Reporting and Justifying the Number of Interview Participants in Organization and Workplace Research

被引:370
作者
Saunders, Mark N. K. [1 ]
Townsend, Keith [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Birmingham, Birmingham Business Sch, 116 Edgbaston Pk Rd, Birmingham B15 2TY, W Midlands, England
[2] Griffith Univ, Griffith Business Sch, Nathan Campus,Kessells Rd, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia
关键词
NATIONAL MINIMUM-WAGE; FAST-FOOD INDUSTRY; LABOR-MARKET; RELATIVE DEPRIVATION; EMPLOYMENT; UNEMPLOYMENT; IMPACT; DISPERSION; PRODUCTIVITY; INFORMATION;
D O I
10.1111/1467-8551.12182
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
In this paper we examine established practice regarding the reporting, justification and number of interview participants chosen within organization and workplace studies. For such qualitative research there is a paucity of discussion across the social sciences, the topic receiving far less attention than its centrality warrants. We analysed 798 articles published in 2003 and 2013 in ten top and second tier academic journals, identifying 248 studies using at least one type of qualitative interview. Participant numbers were contingent on characteristics of the population from which they were chosen and approach to analysis, but not the journal, its tier, editorial base or publication year, the interview type or its duration. Despite lack of transparency in reporting (23.4% of studies did not state participant numbers) we reveal a median of 32.5 participants, numbers ranging from one to 330, and no justification for participant numbers in over half of studies. We discuss implications and, recognizing that different philosophical commitments are likely to imply differing norms, offer recommendations regarding reporting, justification and number of participants. Acknowledging exceptions, dependent upon study purpose and data saliency, these include an organization and workplace research norm of 15-60 participants, alongside credible numbers for planning interview research.
引用
收藏
页码:836 / 852
页数:17
相关论文
共 66 条
[21]  
Cartwright D., 1968, Group dynamics, V3rd ed.
[22]   Who Compares to Whom? The Anatomy of Income Comparisons in Europe [J].
Clark, Andrew E. ;
Senik, Claudia .
ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 2010, 120 (544) :573-594
[23]   Job Satisfaction and Co-worker Wages: Status or Signal? [J].
Clark, Andrew E. ;
Kristensen, Nicolai ;
Westergard-Nielsen, Niels .
ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 2009, 119 (536) :430-447
[24]   MODEL OF EGOTISTICAL RELATIVE DEPRIVATION [J].
CROSBY, F .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1976, 83 (02) :85-113
[25]  
Croucher R., 2012, J INT COMP LABOUR ST, V1, P263
[26]   A FORMAL INTERPRETATION OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVE DEPRIVATION [J].
DAVIS, JA .
SOCIOMETRY, 1959, 22 (04) :280-296
[27]   The effects of minimum wages on employment: Theory and evidence from Britain [J].
Dickens, R ;
Machin, S ;
Manning, A .
JOURNAL OF LABOR ECONOMICS, 1999, 17 (01) :1-22
[28]   Labor market institutions and the distribution of wages, 1973-1992: A semiparametric approach [J].
DiNardo, J ;
Fortin, NM ;
Lemieux, T .
ECONOMETRICA, 1996, 64 (05) :1001-1044
[29]   WAGE REFERENCE GROUPS AND THEIR DETERMINANTS - A STUDY OF BLUE-COLLAR AND WHITE-COLLAR EMPLOYEES IN ISRAEL [J].
DORNSTEIN, M .
JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1988, 61 (03) :221-235
[30]   Minimum Wages and Firm Profitability [J].
Draca, Mirko ;
Machin, Stephen ;
Van Reenen, John .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL-APPLIED ECONOMICS, 2011, 3 (01) :129-151