The aim of this study is to investigate which aspects of the BI2020 pilot program the participants experienced as successful. This section will explain and justify the choice of research context, strategy, data sources, analysis and ethical
considerations.
3.1 Choice of research context
This research study was conducted with participants from the BI2020 pilot program. The pilot program was part of the BI2020 project, which aimed to
position BI as an innovative and preferred provider of higher education. Amongst other things, this included utilizing the available technology in the dissemination of research-based knowledge and facilitation for learning and knowledge
development among students (BI, 2013). LearningLab’s role was to coordinate the program, offer technological assistance and support with implementation. Further, LearningLab was responsible for securing organisational learning through
systematic evaluation and knowledge sharing of the pilots. All faculty members could apply to participate in the pilot program. The application needed to address an educational and/or business challenge within large-scale teaching at BI. This context was chosen to be investigated further, as the participants of the pilot program have all engaged in intrapreneurial behaviour within the same time period at BI. Further, the context allowed for investigating the successfulness of the program and LearningLab’s role in managing high-uncertainty projects in a protective environment within the boundaries of the organisation.
3.2 A qualitative approach to intrapreneurial behaviour at BI
The research process began with an exploratory approach, which can be understood as “unstructured, informal research that is undertaken to gain
background information about the general nature of the research problem” (Burns
& Bush, 2016, p. 94). Exploratory research allows for high degree of flexibility and promotes the researcher to select sources to be investigated to get an understanding of the problem at hand (Burns & Bush, 2016). This approach allowed us to explore the pilot program with an open mind and evaluate which pilot projects and research participants that was of interest. Further, the
exploratory approach laid the foundation for which direction this research study would take and what research strategy that should be applied.
A qualitative research strategy was decided to be suitable for answering the research question. Qualitative research can be seen as verbal description of real-life situations. This strategy is appropriate when the aim of the research is to understand a phenomenon in a context-specific setting, such as a "real world setting [where] the researcher does not attempt to manipulate the phenomenon of interest" (Patton, 2002, p. 39). Compared to quantitative research, a qualitative research strategy is more applicable when the objective is to make sense out of the subjective and socially constructed meanings expressed about the phenomenon being studied (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). As we were interested in the
employees’ experiences of the pilot program, a qualitative strategy would provide deeper insight to the subjective experiences of the pilot participants.
The research applied a case study research design. A case study can be referred to an in-depth inquiry into a topic or phenomenon within its real-life setting (Yin, 2011). The purpose of a case study design is to understand the dynamics of the topic that is being studied within its context (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Dubois and Gadde (2002) also argued that a case study is the most appropriate when the purpose is to understand the interaction between a phenomenon and its context. However, qualitative research has been criticized for not being able to produce generalizable, reliable and theoretical contributions to knowledge (Saunders et al., 2009). Qualitative researchers on the other hand point that this research paradigm is based on other underlying assumptions, where there are multiple realities or truths based on the individual's construction of reality (Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil, 2002). The findings of qualitative research are not meant to be generalizable, and the sample should rather consist of small, purposeful samples of respondents who can provide important information instead of a sample that represent a large population (Reid, 1996).
3.3 Data Sources
With a qualitative research strategy and a case study design, purposive sampling was identified as a suitable approach to select research participants. This way of sampling enabled us to seek out individuals who were relevant for answering the research question (Silverman, 2014). The participants selected were ten
employees who were engaged in the BI2020 pilot program and were project owners. The sample was drawn from a pool of thirty-nine final pilot reports and with assistance from the Dean of Teaching and Lecturing, Anne Berit Swanberg.
The pilot projects are therefore the units of analysis, where ten pilots will be investigated. The participants experiences connected to the pilot execution will further be used to answer the research question. The sample consisted of five professors, three lecturers and two employees from the administration, who were all involved in academic teaching at BI to some degree. By including three employee groups in the sample, we were able to gain different insight into the phenomena being studied and enabled the research question to be assessed from different perspectives (Saunders & Townsend, 2016).
The primary data was collected through semi-structured interviews (See appendix A). A semi-structured interview can be seen as a conversation, where standardized questions and topics are to be covered in order to collect detailed information (Harrell & Bradley, 2009). This form of interview allowed us to include follow-up questions and provided the freedom to investigate related topics that might be interesting for answering the research question at hand. The
interview guide was developed based on related theory, the BI2020 documents and the final reports. Further, the first interview provided insight into areas related to the research question that we were not prepared for, which led to changes in the interview guide before the following interviews were carried out. Lastly, three meetings with Anne Berit Swanberg was conducted, one before, during and after the interviews, to gain relevant information and cross-check the findings with LearningLab’s experiences.
3.4 Analysis
To draw meaning from the interviews conducted, an Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was carried out. IPA was considered a suitable methodology, as it is developed specifically for psychology (Smith & Osborn, 2004). IPA recognizes that individuals perceive the world in different ways and attempt to “explore/understand/make sense of the subjective meanings of events/
experiences/states of the individual participants themselves” (Smith & Osborn, 2004, p. 229). Through conducting an IPA, we were able to explore how the participants ascribe meaning to their interactions with the environment (Smith, Jarman & Osborn, 1999) and how they experienced their participation in the pilot program.
Prior to the analysis all interviews were transcribed. The transcript was read several times for us to gain rich insight to the material. Further, we
systematically went through interview one and wrote down the main categories and superior themes. Five main themes were found. Thereafter, interview two was reviewed to see if the themes from interview one could be conformed and if other themes occurred. This process continued until all interviews were carefully reviewed and the list of appropriate themes was created. The initial list consisted ten first-order themes that was presented in a table with examples of each item to support and illustrate the theme (See appendix B). The ten themes were later clustered into two main categories to organise the findings in a sensible way.
3.5 Ethical considerations
In all research, there are ethical considerations that must be made. Prior to conducting the interviews, a formal application was submitted and approved by Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD). Further, an information letter including a consent form was sent to the research participants to ensure that the participant had a sufficient understanding of the scope of the project (See appendix C). This letter included information about the nature of the research project, why they were selected as participants and their right to withdraw at any time.
The focus in this study concerns the employees’ experiences and perceptions of their work situation and organisation. Therefore, ensuring
anonymity was of high importance to receive true and honest answers. Anonymity was ensured by using randomly selected numbers when referring to the research participants, instead of their real names. Moreover, revealing information that could potentially expose the identity of the individual has been avoided. Since the interview data is closely connected to the participants, it is not possible to store the data anonymously or provide data access to other researchers. Based on this, the purpose of the data and NSD’s guidelines for storage and destruction, it has been decided that all data will be deleted after grading.