Yin (1994) suggests three conditions for choosing a research strategy: the type of research questions, the control an investigator has over actual behavioural events, and the focus on contemporary versus historical phenomena. This research can, to a large extent, be identified as an inter- view and a ‘survey’ type of study where the writer chooses to use interviews in the research. The advantages of interviews include the generally higher response rate, flexibility, an improved chance of assessing the validity of responses, the ability to observe verbal behaviour, control over the investi- gative environment and control over question order, as well as the ability to explore by follow-up probing and so forth. Among the disadvantages of interviews are travel cost, time consumed and interview bias. For this reason, the interviewer also needs to improve the validity of recorded information through the use of tandem interviewing (two interviewers).
This type of study is normally conducted as part of a wider team project.
The advantages of undertaking research in an interview and a survey mode are that the data are collected at a single point in time; there is
a fixed set of checklists; and responses are systematically classified in such a way that quantitative comparisons can be tested. An interview approach involves the construction of a relatively comprehensive view from a large number of cases. The methodologies used for interviews enable the use of standard statistical methods to justify results. There are pros and cons to the use of the interview method as the amount of data that can be collected is limited and the flexibility of using a variety of questioning techniques depends upon the interviewer. An interview strategy tends to favour describing the prevalence or frequency of a phenomenon. There are a number of inherent advantages including a substantial saving of time and money, greater assurance of anonymity, lack of interview bias, standardized wording and accessibility. This con- trasts with a questionnaire survey where there is likely to be a low response rate, the information gathered will only concern reported behaviour, there is a lack of control over the research setting and the order in which questions are answered does not allow the researcher to repeat or clarify the question when necessary.
The research design and method of fieldwork used in the study is primarily based on the comparative interview. The study is undertaken using a relatively quantitative approach with a comparatively large sample.
Interviews are chosen as the principal method for data collection since interviews allow for the development of a better understanding of an international strategic alliance. Interviews also provide an opportunity to identify cultural preconceptions that may not be possible with other methods. Interviews are of two types: initial in-depth interviews and follow-up interviews. The in-depth interviews serve as the data founda- tion for the study.
The interview is the most practical research method available to measure awareness. It allows the interviewer to delve much deeper into a topic, provides the opportunity to ask many long sequenced open- ended questions using screening questions and gives the ability to probe answers. This is particularly the case for topics such as the financial situation, strategies, organizational behaviour and politics, which are sensitive subjects in most strategic alliances in China. A face-to-face interview arouses initial interest and increases the rate of participation.
It also enables the interviewer to ask complex questions that may require explanation or mechanical aids. Of course, the interview method allows the interviewer to clarify answers. It is usually preferred when a large amount of in-depth information is needed from respondents.
Interviewers must be properly trained. It is essential to set aside resources and time to train those who do interviewing. The reliability and the
validity of the results will be increased by minimizing the inconsistency relating to the interviewers’ understanding of the questionnaire, their skills and their instructions. In-depth interviewing entails asking questions, listening to and recording the answers and then posing additional questions to clarify or expand on a particular issue. Questions are open- ended and respondents are encouraged to express their own perceptions in their own words. In-depth interviews are aimed at understanding the beneficiaries’ view of the research, their terminology and judgements.
There are three basic approaches to in-depth interviewing that differ mainly in the extent to which the interview questions are determined and standardized beforehand: the informal conversational interview, the semi-structured interview and the standardized open-ended interview.
Each research approach serves a different purpose and has different preparation and instrumentation requirements. First, the informal conversational interview relies primarily on the spontaneous gener- ation of questions in the natural flow of an interaction. This type of interviewing is appropriate when the interviewer wants to maintain maximum flexibility to be able to pursue questioning in whatever direction appears to be appropriate. It depends on the information that emerges from observing a particular setting. The interviewer may talk to one or more individuals in that organizational setting. The strength of this approach is that the interviewer is flexible and highly responsive to individual differences, situational changes and emerging new information.
Second, semi-structured interviews involve the preparation of an interview checklist that contains a pre-determined set of questions or issues to be explored during an interview. This guide serves as a ques- tionnaire during the interview and ensures basically that the same information is obtained from a number of people. The order and the actual working of the questions are not determined in advance. The advantage of adopting a semi-structured interview is that it makes interviewing a number of different people more systematic and compre- hensive by limiting the issues to be taken up in the interview.
Finally, the open-ended interview consists of a set of open-ended questions carefully worded and arranged in advance. The interviewer asks the same questions with each respondent, using essentially the same words and in the same sequence. This type of interview may be particu- larly appropriate when there are several interviewers and the researcher wants to minimize the variation in the questions they pose. It is also useful when it is desirable to have the same information from each interviewee at several points in time or when there are time constraints
for data collection and analysis. Standardized open-ended interviews allow the interviewer to collect detailed data systematically and facilitate comparability among all respondents.
Experience indicates that the semi-structured interview is the most effective way to conduct research in the Chinese international stra- tegic alliance environment. The key concepts of formation, ownership, governance, corporate culture and organizational learning can be defined and operationalized. It is possible to apply such concepts across a research framework of foreign investments and corporate governance.
There is evidence of the likelihood of resistance by managers to inten- sive studies as these take up a lot of their individual time. The semi- structured interview is carried out within a comparative design and involves a structured checklist. Some of the questions on the checklist are closed and lend themselves readily to a quantitative analysis, while others are open-ended and more ‘exploratory’ in nature (Yin 1994).
Personal visits to each research site provide further insights of a qualitative nature and are believed to be extremely useful in assisting with the interpretation of results.
Primary data-gathering for the research described in this book was undertaken in China in late 2000. Follow-up interviews were conducted on subsequent trips to China over the following two years. These inter- views allowed clarification of unclear issues that emerged during data analysis, and also allowed the researchers to investigate issues that were not originally included, but which became important during data collection and data analysis. Follow-up interviews allowed the researcher to determine if the attitudes and organizational behaviours of these strategic alliances are changing over time.