In this paper we examine established practice regarding the reporting, justification and number of interview participants chosen within organization and workplace studies. For such qualitative research there is a paucity of discussion across the social sciences, the topic receiving far less attention than its centrality warrants. We analysed 798 articles published in 2003 and 2013 in ten top and second tier academic journals, identifying 248 studies using at least one type of qualitative interview. Participant numbers were contingent on characteristics of the population from which they were chosen and approach to analysis, but not the journal, its tier, editorial base or publication year, the interview type or its duration. Despite lack of transparency in reporting (23.4% of studies did not state participant numbers) we reveal a median of 32.5 participants, numbers ranging from one to 330, and no justification for participant numbers in over half of studies. We discuss implications and, recognizing that different philosophical commitments are likely to imply differing norms, offer recommendations regarding reporting, justification and number of participants. Acknowledging exceptions, dependent upon study purpose and data saliency, these include an organization and workplace research norm of 15−60 participants, alongside credible numbers for planning interview research.

In the organisational learning literature a variety of concepts exist denoting some third order of organisational learning, notably that of `triple-loop' learning. Despite this there has been no systematic, critical consideration of this concept or its origins, impeding both theoretical development and empirical research. Whilst `triple-loop learning' has been inspired by Argyris and Schön, we establish that the term does not arise in their published work. Indeed, we argue that conceptualisations of triple-loop learning are diverse, often have little theoretical rooting, are sometimes driven by normative considerations, and lack support from empirical research. We map the major influences on these conceptualisations, focussing on Argyris and Schön's work and Bateson's framework of levels of learning. Bateson's third level of learning, which has inspired several authors, reveals a dark side that contrasts with constructions of triple-loop learning as a form of instrumental, strategic thinking.Based on this analysis we offer an original theoretical contribution that distinguishes between three conceptualisations of `triple-loop learning'. We also highlight implications for practice, and we caution against the uncritical preference for 'higher levels' of learning that is sometimes discernible in the literature and in practice.

This paper explores employees' trust as a reaction to the management of change using the constructs of organisational justice. Following a review of organisational justice theory in relation to trust and change, employees' reactions are considered using a case study of an UK public sector organisation. Drawing upon 28 in-depth interviews with employees, the nature of trust is explored. Little difference is found between trusting and mistrustful employees' perceptions of distributive justice. Supporting earlier findings regarding the relationship between procedural justice and trust, the research also reveals the distinct importance of fairness of treatment (interactional justice) in enabling trust.

No abstract

TIJ printing offers a rapid method for extemporaneous preparation of personalized-dose medicines.