T HE QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW

Table 2. Case organizations, industries, and sizes (Organization websites)

face-to-face. Details on the interviews can be found in Appendix A, and the interview guides used in Appendix B.

The type of the interviews used in this study was semi-structured. A structural approach was evaluated not to yield the desired level of profoundness in data, as the interviewees might have been be too bound in their responses. In a standardized questionnaire the respondent is given ready response categories, e.g. fully agree, agree, slightly disagree, disagree), and the freedom to answer is thus limited considerably (Patton 1980, 211). The semi-structured approach proved to be extremely suitable for this study, as most of the interviews with the case organizations came to be story-telling situations where the respondents went into their personal experiences over the course of their careers. The semi-structured approach allowed for questions to be modified and adjusted to the course of the interview.

On the other hand, open interviews bear the risk of becoming too time-consuming, and resulting in ambiguous results with different themes discussed with different people. A semi-structured approach was used to combine the positive aspects of the previous two, and to assure that the relevant themes were discussed with all interviewees, while at the same time giving the respondents liberty to answer using their own words and to come up with issues not necessarily mentioned in the questions. The length of the interviews did not become an issue as most interviewees had tight schedules and took care that their responses were concise enough. The challenge was rather to make sure the questions were formulated so that they truly gave the respondent full freedom in his/her answers, and did not guide in any particular direction (Patton 1980, 231). Here we can consider the importance of the question type in obtaining meaningful data. As with the research question itself, also the interview questions’ form has an effect on the focus of the answers. For instance, “why” questions in themselves already assume a cause-and-effect relationship exists, which can guide the respondent into a certain direction (Patton, 1980, 228-229). To avoid this, questions were asked in the how form whenever possible, as to make the respondent answer in the most descriptive way possible. With most respondents, this worked well and the answers obtained were very descriptive indeed.

Also the formulation of neutral questions can be challenging. The goal is generally to obtain answers that describe the respondent’s realistic experiences and opinions.

Conversely, accounts that go into extreme events or experiences that may not necessarily even be the respondent’s own, should be avoided. (Ibid, 231-232) For the purposes of this study, interviewees were encouraged to tell stories regarding their own experiences, because this kind of information is often richest and can be used to gain deeper insight into the research topic.

As noted by Rubin & Rubin (1995), the stream of questions in a case study interview is likely to be rather fluid than rigid, resulting in more of a guided conversation than a structured query. This means that the questions will be used as general guidelines of the interview, and questions might be asked in a different order from different respondents, depending on the course of the discussion. Yin (2003, 80-90) reminds that this creates two distinct jobs for the interviewer; to follow the line of inquiry that reflects the aims of the study, and to ask the conversational questions in an unbiased manner that also serves the needs of the goals of the research. The interviews of this study were mostly very conversational, with the exception of the OQLF interview, which resembled somewhat a rehearsed marketing speech by the spokesperson.

Also Patton (1991, 280) argues that the interview guide is rather a checklist that makes sure relevant topics are covered, and that the actual wording and sequence of the questions should be adapted to each interview situation. This logic was applied especially when modifying the questions to suit the business side and the institutional side. For example, the question “How do you see coming from a bilingual environment affecting your position in relation to other companies in the international market?” was modified to an opinion question in the interview with Université Laval; “Based on your consulting work with companies, how do you see coming from a bilingual environment affecting a Quebecer company’s position in the international market?”

Selection of respondents

The interviewees were selected through purposeful sampling; choosing information-rich employees who can contribute the maximum amount of good data for the purposes of the study. (Patton, 1991, 169) In addition, snowball sampling was used, where information- rich individuals are first located within the company, and used as sources of information regarding other people who have valuable information that could potentially contribute to the study (Ibid, 176). In the case of the present study, this often meant a HR manager, and in one case, it was possible to gain access to the CEO. Also Maykut and Morehouse (1994, 44) vouch for snowball sampling to attain maximum variation through locating respondents that are different from the previous ones. This happened in the Université Laval interview, from which a tip for a potential other case organization, Company C, resulted.