Jean-Pierre (known to everyone as JP) is a Master’s student studying for an MSc in International Management. He has previously worked for two different management consulting firms, which has led to his interest in conducting a research project on the sector. One of things that JP noticed when working for both firms is the importance that clients place on the firm’s reputation when deciding which management consulting firm to work with. Yet, despite its importance, JP was not clear how clients were making judgements about the reputation of management consulting firms. This motivated him to research the question: ‘How do clients form judgments about the reputation of management consulting firms?’ Since JP’s research question was exploratory, he decided to conduct semi-structured interviews with both partners and clients of management consulting firms to gain a rich explanatory insight into judgements of reputation from the perspective of employees and clients. When he was previously employed in two different management consulting firms, JP worked with many employees and clients. Since he was planning to interview a senior group of people, he decided to read more about strategies for conducting elite interviews from the perspective of a junior researcher (Harvey, 2011).

JP had read in his research methods textbook that it was good practice to pilot his interview questions first, so he decided to draw on some of his existing contacts to help set up these interviews. He very quickly arranged two telephone interviews: one with a partner of an American management consulting firm and one with a chief operating officer of a major aerospace company based in France. He was fortunate to speak to both interviewees for approximately 45 minutes and felt that he gained some interesting insights about how clients evaluate reputation. However, one interviewee asked about the ethical code of conduct for his research project, a question he felt he did not answer particularly well. JP also asked both interviewees whether they could recommend other people for him to speak to, which both said they would think about, although neither ever got back to him.

Having completed two pilot interviews with senior professionals, JP felt that he was ready to embark on the main interviews for his fieldwork. He planned to interview a further seven employees and seven clients of different management consulting firms. Unfortunately, he struggled to gain access to other interviewees, despite following-up with former professional contacts and the two interviewees that he interviewed for the pilot study.

As a final resort, JP decided to contact Claire, a junior Board member of a professional association representing management consultants, to see if she was willing to be interviewed as part of his research. Fortunately, Claire agreed to be interviewed and the conversation lasted for over two hours, providing what JP considered was excellent data. Claire gave suggestions of how JP’s interview questions could be phrased more clearly and outlined some possible areas related to how clients judged reputation which she felt JP might pursue with other interviewees.

Following JP’s request, Claire agreed to refer several partners and clients for him to interview. JP made good initial progress with his interviews and he felt that he had a better command over his questions. However, several weeks later, JP received a rather terse e-mail from Claire saying that she had spoken to a few of his interviewees that she had referred him to. They were not happy with some of his questions and none of them had received an email, letter or telephone call from him to say thank you or explain how they could learn more about the outcomes of the project. Claire said that she was extremely reluctant to encourage other members of her professional network to be interviewed by JP unless he revised his questions. It transpired that JP had not taken the time to rephrase his questions or include the possible areas Claire had suggested. Claire also wanted reassurance about JP’s professional conduct and dissemination plan for participants.

JP reflected critically on his conduct and realised that he needed to take on board the feedback and incorporate this into his interview conduct. He also realised that he needed to be as focused on the context and needs of the interviewees as he was about his own concerns around completing his fieldwork in a timely manner. He started doing some further reading about gaining access to, conducting interviews on and following-up with interviewees (Irvine and Gaffikin 2006; Dundon and Ryan 2010; Berger 2015; Lancaster 2017). He also apologised to Claire and contacted all the interviewees to thank them for their time and to explain when he would be in touch with an executive summary of his findings.

Having learned a hard lesson and read further, JP was better able to continue his fieldwork to a significantly higher standard. Fortunately, Claire and some of the other interviewees helped him to gain access to further interviewees. As a result, JP completed all 14 additional interviews within his timeframe. The quality of the data were sufficiently high for him to identify important themes related to his research question which subsequently enabled him to make an important contribution to the extant literature in his research project. He also learned some valuable lessons about gaining and maintaining access, which he wished he had known about before embarking on the fieldwork.

Questions
1 What are some ethical and procedural steps that JP could have adopted in his research design?
2 What are some of the ways that JP could have considered gaining access?
3 How might JP have piloted more effectively?