The telephone medium and semi-structured interviews: a complementary fit

Purpose – The telephone has been widely used to conduct quantitative research in diverse fields of study, generally using survey methodology. However, comparatively very few qualitative studies opt for this means of data collection. The purpose of this paper is to argue in favour of a medium that has generally been second‐rated in qualitative research. It aims at establishing telephone interviews as an equally viable option to other established methods of qualitative data collection. Design/methodology/approach – This paper is informed by the authors' experience of using this method, as well as the limited number of previous research articles presented on the topic. It discusses its specific strengths and limitations, drawing on a conducted longitudinal study to illustrate key points. Its application to particular qualitative analysis methods, in view of the acknowledged requirements for each of these approaches, is also presented. Findings – Telephone conversations naturally follow an agenda‐driven format that is initiated by the caller, similar to semi‐structured interviews. The authors propose that the telephone medium and interview modality are complementary. Also, the interview transcripts provide rich textual data that can subsequently be analysed using a range of qualitative data analysis methods. Originality/value – Focus is placed on the methodological strengths of using telephone interviews in qualitative research, rather than convenience factors which have been the most featured element in previous literature. The paper aims at informing researchers who want to consider using the telephone medium for qualitative data collection and analysis

Perceptions of group homogeneity during group formation and change

Research on the effects of categorization on intergroup perceptions has commonly reported the existence of an out-group homogeneity effect in which the out-group is seen as less internally heterogeneous than the in-group. An influential explanation for this effect is based on differential familiarity with in-group and out-group members. However, substantial evidence now exists for the reverse phenomenon-an in-group homogeneity effect-which is difficult to reconcile with the differential familiarity explanation. This study extends the latter work by hypothesising that such in-group homogeneity may be especially prevalent during the initial stages of group formation, particularly on dimensions central to the group's identity, or at other important transition points in the group's evolution. Seventy-seven student nurses in three training cohorts participated in a longitudinal study, rating their own cohort group and a variety of other categories on dimensions related or unrelated to the professional identity of nurses, and at two points in time separated by a 12-month interval. Results revealed evidence of an in-group homogeneity effect on nurse-relevant dimensions, but out-group homogeneity vis A vis doctors on a doctor-relevant dimension. Furthermore, there were several changes in the perceived variability of out-groups over time but relatively few changes in the perceived variability of the in-group. The implications of this data for some current models of perceived intragroup homogeneity are discussed

Who are we made to think we are? Contextual variation in organizational, workgroup and career foci of identification

An online survey-based study (N = 314) combining experimental and quasi-experimental elements was conducted to examine variation in employees' group identification in organizational contexts. The study measured three foci of identification (organization, workgroup, career) under three conditions of identity fit (organizational, workgroup, career) in two healthcare organizations (one public sector, one private sector) that had distinct organizational cultures (collectivist, individualist, respectively). Whilst workgroup identification was generally higher than organizational identification, this difference was moderated both by sector and by the interaction between sector and identity fit. This meant (1) that when the fit manipulation made workgroup identity salient, workgroup identification was only higher than organizational and career identification in the public-sector organization and (2) that when the fit manipulation made career identity salient, career identification was only higher than organizational and workgroup identification in the private-sector organization. These findings are consistent with hypotheses derived from self-categorization theory, which suggests that the salience of organizational identities defined at different levels of abstraction varies as a function of their accessibility and fit and hence is determined by their localized meaning. They are also inconsistent with assumptions that workgroup identity will always be preferred to more inclusive categorizations. Implications for theory and practice are discussed