Making Interviews Meaningful

Abstract

<jats:p> Qualitative methods have played and are likely to continue to play an important role in scholarship on organizational development and change. One key data source dominates all others, however, in the qualitative lexicon: the one-on-one interview. This has become so common as to seem almost banal and taken for granted. And yet, the interview is actually a very complex phenomenon where many different things may be going on. This essay attempts to elucidate some of this complexity by identifying five different genres of interviewing, each with its specific ontological assumptions and purposes. We identify and illustrate specific techniques and practices associated with each genre, and offer suggestions for further development, while inviting researchers to think through more carefully what interviews can and cannot deliver, and how they can be made meaningful. </jats:p>

Dispersed knowledge management in ecosystems

“…All interviews had similar initial protocols, while also considering the specific characteristics of informants’ hierarchical level and the business sector for each firm. Based on Langley and Meziani’s (2020) guidelines for interviews, the initial protocols focused on forming a general overview of the firm’s innovation projects and their ecosystem, including the actors involved and their roles and activities, a detailed description of the innovative projects in terms of objectives, outcomes, examples of the occurrence of dispersed knowledge and actions to manage such dispersed knowledge. We chose innovation managers and entrepreneurs (Cases 5 and 6) because these informants were in the best position to provide us information on our object of inquiry.…”

Challenges and practices of interviewing business elites

“…However, whether one realizes the great potential of elite interviews depends on the quality of empirical material generated from the interviews. There is a vast literature on qualitative research in general and interviewing in particular that covers an array of philosophical and practical considerations, such as the different forms of qualitative interviews (Alvesson, 2003; Roulston and Choi, 2018); practicalities, challenges, and limitations of interview design and conduct (Langley and Meziani, 2020; Roulston, 2010); and alternative criteria of qualitative research quality (Pratt et al, 2020; Tracy, 2010). Informed by these debates, we regard richness and authenticity as core quality criteria of interview data, which are crucial for developing high-quality qualitative research.…”

“…Interviewing is also complementary to other methods for studying elites (Maclean et al, 2006), and for these reasons likely remain an important approach for studying business elites (e.g. Garg and Eisenhardt, 2017; Ma and Seidl, 2018; McNulty and Pettigrew, 1999; Pye, 2001) and a key method for studying a wide range of phenomena, including corporate governance, upper echelons, strategy, and organizational change (Hertz and Imber, 1995; Langley and Meziani, 2020; McNulty et al, 2013; Pettigrew, 1992).…”

The Evolving Nature of Information Systems Controls in Healthcare Organisations

“…Interviews were conducted by the first author in the organisation's premises to allow for a natural interview setting (Langley & Meziani, 2020). In the paper, respondents are referred to as R1, R2, R3 etc.…”