vary across different fields of studies and business school students were found to show higher expectations towards higher education service providers than students from other schools (Obermiller, et al., 2005).

2. The study was restricted to students in their second or final year of studies in the undergraduate business programme, because they have greater experience within the higher education institution and are therefore better positioned to evaluate their satisfaction, having spent enough time at the institution for emotions to evoke (Bügel et al., 2011) and to have felt concerned about their employability (Tomlinson, 2007), whilst not yet mixing it with real experience (i.e. getting a job or not) (Harvey, 2001).

3. The study is conducted in two European countries, namely Austria and England for three reasons. Firstly, the effect of tuition fees was investigated. Research suggests that paying tuition fees might affect attitudes and the willingness to reciprocate and perform CEBs (Marr, Mullin and Siegfried, 2002). As outlined in Chapter 1 the recession and the European and national frameworks for education have resulted in different reactions by governments regarding the educational budget. Higher education institutions in England demand tuition fees for consuming undergraduate programmes. For students, the costs of education depend on the employment situation (payment level) after graduation (Browne Report, 2011). In contrast, Austria is one of the very few European countries in which tuition fees are not mandatory by

81

law. Secondly, despite some obvious differences between the countries (e.g. geographical size), there are necessary communalities which allow the development of a common model. Both countries were at the time of data collection members of the European Union having introduced a three-cycled educational offer (Bachelor, Master, PhD), are advanced countries in terms of educational offerings and economic wealth, and offer a comparable tertiary business education resulting in a Bachelors degree. Finally, based on the reliability conditions for qualitative research suggested by Bryman & Bell (2011) and LeCompte & Goetz (1982), external reliability of a qualitative study can be assured when replicating the study ideally in a different context. Replicating the study in two different cultural contexts enhanced the external reliability of results.

4. The study is restricted to students from two selected universities, being FH JOANNEUM, University of Applied Sciences in Graz, Austria and Aston University, Birmingham, England. Both universities have a strong reputation in supporting graduate employability, offer a placement term and a comparable undergraduate business education and are located in the second largest city in the respective country.

5. The study was restricted to students between 20 and 28 years of age. This is the age group in which students most commonly finalise their Bachelor programme (OECD, 2016). Being above 28 and not having finished a Bachelor degree (former work experience excluded) might skew CS and employability perceptions.

6. The study is restricted to full-time students being resident in the respective countries of study (i.e. no exchange students). This ensures that the working and university context is better comparable within a national sample.

The secondary sampling unit was composed of male and female alumni of the same undergraduate business programmes from the same universities, from Austria and England, to deepen the research and especially in order to understand if, and under which circumstances, CEBs occur, and which mediating mechanisms are underlying the link between CS and CEBs.

Finally, to interpret the findings within the research context, a complementary sampling unit comprised of male and female educational experts. Insights from HE managers, European higher education experts, quality assurance agencies and employability experts were intended to deepen the understanding of the research findings in the respective HE systems. For this sampling, a combination of theoretical and maximal variation sampling was

82

employed. The information gathered through the expert interviews served as background information and helped to refine the interview/focus group guideline for alumni/students and interpret the findings of the primary and secondary sample.

4.1.2.2 Sample Size

Regarding the sample size, theoretical sampling involves an iterative process, in which the sampling should continue until a point of theoretical saturation (i.e. the point where no new information is gained in repeated case collection) (Bowen, 2008). Although the theoretical sampling criterion was employed for the current study, suggestions as to the minimum sample size of 20 participants were taken into consideration (Lee & Lings, 2008). Borg and Gall (1979) suggest that a sample size should be large when many variables need to be discussed, relationships between the variables are expected, subgroups of the sample need to be formed, the sample is heterogeneous in terms of variables under study, and reliable measures of the dependent variable are unavailable. As the theory under examination is reasonably complex, the perspectives of at least twenty undergraduate students and alumni should be reflected (Lee & Lings, 2008).

As regards the sample size of individual focus groups, Morgan (1996) suggests that the typical size of focus groups is six to ten members, and they further recommend smaller groups when participants tend to have a lot to say on the research topic. In this instance, the latter was the case, as the participants were students and thereby tended to be involved in and emotionally preoccupied about their education and employability. Smaller groups require more active involvement by participants and allow more room for discussion. Therefore, it was intended to involve a minimum of three and a maximum of ten participants per focus group and to vary the number of participants throughout the focus groups. To control no- shows, the strategy of over-recruiting, suggested by Wilkingson (1998), was followed, which led to differing final group sizes.

For background interviews with educational experts, theoretical saturation was not intended. Rather, participants with similar job positions or expertise were selected, from both countries, in order to compare insights between the two research contexts.

83 Table 13. Qualitative sample

Study components/ Sample Total amount of data analysed Alumni Final year students 2nd _year students Educational experts Background questionnaires 78 Questionnaires Total: 21 Austria: 11 England: 10 Total: 25 Austria: 7 England: 18 Total: 23 Austria: 13 England: 10 Total: 9 Austria: 5 England: 4 Semi- structures interviews 30 Interviews Total: 21 Austria: 11 England: 10 - - Total: 9 Austria: 4 England: 5 Focus group interviews 8 Focus groups, 48 participants - Total: 25 (5 groups) Austria: 7 (2 groups) England:18 (3 groups) Total: 23 (3 groups) Austria: 13 (2 groups) England:10 (1 group) -

In total, 78 participants contributed to the qualitative research. 8 focus groups were conducted with a total of 48 participants, 21 semi-structured interviews with alumni and 9 expert interviews were conducted.