Research Methodology Advice: Interviews, Bias, and Stakeholders

Rescheduled Interviews and Participant Accessibility

The first piece of advice for a student encountering shifting interview appointments is not to take the rescheduling personally. Conducting an interview takes time out of the working day. Because the interview is not company business, interviewees will naturally view it as a lower priority than their regular work. Moreover, the interviewees are doing the researcher a favor by participating — not the other way around — so ego must be checked at the door.

The interview process was designed around the method the student believed would yield the best results. What she appears to have failed to take into account, however, is the accessibility of her target audience. That audience is demonstrating, through repeated rescheduling, that they are not sufficiently accessible for an interview-based approach. The student should therefore consider conducting the research by another means.

The hostility encountered can partly be explained by interviewees who lacked adequate time yet proceeded with the interview anyway. There does, however, appear to be a component of genuine hostility toward the questions, the process, or the concept of the research itself. If the student sensed that interviewees felt she had an agenda, this perception is probably accurate. The subject is controversial, and she should have understood that from the outset and anticipated some degree of resistance. Additionally, participants may not have understood the academic nature of the research. Surveys conducted during working hours may be perceived as directly relating to the company's work environment. Not all publishing employees are familiar with the concept of academic research, and there is no indication that the student explained this distinction to them.

Hostility, Anonymity, and Flaws in Interview Methodology

When interviewees do not keep to the questions, this reveals one or two key flaws in the methodology. The first potential flaw is that the wrong questions are being asked. The second potential flaw is that the guarantee of anonymity is insufficient. On controversial subjects, respondents are unlikely to give direct answers to difficult questions. The interview setting was likely a poor choice because it not only reduces the perception of anonymity but also gives respondents greater opportunity to be evasive.

The recommendation here is to conduct such research in a written format. A written survey minimizes opportunities for evasion and maximizes the respondent's perception of anonymity — both of which are essential when the subject matter is sensitive or controversial.

HR Stakeholder Relations and Research Objectivity

Part of the reason the HR manager is hostile is likely because part of the study's intent is to question whether the Human Resources department is "aware of some of the gendered cultural processes at work in their companies." In effect, the research is attempting to demonstrate that HR is not doing its job — or not doing it well enough. The fact that the research was not cleared with the HR Director beforehand only exacerbates this problem.

Before conducting surveys, the student's first step should have been to meet with the HR Director, discuss the research purpose, and convince her of its value. At this point, the HR Director feels threatened, and the student has assumed that the value of the research is self-evident — which is rarely the case. The lesson here is that before conducting research, a student must persuade all key stakeholders, not just herself, of the project's merit. A useful starting point for understanding these dynamics is the broader literature on stakeholder management in organizational settings.