Dear fellow PhDs,

I'm doing a PhD (Marketing/Sales) in a company together with a Uni in the UK.

I already completed my first study (interviews) within my company and I'm very happy about the results.
A lot of new insights were given, what for the first time made me feel very comfortable with my topic. ;)

However, I'm working on my data collection chapter right now and do not really find literature that supports the approach of performing interviews in only one company. One might argue that this study is biased and cannot be generalised...

I already thought about the following argumentation, however it would be great if you could give me some input as well...

- Purposive sampling
- World leading 200k employee company
- Management System that is in the focus of my research is successfully applied for 20 years
- Data is fully comparable - no cross sectional influence
- Hofstede (1989) argues out that the use of a single multinational employer eliminates the effect of the corporate policy and management practices from different companies...

- ....

Thanks for your support, have a great Weekend!

You could decide to take a single-case case study approach? The key authors are Yin and Stake who both give arguments for the pros and cons of single and multiple cases. Interviews (and other data collection methods) can be used within a case approach and then you could use the reasons above to justify your case selection. Presumably access also played a part in your choice?

Yep, as CR1980 says...

Instead of doing something positivistic and aiming / being concerned about generalization, you could perhaps re-frame your PhD so it is broadly interpretivist (or even realist) so that you could sell the benefits of doing something in so much depth.

Thanks to you two!

I quickly checked Ying and Stake and it looks interesting...

@CR1980: Sure access played a role, usually you don't get executives for an hour +...
I guess the study cost minimum 10000€+ (traveling, time etc...)

That's a good hint!

@DROT: I'm a critical realist, so that somehow should fit :)

Concerning the Case Study approach: Labour Union gave me the restriction that neither the name of the company nor names of the employees will show up in any publication. Is there a good argument (besides the given restriction) for this anonymity?

Cheers,

Anonymity is normally a standard part of the ethical research framework. It protects both the innocent and the guilty ;). IMO you would be faced with a lot of searching questions were the participants' anonymity not assured. Most qualitative methodology texts will discuss this.