Case study design

Prior to the discussion of data collection methods (see Section ‎5.4.3) some case study design issues have to be decided for the case selection, i.e. the number of cases to be studied and the sampling type as follows.

5.4.1. Sampling techniques

The selection of cases is subject to two main domains: non-probability samples which are the domain of the interpretivists, and probability samples which are used by positivistic researchers (Remenyi et al. 1998), see Appendix 1. The interest of this study, according to the chosen qualitative interpretive philosophy, is in non-probability samples. There are different types of the non-non-probability techniques.

Saunders et al. (2009) identified five types, these are: quota sampling, purposive sampling, snowball sampling, self-selecting sampling and convenience sampling. From these, purposive sampling has been chosen for this study. The aim of this choice is to enable the selection of the cases that are believed to be capable to provide relevant, deep and rich information that would answer the questions of the study. The choice of a purposive sample involves defining the characteristics of the sites or type of persons to be interviewed. Based upon these characteristics, any sites or persons having those characteristics can be included in the sample (Patton 2002). Also, Denzin and Lincoln (2000) justified the use of purposive sampling in qualitative research by indicating:

“Many qualitative researchers employ purposive and not random sampling methods. They seek out group, settings and individuals where the processes being studied are most likely to occur” (2000, p. 370).

This study has used purposive sampling to choose representatives from groups of the Egyptian DMS (the Touregypt project) stakeholders to investigate their perspectives on effectiveness. Samples have been chosen to include variety of perspectives: the public (The Egyptian Tourism Ministry) and private sectors (Touregypt management organization), members and non-members of the system, local tourist enterprises from different sizes (small, medium and large enterprises), international organizations, and tourists (see Figure 10). There are a range of different approaches to purposive

99 sampling; the choice between them depends on the study’s aims and coverage (Richie and Lewis 2003). Patton (2002) has identified such options and where they can be of help to qualitative research (see Patton 2002, p. 240 - 244). This study has adopted triangulation in choosing the purposeful samples which combine different types of purposive samples for the aim of flexibility and in order to meet the multiple interests and needs of the study in question (Patton 2002). Snowball and Stratified purposeful samplings have been used to select the participants in this research. Both of these types share common principles as types of purposive sampling. These are (Patton 2002):

“Selecting information-rich cases-cases from which one can learn a great deal about matters of importance and therefore worthy of in-depth study”

(2002, p. 242).

5.4.1.1. Justifying sampling techniques choices

The following presents the rationale for choosing these different two types of purposive sampling, Snowball and Stratified purposeful samplings.

The first technique for identifying the participants of the study was a Snowball or chain purposive sampling. The technique identifies cases of interest from people who know what cases might be relevant and can provide rich information. In this sense, one should get hold of one or more participants as a start and they will tell about where the others are or can be found. When those others are found, they will tell where others can be found and the chain continues (Patton 2002). When the actual fieldwork was done, this study specified some characteristics upon which participants were recommended. Strategies included, asking for someone who could be of help to this study in small or medium companies from the members and the non-members of the Touregypt project, asking about someone responsible about Touregypt project in the Egyptian Tourism Ministry or any other public sector authority. In the beginning of this study, identifying some of the desired populations, especially those from the public sector authorities, was difficult. That is why snowball purposive sampling was chosen for this study (Saunders et al. 2003).

100 According to the multiple types of stakeholders of the Egyptian DMS, stratified purposive sampling is used in this study besides snowball purposive sampling for purpose of variation and comparison of stakeholders’ groups’ perspectives. Patton (2002) described these as samples within samples and suggested that stratified sampling is a hybrid approach in which the aim is to select groups that display variation on a particular phenomenon, considering which each of them is fairly consistent, so that subgroups can be compared. For instance, this study has divided the population considered to include local enterprises from members and non-members of the Touregypt project. It also divides the sample according to the size of the tourist enterprises to include small, medium and large companies. Further, it was important to include perspectives of both the public and the private stakeholders.

Stratified purposive sampling is different from stratified random sampling in that the sample sizes are likely to be too small for generalization.

5.4.2. Determining the numbers of cases: One setting-multiple case studies

This study investigates the Egyptian DMS experience. DMS was described in Chapter 2 as a vast web-based interorganizational system that includes multiple stakeholder groups either inside or outside the destination. Here, this study conducted a single setting, which is the Egyptian DMS; although a multiple cases approach is employed, since the achievement of multiple perspectives is significant to build a comprehensive understanding for DMSs effectiveness.

Regarding the number of cases, researchers asserted that there is no rule or ideal number of cases to be included in qualitative inquiry (Eisenhardt 1991; Patton 2002;

Yin 2008). The selection of the sample size depends on “what you want to know, the purpose of the inquiry, what’s at stake, what will be useful, what will have credibility and what can be done with available time and resources” (Patton 2002, p. 244).

Researchers also pointed out to that rich and in-depth information from a small number of cases can be very valuable (Eisenhardt 1991; Stake 1995; Voss et al. 2002;

Yin 2008). They also asserted that the purposeful samples need to be judged “on the basis of the purpose and rationale of each study and the sampling strategy used to achieve the study’s purpose” (Patton 2002, p. 245). In this respect, Patton added:

101

“The validity, meaningfulness, and insights generated from qualitative inquiry have more to do with the information-richness of the cases selected and the observational/analytical capabilities of the researcher than with sample size” (2002, p. 245).

Eisenhardt (1989) indicated that cases should be added until “theoretical saturation”

(1989, p. 545) is reached. Theoretical saturation refers to the point where data starts to be repetitive and no more of it emerges or is heard by the researcher.

Generally, researchers differentiate between two kinds of case studies; single and multiple cases (Eisenhardt 1991; Yin 2008). Single case studies are fitting when the case is rare or critical for investigating (Yin 2008). However, choosing the type of case study depends on the research aims; many researchers prefer the use of multiple cases. For example, Eisenhardt (1991) indicates that multiple cases are a powerful means to create theory because they permit replication and extension among individual cases. She stated that "good theories are fundamentally the result of rigours methodology and a comparative, multiple – case logic" (Eisenhardt 1991, p. 726). Yin (2008) further emphasized that the evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling and the overall study becomes stronger, since it increases the generalizability of the study result.

However, researchers such as Voss et al. (2002) indicated that single in-depth case studies can offer researchers the opportunity to carry out an in-depth observation that can lead to very significant research findings. On the other hand, they stated that the generalizability of the conclusions is an important limitation of a single case study design; hence the theory developed from such case would have to overcome perceptions concerning its applicability to other contexts. However, they specified that researchers can overcome this limitation by incorporating events and data from multiple cases when designing the case study.

Although, this study does not aim at external generalizability (see Section ‎5.6.3), multiple cases were adopted within the setting of the Egyptian DMS experience.

Eisenhardt (1991) stressed that researchers should distinguish between two terms;

single setting and single case. Eisenhardt (1991) added that many of the pioneering

102 researchers in social science depended on single setting and multiple case studies in their research, she said:

“This is a critical misreading of these studies. Although these studies may focus on a single setting such as a corporation they are not single cases.

Rather, many are multiple-case studies, relying on the comparative multiple-case logic of replication and extension for their theoretical insights” (1991, p. 622).

5.4.3. Data collection methods and techniques

The selection of the research strategy influences the way in which the data are to be collected. For example ethnographic research usually relies on using participant observation while survey research usually relies on questionnaire as a technique for collecting the required data. As for the qualitative case study strategy adopted by this study, Yin (2008) stated that there are six possible sources of evidence for case studies:

documents, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant-observation, and physical artefacts. However, Myers (2007) did not recommend using participant-observation in case study, and argued that it is an ethnography technique. Indeed, the case study's unique strength is its ability to deal with a variety of evidence and to use a combination of different methods to study the same phenomenon, which is described as data triangulation (e.g. Patton 2002; Yin 2008).

Hereby, a combination of data collection techniques (or data triangulation) is adopted in this study for two reasons: first: to cover the multiple stakeholders’ perspectives of DMS, as each group of the stakeholders needed a particular way to collect their perspectives, as shown in the following. Second: as a way to increase the credibility and overcome any bias regarding this study (as being one of the main weaknesses of a qualitative research) (Patton 2002; Punch 2005; Mayer 2007; Bryman and Bell 2007;

Yin 2008).

In this section, a justification of the general framework for collecting the evidence of this study is presented, while in the next chapter (Chapter 6) the process of collecting and analyzing the evidence is further demonstrated in details. The main purpose of the fieldwork of this study was to collect the needed data to evaluate stakeholders’

103 perspectives and experiences about the Egyptian DMS effectiveness. Given the large number of DMS stakeholders, as mapped in Figure 10, different data collection techniques were employed as follows:

1. Interviews: Data were collected through unstructured (for the exploratory