A few years ago Mark and Phil thought it would be fun to worktogether on a piece of research. They also hoped it would benefittheir continuing development as researchers. Mark’s researchbackground (strength) has its origins in the recruitment andsubsequent mobility of labor. His research methods skills emphasizethe quantitative approach, although he had undertaken a variety ofqualitative research projects. Phil’s strength is as a mainstreamHRM academic with an bias towards understanding the processes ofeveryday HRM. His research methods skills are mainly qualitative.Unlike many students Mark’s and Phil’s research area was one inwhich they were aware of the literature. However, despite this,they were in a similar situation to many students. They wanted toundertake a new piece of work that would excite them and be of somepractical benefit to organizations.
In the early 1990s Mark had carried out a survey of recruitmentmethods used by local authority employers. This had built on anddeveloped research he had undertaken as part of his doctoral thesisapproximately 10 years earlier. While discussing the findings inthe coffee shop Phil agreed to take a more detailed look to seewhether there was anything of practical significance for managers.During discussion a few weeks later an issue that they felt wasfascinating emerged. Throughout the previous decade there appearedto have been a dominance of internal and word-of-mouth recruitment.Internal recruitment is where recruitment is restricted to anorganization’s existing employees. Word-of-mouth is whererecruitment relies on the organization’s existing employees to tellother people in their social networks about the vacancies.
Through their discussion Phil and Mark developed a clearresearch idea that was in both their areas of academic strength.This was concerned with explaining why, given the centrality ofequal opportunities to local authorities’ recruitment, internal andword-of-mouth recruitment was so dominant. They felt this idea wasfascinating because, on the face of it, both forms of recruitmentwere alien to the principle of equal opportunities. Quantitativeevidence from Mark’s survey showed that the phenomena of internaland word-of-mouth recruitment were dominant. Mark’s experience ofworking in local authorities supported this. They now needed torefine the idea, develop a clear research question and objectives,and write their research proposal.
They adopted what we felt was a rational process. They bothdrafted outline proposals simultaneously and criticized eachother’s work. This led to an outline proposal that integrated theirideas and encompassed research questions and objectives.
Next they reviewed the literature to establish what work hadbeen done on this aspect of recruitment. The overall conclusionfrom the empirical research, undertaken in all sectors of theeconomy, was that word-of-mouth and internal recruitment methodswere still important. However, none of this work concentrated onlocal authorities. Moreover, they thought that awareness of theimportance of equal opportunities would have grown since the timewhen the research was conducted. Their research proposal stillseemed valid, and the literature confirmed its relevance. Inaddition, reading the literature had suggested possible newresearch questions. However, they still needed to discuss theirproposal with other people.
The first discussion was with an equal opportunities officerwith a London borough. He was not excited by their research idea,and commented that he was not surprised by the survey findings.These, he said, were due to the need to redeploy people who wouldotherwise be made redundant. The second discussion was with apersonnel specialist from a large county authority. Her responsecan be paraphrased as ‘well what do you expect.... the pay formanual positions is relatively low so there are few applicants....we therefore have to rely on word of mouth.’
Mark and Phil were depressed, to say the least. They thoughtthey had a fascinating research question. Yet the first two peoplethey had discussed their ideas with had shown them the answer wasobvious. They had spent a great deal of time refining theirresearch proposal and in searching the literature. Their immediatereaction was to abandon the research completely. However, a fewdays later they decided to revise their research ideas. Theydecided to discard the local authorities and equal opportunitiesperspectives and focus on the notification channels used byemployers. Their revised research question was: ‘Why doorganizations use word-of- mouth recruitment?’
discussing the case and incorporating answers to thequestions below.
4. To what extent do you feel that Mark’s and Phil'sfinal research question meets the checklist below? (at least 350words)
a. Does the topic fit the specifications and meet the standardsset by the examining institution?
b. Is the topic something with which you are reallyfascinated?
c. Does your research topic contain issues that have a clearlink to theory?
d. Do you have, or can you develop within the project timeframe, the necessary research skills to undertake the topic?
e. Is the research topic achievable within the availabletime?
f. Is the research topic achievable within the financialresources that are likely to be available?
g. Are you reasonably certain of being able to gain access todata you are likely to require for this topic?
h. Are you able to state your research question(s) andobjectives clearly?
i. Will your proposed research be able to provide fresh insightson this topic?
j. Does your research topic relate clearly to the topic you havebeen given (perhaps by an organization)?
l. Are the findings for this research topic likely to besymmetrical, that is of similar value, whatever theoutcome?
k. Does the research topic match your career goals?
