Case Study Methodology

3.2.1 Selection and justification of methodology

First it was necessary to evaluate whether a case study is the appropriate method of

undertaking research in this instance. The overall research problem addressed in this study is “How do start-up enterprises undertake the early stages of technology-based Product

Development?”

Exploratory and Descriptive Research

As prescribed by Yin (2009), a case study has a distinct advantage over other research methods when the question being asked begins with “how” or “why, and the researcher does not have control over the contemporary events that are being investigated.

Questions that begin with an interrogative “how do” statement are candidates for investigation by case study, as there is the suggestion that probing into the details of a phenomenon is required. In this study the research question is seen to be of the form best addressed through both exploratory and descriptive case study approaches, there being large overlaps between these methods as pointed out by Yin (2009). As investigation into the phenomenon is requested, there is “justifiable rationale for conducting an exploratory study, the goal being to develop pertinent hypotheses and propositions” (Yin, 2009, p. 9). The investigation presented seeks to contribute to the literature and current understanding of the subject area, and suggest a direction for further research, which could perhaps be performed in an explanatory capacity.

There is also clearly need for insight into the manner in which the subjects behave, thus justifying descriptive elements of the case study methodology. This is reinforced and refined by Perry (1998a, p. 787), who notes that such research problems often take the form of “How

39

do” rather than “How should”, extending a descriptive query rather than a prescriptive one, or being predictive as is often intended by a quantitative research. A major intention of this research is to describe the current state of the phenomenon.

The data that is expected to be collected is related to the research area identified in the literature review, and formalised with the research questions that are posed. All the research questions use the interrogative pronoun “what”, in these instances used to enquire into management aspects of entrepreneurial start-up enterprises. Questions such as these can be seen as exploratory and descriptive in nature, as once again attempt is not being made to explain a phenomenon; rather it is the intention to expose. However, there are other research methods that can be used to undertake descriptive or exploratory research, thus this

explanation has been given to explain why case study methodology was chosen over other tools.

Research Method

Research Question 1 initially appears to lend itself to archival analysis or survey investigation as it is probing for product development practices of start-up enterprises. But as the wording asks for practices that “can be” adopted rather than “are” adopted, it is seen that the task at hand is more than just recording what has happened in the past; the circumstances and issues surrounding the phenomenon and the opinions of those involved must be reported also. Research Questions 2 and 3 also require in-depth discussion to properly address them, and their intention is not solely to evaluate the prevalence of a feature. Although a survey-style approach can be used as a sub-method of the case study protocol, it is not the overarching research methodology being employed.

Overall, it is the nature of the information that is to be gathered and the research goal that dictates the research methodology. The data are not expected to be of the quantitative type, and the project is not intended to be predictive of certain outcomes. This research project seeks to elicit information about management practices where respondents draw from their open first-hand experiences. Responses are to be gathered from open-ended questions, which permit the respondent to touch on any issue they see as relevant to the topic. Whilst

quantitative analysis could be carried out on these results, the lack of formatting means that this method is not pre-disposed to it. In addition, much of the value in this data gathering approach comes from discussion around the issues raised, such that whilst it is notable if multiple respondents identify the same broader issues, their individual take on the situation is where the richness of information is found.

40

As previously discussed, it is not the intention of this study to undertake theory testing, therefore Cause and Effect relationships are not targeted, and these are more commonly associated with surveys and experimental techniques. In addition, the researcher does not have behavioural control over the events, which further excludes experimental methodology from the possible research techniques. The phenomenon that is being observed is not able to be removed from its context in order to “control” possible influencing factors in the manner that experiments do. Rather, the context encompassing the focal issues is of interest as the interaction in the real world creates the phenomenon. Investigation must take place without detrimental disruption to the situation.

3.2.2 Case Study Structure

In keeping with the structure suggested by Yin (2009), the structure of this case study is Holistic (single unit of analysis) and involving multiple cases. A multiple case study approach is appropriate for research in this instance as there was not a singular case that was critical, rare, or that represented significant or revelatory theory. Furthermore, access to multiple

respondents was possible, with all cases being valid representations of a phenomenon

occurring in a certain context. Thus it was advantageous to observe more than one case as this provides the opportunity for replication logic. Distinguished from the sampling logic that is commonly used in empirical investigations, replication logic is in this instance used to search for similar results across several cases.

41

The case study procedure was based on the layout shown in Fig. 2.

Unit of Analysis

Individual products are not the unit of analysis, as respondents are asked to draw on all their product development experiences. Whether the experience comes from early attempts at development, previous work history, or several products conjointly developed as a product family, it is not necessary to single-out one product. Rather, the respondent’s NPD experiences are the focus, and responses will be evaluated in terms of their relevance to that. The manner in which the enterprise as a whole (albeit small) company performed its NPD activities is investigated. The entrepreneur’s experiences from their immediate business venture as well as wisdom from previous lessons are taken into account, as it is their accumulated knowledge which give them perspective on the journey they have taken.

Therefore, the Unit of Analysis is the “Start-up Enterprise”. This is the entity about which the discussion is held (Patton, 1987).

3.2.3 Limitations of Case Study Methodology

Whilst being appropriate for the research project in this instance, case study methodology does have disadvantages and limitations that must be discussed in order to properly place the resulting study with respect to its academic rigour.

A common criticism of case studies is that the results may not be used to scientifically

generalise to a population as is the intention in purely statistical, quantitative research. This is neither the aim nor an expectation of this study; rather, generalisation to theoretical

propositions is pursued (Yin, 2009). Expanding theories is the goal, rather than to establish frequencies and purport significance that could allow prediction. To that end, this study has from the outset made clear its intentions, and the research design has deliberately been chosen to direct investigation along an appropriate path. This is evident in the careful selection of the research problem and research questions, with explanation in Section 3.2.1.

The level of scientific rigour in case studies is, according to Yin (2009, p. 14), often sub- standard and “has not followed systematic procedures”. He attributes this to there being few texts besides his own that present methodological procedures that investigators can follow, but notes that their numbers are increasing. Of course, this observation was made previous to the book’s composition, and that very text itself goes a long way to remedying the deficiency. Having access to this was key to formalising methodology, as it is seminal and widely regarded as the single most necessary resource on which case study design should be based. The work

42

of Eisenhardt (1989) is referred to heavily, also being a seminal text on the subject and

recognised by Yin in his later revised editions. A modern proponent of case study methodology especially focussed on use in postgraduate research is Perry (1998a), who lends much

justification for its use in this area. Furthermore, he offers a clear guide to the procedures that should be adhered to, a step-by-step approach of the type whose absence was earlier

lamented by Yin (2009).

It is through strong adherence to the methodology championed by these recognised figures that scientific rigour is brought into this study, and it is the clear definition and declaration of intention at each stage of the proceedings that allows this rigour to be observed and qualified by any reader.