Reference no: EM133085892
CASE: Gaining and maintaining fieldwork access with management consultants
Jean-Pierre (known to everyone as JP) is studying for an MSc in international management. He has previously worked for two different management consulting firms, which has led to his interest in conducting research on the sector. JP noticed when working for both firms the importance that clients place on a firm's reputation when choosing a management consulting firm. But JP was not sure how clients made judgments about the reputation of management consulting firms. This motivated him to research the question: "How do clients form judgments about the reputation of management consulting firms?"
Since JP's research question was exploratory, he decided to conduct semi-structured inter-views with partners and clients of management consulting firms to gain a rich explanatory insight into judgments of reputation from both perspectives. JP decided to read more about strategies for conducting elite interviews (Harvey, 2011). He read in his research methods textbook that it was good practice to pilot his interview questions first, so he decided to draw on some of his contacts to help set up these interviews. He quickly arranged two telephone interviews: one with a partner of an American management consulting firm and one with the chief operating officer of a major aerospace company based in France. He was fortunate to spoke to both interviewees for about 45 minutes and felt that he gained some interesting insights about how clients evaluate reputation.
However, one interviewee asked about the ethical code of conduct for his research, a question he felt he did not answer well. JP also asked both interviewees whether they could recommend other people for him to speak to, which both said they would think about, although neither got back to him. Having completed two pilot interviews with senior professionals, JP felt ready to embark on the main interviews for his fieldwork. He planned to interview a further seven employees and seven clients of different management consulting firms. Unfortunately, he struggled to gain access to other interviewees, despite following-up with professional contacts and the two interviewees he interviewed in the pilot study. As a final resort, JP asked Claire, a board member of a professional association of management consultants, if she was willing to be interviewed. Fortunately, Claire agreed, and the conversation lasted for over two hours, providing what JP considered excellent data. Claire gave suggestions for how JP's interview questions could be phrased more clearly and outlined possible areas related to how clients judged reputation that JP might pursue with other interviewees.
At JP's request, Claire agreed to refer several partners and clients for him to interview. JP made good initial progress with his interviews, and he felt that he had a better command over his questions. However, several weeks later, JP received a rather terse e-mail from Claire saying that she had spoken to a few of his interviewees that she had referred him to. They were not happy with some of his questions and none of them had received an email, letter or phone call from him to say thank you or explain how they could learn more about the outcomes of the project. Claire said that she was extremely reluctant to encourage other members of her professional network to be interviewed by JP unless he revised his questions. It transpired that JP had not taken the time to rephrase his questions or include the possible areas Claire had suggested. Claire also wanted reassurance about JP's professional conduct and dissemination plan for participants. JP reflected critically on his conduct and realised that he should incorporate feedback into his interview conduct. He also realised that he needed to be as focused on the context and needs of the interviewees as he was about his own concerns around completing his fieldwork in a timely manner. He began some further reading about gaining access to interviewees, conducting interviews and following-up with interviewees (Irvine & Gaffikin, 2006; Dundon & Ryan 2010; Berger 2015; Lancaster 2017).
He also apologised to Claire and contacted all the interviewees to thank them for their time and to explain when he would be in touch with an executive summary of his findings. Having learned a hard lesson and read further, JP was better able to continue his fieldwork at a significantly higher standard. Fortunately, Claire and some of the other interviewees helped him to gain access to further interviewees. As a result, JP completed all 14 additional interviews on time. The quality of the data was high enough for him to identify important themes related to his research question, which subsequently enabled him to make a contribution to the literature. He also learned some valuable lessons about gaining and maintaining access, which he wished he had known about before embarking on the fieldwork.
Source: Saunders, M.N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students ebook (8th edition).
Task:
"JP also asked both interviewees whether they could recommend other people for him to speak to, which both said they would think about, although neither got back to him."
Do you think JP has done a proper literature review and derived questions from the review? Discuss how a literature review forms part of the determination of the problem, the development of the research problem, and the development of the research rationale.