Tipificación molecular de los aislamientos

As stated in section 3.6.2, seven case studies were selected, with 15 interviews carried out. This allowed perspectives from both claimants and respondents to be generated and establish the validity of the research conceptual framework. The semi-structured framework of questions centred on the following areas of justice:

1. Procedural Justice 2. Distributive Justice 3. Interactional Justice

Although Rawls (1999); Lucy (2007); McCoubrey and White (1999) have discussed justice in terms of organisations, Cropanzan, Stein and Nadisis (2011) have split justice into the above three segments in terms of fairness. The interview was therefore based on the literature around justice and fairness. Based upon Rawls (1999) theory of justice, interviewees were questioned around the following themes:

Procedural Justice

 Fairness of the process

 Changes necessary in the process

 Legal representations impact on the process

 ETS as a fair process

Interactional Justice

 Treatment during the tribunal process

 Legal representation impact on the way treated

 Treatment by the Tribunal panel

 Overall personal experience

Distributive Justice

 Fairness in the outcome of the case

 Different judges arriving at different conclusions

 Legal representation on the impact of the outcome

 Ability of tribunals to arrive at a fair decision

Before each interview, all interviewees were asked to complete a questionnaire, which was carried out as a separate process to the collection of quantitative data. Although the researcher had a list of thematic questions

in a listed format, during the actual interview questions were asked when most appropriate. The flow of an interview is important and it can be difficult for interviewees to sporadically jump from one discussion point to the next. The researcher allowed the interviewee to discuss things fluidly and then moved on to the next theme/question based on the appropriateness and where the interviewee finished their discussion. Therefore, although the questions were listed in a schedule, it was not always the case that they were asked in that order. This enabled the researcher to ask interviewees to elaborate on specific points to clarify or explore further the critical incidents under discussion.

No problems were encountered during the interview process, with interviewees appearing relaxed and candid. To ensure that any issues or problems were minimalised, the researcher always agreed to meet the participant at a time that suited them and more importantly at a location where they felt most comfortable. For participants who had been the respondent in the tribunal case, interviews were carried out at their place of work. For participants who had been claimants in the tribunal case, all locations were determined by themselves and included interviews taking place in their own home, at university or over the telephone. As well as agreeing convenient times and locations, the researcher ensured that the interviews maintained their focus and kept within the stated time limit.

Once an interview sample has been identified, consideration must then be given to accessing the sample, acknowledge any ethical implications and finally determine how the interviews should be analysed and evaluated.

Access to the interview sample

Gaining access to the interviewees proved to be the most difficult and challenging aspect to the study. King and Horrocks (2010) state that there are common challenges when gaining access to the participants. Firstly, the kind of experience that the study focuses upon is a very uncommon one.

Secondly, the chosen topic is a painful or emotive one, which they are

reluctant in discussing or ‘resurfacing’. Thirdly, and most commonly, access

may be the biggest issue. Whereby access is denied or prolonged by several, what King and Horrocks (2010) label gatekeepers as well as having to cope with potential political sensitivities.

Within this research, points two and three were the most applicable. For both claimants and respondents, the ET process can be a very emotive experience. Even for those participants who have won their case, the experience can be extremely raw and something that they would rather forget. Some of the sample initially agreed to participate in the case, but then for various reasons decided to withdraw. This was extremely frustrating for the researcher but also understandable. It also enhanced the rationale for the research as previous studies had also been limited from gaining access to claimants and respondents.

The ETS is presided over by the government department, the Ministry of Justice. As one can expect from a government department, there were several gatekeepers who delayed and eventually blocked access to potential participants. If the Ministry of Justice had provided access to claimants and respondents, thousands of participants could have been contacted to participate in the study. All records are stored centrally both in electronic format as well as hard copy format at the main administration office in Bury St Edmunds. To gain access to case details the researcher travelled to Bury St Edmunds on numerous occasions to access tribunal reports and respondents details. The majority of tribunal cases are accessible to the general public and it was therefore relatively easy to access respondents’ names and then look up their contact details. The main challenge was in finding the most appropriate person to contact within the company. Contacting a person who would be able to make a decision to participate in the study, and conform to data protection protocol was extremely difficult.

Contacting claimants proved the more difficult of the two participants. Although tribunal case details are usually made public, e.g names of respondents, names of claimants and details of case with the judgment, the personal details are obviously omitted. To contact claimants a variety of methods were adopted, resulting in variations of success. Techniques included contacting solicitors who had represented claimants, requesting access through the Ministry of Justice, promotion of the research in HR and Employment Law forums, advertising in HRM journals and contacting agencies that have supported claimants during the tribunal process.

Ethical approach to the interviews

All participants who agreed to participate in the study gained, if necessary, authorisation from appropriate personnel and were given two documents prior to the interview. Firstly a research information pack, which outlined the nature of the research, what will happen to the data collected and most importantly that all details will remain confidential. Participants were asked to sign an agreement form, which formalised their contribution towards and understanding of the research. A copy of the Research Information Pack can be viewed in the Appendices. Participants were also issued with a questionnaire to complete prior to the interview. This had a twofold objective. Firstly, to collect factual data that would otherwise have been collected during the interview taking up valuable time and secondly to collect quantitative data to supplement the more dominant qualitative data. Prior to the interviews taking place, the University of Salford’s ethical approval process was followed requesting the researcher to consider and submit an ethical report, with supporting documentation. This process enhanced the understanding and ultimately influenced the research conceptual framework.

Analysis of the semi-structured interviews

A variety of researchers have proposed numerous methods of analysing interviews. Sarantakos (1998) has suggested a five-stage model:

Table 3.5 - The five stages of interview analysis

Stage Process Activity

1 Transcription Data is transcribed from the original form

on to paper; the researcher ‘cleans’ and edits the manuscripts

2 Checking and Editing The transcripts are checked and edited,

relating parts of data and preparing data for further analysis

3 Analysis and

Interpretation

This entails data reduction and analysis; categories are developed coding and data reduction are implemented and trends are identified

4 Generalisation The findings of the individual interviews

are generalised; differences and similarities are identified

5 Verification The validity and reliability of interpretations

is checked, alone or with other researchers

(Adapted from Sarantakos, 1998:78) Sarantakos’s (1998) model is very logical and enables the researcher to tailor each stage of the study. However, as with the interview process, Rubin and Rubin (2012) have provided a seven-step process for analysing responsive interviews that is a more practical and, for the researcher, a more logical process to follow. They are generally undertaken in sequence, although in some circumstances the steps can be reordered to suit the research process:

1. Transcribe and summarise each interview

a. a full and accurate word-for-word written rendition of the questions and answers

b. reading a transcript is easier and more fruitful then listening to a recording

2. Define, find and mark in the text (code)

a. facilitate retrieval of what was said on each topic b. code the data by highlighting words or phrases

c. use computer programmes e.g Nvivo, Atlas T16, Hyperresearch 3.0, QDA Miner 3.2, QUALRUS

3. Sort coded themes into single date file and summarise a. assign each concept or theme a code

b. each code is discrete and not related to other codes 4. Sort and resort the material within each file

a. extract all excerpts codes with the same label across all interviews

b. sort into single computer file

c. summarise the coded content within the single file

5. Weight and integrate the descriptions from different interviewees

a. put together different parts of a narrative or descriptions of a culture or subculture by weighing a combining

b. combine insights from those best informed of an event, issue or institution

6. Combine concepts and themes to generate own theory a. work out explanations for what has been described

b. look for a set of related concepts and themes that together answer the research questions

7. Generalise the findings

a. analyse whether principles discovered within the research may apply to other settings

b. if explanations apply beyond the research, discover if they apply elsewhere, at all times, or under some set of specified conditions

(Adapted from Rubin and Rubin 2012:190-211) To analyse and produce themes / concepts, the computer software package NVivo was used, which although did not produce all of the main findings, did assist in targeting key areas that cannot be identified manually. Although both quantitative and qualitative data are important within this study, the information derived from the interview would be heavily analysed and it was important that the correct interview style, structure and analysis process was utilised.

The next section will discuss and assess the use of questionnaires within the study and substantiate the necessity for this type of data collection method.