essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

146 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––2 Everybody is speaking at the same time. Here a structural intervention can be used byremaking a short ‘contract’ with the participants on how to run the discussion: ‘I see thateverybody has a lot to say on this topic, but I think that we should go around in a moresystematic way.’3 Sometimes the group discussion can ‘flag’ and reach a dead end. How can one thenreinvigorate the group? This can be the moment to bring in a new content topic ortheme. By a structural intervention, the interviewer can make a summary of what hasbeen said so far, and test if persons find it necessary to continue this ‘chapter’ or if theyagree to address a new one. The advantage is that participants are involved as well in howthe interview is conducted. A process intervention can also be useful: ‘I see that we area bit out of inspiration, maybe it is useful to take a small break.’ Here the moderatorfocuses on the involvement of the participants.4 One person remains quiet during the interview and gives no comments unless thefacilitator asks this explicitly. How can one encourage this person without making himor her feel even more uncomfortable? Through a process intervention, the interviewercan repeat his or her appreciation for every opinion even if this is very equal to or verydifferent from the opinions of others. Here it is important not to ask directly forparticipation but to keep some space open so that the quiet participant can decide if heor she wants to intervene.In general, it is important that an interviewer is able to manage his or her own action space,and keep it open enough so that he or she can be flexible in making content, structural andprocess interventions. Finding the right balance requires a learning process from the groupinterviewer which should be adapted to the specific group process as well. It is important notto talk too much during the group interview (as in the individual interview), but when themoderator sees/feels the discussion is going in the ‘wrong’ direction, he or she must nothesitate to make a facilitating intervention. Then it is as important to ‘do something’ as toclarify ‘why one is doing this or that’. If participants understand the perspective behind theinterviewer’s concrete interventions, there is more chance that they will ‘follow’ him or herin steering the group interaction.ANALYSIS OF THE GROUP INTERVIEWThe interviews were tape-recorded and afterwards transcribed into a copy of more than 60pages (for each interview). Permission for tape-recording was asked from all participants.There was no video taping, since our intention was to explore general themes, and not toundertake an in-depth analysis of this group process.The analysis took two forms. First, a classic ‘content analysis’ was carried out by one ofthe researchers (see, for example, Strauss and Corbin, 1998), leading to the first typology ofpossible relationships between SMEs and consultants. Second, the analysis of the groupinterview was seen in the light of the other data already collected and was obtained byintegrating it into the larger project.A FIRST EVALUATIONThe group interview is similar to the individual interview in many ways. It can have multipleformats and the principles of good questioning are much the same (for example, the type ofquestions, the danger of closed questioning).However, the following elements can be considered as distinctive. First of all, the key