Balance scorecard (BSC)

By using the semi-structured interview I aimed at seeing the world from the

perspective of the interview partners and to understand how and why they came to their particular view of the world (King, 2004; Rubin and Rubin, 1995). Semi-structured interviews allow us, the researchers, to share the world of others and to explore how people make sense out of their own experiences.

This form of interview can be viewed as a guided conversation which is

characterised by a relatively open interview situation which provides the freedom of narrative and, simultaneously, a given structure to work within (Mavin, 2001a). This framework offers the interviewer the opportunity to focus on specific situations from the world of the interview partner and to let the participant do most of the talking (King, 2004). In order to learn about the individual gendered experiences of organisational elements impacting on knowledge creation processes and how the participants make sense of them this approach seemed to be the most appropriate.

I changed my place from being a member of the organisation, and therefore a colleague to the participants, to the place of the researcher and a consultant on sabbatical for the duration of the first phase of this research project. In this phase the majority of interviews were conducted. This fact could have alienated me as a researcher from the participants since I was no longer a colleague but someone who talked to them with a research purpose. To minimise this threat, the semi-structured interview was regarded as most appropriate, since it is comparable to a

conversation among work colleagues (Mavin, 2001a). Still, this approach could not compensate for all potential risks connected to the fact that I was their colleague before and a researcher for now. During the course of this chapter further risks are addressed and ways I tried to deal with these are introduced.

In the semi-structured interview approach, interviewees are treated as

conversational partners and equal participants who can co-shape the interview process rather than as research objects (Rubin and Rubin, 1995; Kvale, 1996;

Fontana and Frey, 2000). Nonetheless, this method also increased the risk of bringing distance between me in my new place as a researcher and the research participants (Warren and Hackney, 2000) and therefore had to be planned carefully.

An interview guide has been used to facilitate and support this process and to ensure that I as the researcher could lead the interview in a direction which enabled me to gain essential information without distancing myself from my interview partner.

In conventional research methods the interview partner used to be viewed as the

‘research subject’ with whom the patriarchal interviewer should have no relationship, but all power over in the interview situation (Fontana, 2003). Further the interviewer was supposed to be detached from the interview topic and not to communicate his own opinion, otherwise the ‘data’ gathered from this interview was regarded as being biased (Oakley, 1981). The qualitative interview represents the opposite of this by promoting the interviewee as a partner in this researcher-researched

relationship who actively shapes the course of the interview rather than the interview being shaped by pre-set questions through the interviewer which also strengthened my position as a former colleague rather than a distanced researcher. Further, this provides the interview participants with a voice and the opportunity to describe their world in their own terms (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). At the same time, the qualitative interviewer acknowledges that there can be no relationship-free interview situation and incorporates the relationship which develops throughout the interview into the findings (Fontana and Frey, 2000; Warren, 2001).

In the interviews I shared my own experiences and emotions which, according to Oakley (1981), led to a non-hierarchical relationship that encouraged the

participants to open up. This transformed the interviews into a conversation among equals in a climate of mutual disclosure which contributed to the social production of shared meanings in the interview and to richer accounts (Ellis and Berger, 2001;

Douglas, 1985). It was also in line with the social-constructionist perspective taken in this research as well as in line with the autoethnographic approach which implies that the researcher brings in her own experiences and feelings about the research topics.

Kvale (1996) agrees to the advantages of an interview situation similar to a

conversation, but argues that the interviewer still remains more powerful since he or she guides the interview by introducing the topic and follows up on the participant’s answers. I as the researcher needed to be aware of this power and to attempt to minimise it by being open to the interview partners accounts, even if they did not completely match my research questions, and being reflexive in my analysis. I will discuss this in more detail later in this chapter.

Interviews are social encounters and, subsequently, produce socially situated activities which have to be analysed to the same degree as the accounts produced in those interviews (Dingwall, 1997; Holstein and Gubrium, 2004). The social nature of the interview and the context in which the interview takes place will be different

each time an interview is conducted. Consequently, the outcome of an interview conducted a number of times will always be different depending on the social interaction taking place and the context enclosing the interview (Rubin and Rubin, 1995; Holstein and Gubrium, 2004; Alvesson, 2003).

Since I have known my interview partners for several years from my professional as well as private life I already had a relationship with them before the interviews were conducted. The nature of these relationships has, in some cases, made a turn during the interviews. Therefore, these relationships and their impact on the

interview situation as well as their development in the aftermath of the interviews are of special interest for the findings. These turns are highlighted and discussed in the reflexivity part of Chapter Seven. Later on in this section I further elaborated the role of gender in my interviews.

The interview guide

In line with the qualitative approach the interviews I conducted were not based on a strict interview schedule which had to be followed, but on a more flexible interview guide (see Appendix 3), which covered the main topics I attempted to touch upon during the interviews. The content of the interview guide is based on different sources such as academic literature, my personal experiences as a consultant working for the organisation explored in this study and research which has previously been carried out in related research areas and contexts.

After the first interviews I went back to the interview guide and adapted it where necessary. During these first interviews the interview guide also gave me something

“to hold on to” since I also experienced some insecurity due to my new role as researcher. The interview guide was set up in such a way that I expected that it would support me in making the interview partner feel at ease with the situation by starting of with some general questions regarding the interview partner’s

background. The interview guide then went on to some macro-level questions about the current situation at InterIT before moving on to questions concerning the

individuals and their attitude to and experiences of knowledge and learning and related topics. I added the notion of career to the interview guide in August 2005 after the first research participants had connected their experiences of knowledge creation processes to career.

I set up a list of indicative follow-up areas which helped me maintain the thread of the interview during the interview process while at the same time enabling me to

remain flexible in the interview situation (Briggs, 1986; King, 2004; Rubin and Rubin, 1995). This allowed the interview participants to direct the interview conversation to topics and issues which are important to them and enabled me as the researcher to gain in-depth and high-quality accounts (Johnson, 2001).

Selection of participants

Fifteen management consultants were selected as participants for the semi-structured interviews. According to Trigwell (2000) 15 interviews provide an adequate sample. As already mentioned the main criteria for their selection was a trustful relationship between me and the research participants and a joint project or at least client history. That was the case for all research participants apart from one with whom I had not worked and who I did not know very well before the interviews.

At the time of the selection process I had not worked with any ‘new’ colleagues apart from one colleague who I invited to participate in this research. Hence, 14 of the 15 research participants were former Monday colleagues.

I selected peer consultants who I deemed to be open and interested in what was going on in the organisation in order to receive rich accounts from the interviews. I also aimed at interviewing consultants from different career levels within the organisation in order to present different views and experiences.

Figure 4.3 illustrates the relationship between me and the research participants. It shows which of the research participants were former Monday colleagues, with whom I socialised outside of work and worked with on client projects. More detailed information about the research participants is provided in Chapter Five.

Figure 4.3 The researcher-researched relationship

The number of interview partners was chosen with regard to accessibility to

interview partners and manageability of the volume of narrative data resulting from the interview. The sample size was seen as appropriate to the research intention to gain ‘thick description’ and enable ‘thick interpretation’ (Denzin, 1989) of the single case. This is supported by Lieblich et al. (1998) who suggest a smaller number of cases in order to be able to consider the uniqueness of the narratives produced from each case in the interpretation process. I aimed at achieving an even number of female and male interview-partners in order to give women the same attention as men. I selected eight men consultants and seven women consultants. Equal numbers were achieved due to my interview account.

I applied convenience sampling to select the research participants. I first

approached those former Monday peer consultants I had a trustful relationship with either in person or via e-mail. I then invited those colleagues with whom I had worked on different projects. I briefly informed them about the topic of my research and asked whether they would be willing to talk to me about their experiences in relation to my research topic in an informal interview which would take about an hour of their time. All of them agreed to participate in the study. Later on one initial man research participant withdrew his participation since he had left the

organisation. I identified another colleague, Melanie, with whom I had not worked for

a long time at that time. However, since we had worked together very closely for a few months I invited her. She is the only participant who had not worked for Monday before the takeover. At that point eight men consultants participated in the study and six women consultants. Since I was not able to identify another women consultant within the German division I had worked with before and had built up a trustful relationship I invited a woman colleague, Sandra, with whom I was loosely acquainted and shared a joint client history.

The interview process

The interviews were conducted over a two-year period. As mentioned earlier, I chose my interview participants very carefully in order to receive rich accounts. The selection was made very early in the research process back in 2005. However, due to the geographic distance and travelling of most of the colleagues it took some intensive planning and re-scheduling for the interviews to take place. In between the interviews I wrote the interview transcripts and started the analysis of my first

accounts as well as of the interview situations. This way I was able to further improve my interview skills especially with regard to how I interacted with my interview partners.

Janesick (2000) uses the metaphor of choreography to describe qualitative research design. In connection with this she compares a pilot study with ‘stretching exercises’

of a dancer. These stretching exercises give researchers the opportunity to practice interviews, to reflect on them and to refine their research instruments. As dancers need to do stretching in order to make their bodies more flexible researchers need to stretch their minds as well as their bodies – their minds to develop sensitive communication and understanding skills, their eyes for observation and their ears for listening. Due to time and local restrictions I was not able to find more than 15 interview participants for this research. In order not to lose any of the rich accounts I dispensed with a pilot study but spent more time on preparing for the two first interviews as well as for writing notes and amending the interview guide afterwards.

I deliberately chose the two first interview partners to be people I knew very well and felt comfortable with.

For these two interviews I selected two men management consultants as participants. The interviews conducted lasted between one and two hours. As

follow-up to these interviews I adapted my interview guide and was eager to improve my communication skills and interview techniques in order to be able to build rapport with my interview partners and to understand their experiences and feelings.

Each interview partner signed an informed consent form before the interviews commenced and agreed that the outcomes of their interviews could be used for my research. The interviews were digitally recorded with the consent of my interview partners. I then wrote the transcript which contained everything which was said from the introduction to the interview closure including my questions and the interview partners’ responses as well as all interventions from my side. It was important for the analysis of the interviews to not only reflect what my interview partners said but also what I contributed to the interview since I acknowledged my active role in the social production of meaning in the interview process (Ellis and Berger, 2001;

Douglas, 1985). I not only went through the questions in my interview guide but rather acted upon the situation and made encouraging and confirming comments, shared my experiences or asked further questions where necessary. I believe that these interventions had an impact on the participants’ meaning making process and therefore needed to considered when analysing the participants’ accounts.

After completing the German transcripts I sent a copy to the participants in order for them to make amendments, corrections and comments. None of the participants made any substantial changes to the transcript. Mostly, they amended single words or sentences which were hard to understand from the record.

After all 15 interviews were conducted and interpreted I asked two interview partners whether they would be willing to feedback on my analysis. I provided them with an electronic version of my interpretations and asked them whether they resonated with their interpretations and if not how they would interpret the research accounts. I then arranged an informal meeting with each of the two during which I listened to their assessment of the interpretation before engaging in a discussion with them. This

‘interpretation of the interpretation’ (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2000) is further discussed in the section on reflexivity.

Drawing on the feedback I have received, I can say that most of the consultant participants, women as well as men consultants, enjoyed the opportunity to share their experiences of knowledge creation processes and to step back from their daily routine to reflect on their situations. This feedback is in line with feedback Linstead and Thomas (2002) and Arendell (1997) received from their research participants.

Table 4.4 below provides an overview of the schedule of interviews, reviews of transcripts and feedback on interpretations.

Table 4.4 Interview and transcript information John 28.10.2006/hotel restaurant 7,242/1 hour Jan. 2007/

comments Melanie 12.09.2006/meeting room

client site

7,144/1 hour Oct. 2006/

comments Simone 28.06.2006/hotel restaurant 8,424/1 hour Sept. 2006/

confirmed Claire 05.05.2006/Claire’s home 5,398/50 minutes June 2006/

confirmed

10,937/1 hour 30 minutes March 2006/

comments Rebecca 03.02.2006/Rebecca’s home 10,667/1 hour 30 minutes April 2006/

confirmed Marc 25.08.2005/meeting room

client site

10,441/1 hour 30 minutes Nov. 2005/

confirmed

Liz 29.07.2005/Café 8,963/1 hour Aug. 2005/

confirmed

12,056/1 hour 30 minutes Aug. 2005/

confirmed