Case-study

4.3.1 Case-study strategy

The case-study strategy was chosen as the most appropriate as it offered the best match with the research objectives under investigation. According to Halinen and Törnroos (2005 p. 1286) “it is obvious that case strategy is most suitable for the study of business networks”. Case study is a specific research strategy in its own right (Eisenhardt, 1989a; Yin, 1986) and offers a comprehensive research approach to a phenomenon that is both complex and dynamic (Halinen & Törnroos, 2005). This is evidenced by critical technical features of the case-study strategy that separate it from other strategies. These distinctive features include it being able to investigate real-life occurrences when the context of the study might not be readily apparent, and to use multiple sources of data obtained from both qualitative and quantitative techniques (Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Golafshani, 2003; Mason, 2002; Stake, 1994; Yin, 1986). On this, Yin (1986) comments:

A case study is an empirical enquiry that:

• investigates a contemporary phenomena within its real life context; when

• the boundaries between phenomena and context are not clearly evident; and in which

• multiple sources of evidence are used. (p. 23)

A case-study strategy is also appropriate because this study is investigating a relatively new area and a full understanding of important and relevant issues from the participants’ perspectives is needed (Golafshani, 2003; Ragin, 1994; Sutton, 1997; Yin, 1986). In addition, the case-study strategy has the distinct advantage of utilising a range of data- gathering methods (including documents, observations, field notes and interviews) which allows for a triangulation. Such triangulation for this particular study is further strengthened by the use of quantitative tools to measure relationship strength and to define structural dimensions of the intentionally formed networks. The combination of qualitative and quantitative data in this manner enriches findings (Eisenhardt, 1989a; Patton, 2002; Yin, 1986). Specific details of the strategy used are discussed next.

4.3.2 Single-case design

The strategy used was a single-case design with multiple embedded cases and follows the approach of Yin (1994). The embedded cases consisted of the three interdependent, intentionally formed networks that comprise the NZAS system: NZAS – North, NZAS – Central and NZAS – South Island. Each of these embedded cases was written up as a case and then a cross-case comparison made following the guidelines of Patton (2002). To enhance understanding of these three embedded cases and to provide triangulation, data was also gathered from the NZAS – National Office, to which each of the embedded cases reports, and also from the client organisations comprising of twenty national sport organisations (NSOs).

4.3.3 Retrospective longitudinal aspect

Networks are dynamic and constantly changing and this needs to be considered when a research process is designed (Coviello, 2005; Halinen & Törnroos, 2005; Hite & Hesterly, 2001; Melin, 1992). Because the time limitations of the research project meant that a true longitudinal method involving immersion in the organisation over an extended period of time was not possible, a retrospective approach which relies on the participants’ memories was used, as recommended by Carson and Coviello (1996), and Medlin (2004). Employing a retrospective approach was reasonable because the intentionally formed network’s creation was recent, having only been formed in 1999. It was therefore assumed that changes were expected to be minimal and research participants’ memories reasonably accurate over this time span. A convergent approach was taken to ensure accuracy of events; this compared participants’ stories and secondary data sources to confirm events, and follows the method outlined by Medlin (2004).

To further aid the retrospective strategy, a cognitive-mapping method was used to map the stages of development for each intentionally formed network. Research participants mapped the growth of the network, defined the network boundary, identified relevant historical events, and mapped the connections between actors. Research participants were asked to draw the intentionally formed network to which they belonged at its different stages and these were compared with other participants’ drawings. The mapping stages

were at the discretion of the research participants and reflected the changes in the structure of the networks rather than a set time period. The approach of indentifying network events rather than imposing a time period follows the approach adopted by Madhavan et al. (1998). The mapping technique also acted as a trigger for the memory of participants, and is recommended for that purpose by Huff (1994).

The cognitive-mapping method helps to identify the dynamic nature of the intentionally formed network by identifying aspects or activities that are important at a specific point in time, as noted by Coviello (2005), Madhavan et al. (1998), and Mouzas et al. (2008). Follow-up interviews with research participants for each intentionally formed network occurred to clarify understanding and to provide a triangulation of data. This approach was used to capture the contextual and contemporal dimensions of the network as it evolved, as recommended by Halinen and Törnroos (2005). Historical aspects prior to the network formation were also gathered from archival data and from interviews, as recommended by Patton (2002). This history forms an important part of the context for the research and is reported in Chapter Five.

4.3.4 Unit of analysis

The unit of analysis determines what the ‘case’ is, which means a distinction needs to be made from those who are to be inside the case and those who are to be outside the case. Boundaries also need to be specified in terms of when the case study begins and ends. These points determine the limits of the analysis and data gathering (Halinen & Törnroos, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Stake, 1994; Yin, 1986).

The unit of analysis was concerned with the space that exists between actors in each network. It has two components: (1) the social and economic relational component that occurs between actors in the NZAS network, and (2) the structural component of the NZAS network, which is defined by the relational component (Halinen & Törnroos, 2005; Young & Wilkinson, 1997). These are explained next. The focus of the study and research phases for the single-case design is depicted in Figure 4.2.

NZAS – National Office based in SPARC

NZAS – South Island Inc. NZAS – Central Inc.

NSOs NZAS – North Inc.

NZOC

Phase one

Phase three Phase two

Figure 4.2: Research phases and focus for the study

For data-collection purposes the unit of analysis is SPARC’s branded elite and high- performance intentionally formed network. This comprises the New Zealand Academy of Sport’s (NZAS) three interdependent, intentionally formed networks: NZAS – North, NZAS – Central and NZAS – South Island. Each of the interdependent, intentionally formed networks is coordinated by a focal actor: NZAS – North Inc., NZAS – Central Inc. and NZAS – South Island Inc. The network boundary was determined by the research participants who were located in the network actors. The research participants identified the organisations in each network, identified other research participants, and identified the organisational level of each research participant (i.e. CEO/Board, work-unit or individual). The temporal boundary was taken from the formation of the intentionally formed networks in 1999 to June 2006, which was the end of the data gathering for the study.

4.3.5 Multiple levels of data collection

Selection of multiple levels for data collection offered a way of gauging the extent, understanding and support for both the network and its activities, and how these are shared at all levels within the intentionally formed networks (Bennis, 1989). This information is needed because a fuller understanding of network dynamics requires an understanding of cross-level pressures (Brass et al., 2004).

For this study the cross-level pressures were investigated at three levels: (1) The CEO/Board level was examined by interviewing at the CEO and director level of each of the embedded network actors. The CEO/Board level is concerned with strategic direction, leading, policy decisions and in setting the vision for the network (Bennis, 1989). (2) The work-unit level was examined by interviewing at the senior-manager level of the embedded network actors whose operations are directly involved in each intentionally formed network. The work-unit level is concerned with managing the tasks and activities to achieve the network objectives (Bennis, 1989; Kirk, 1999; Mitronen & Möller, 2003). (3) The individual level was examined by interviewing staff responsible for the day-to-day operation of the network’s business in each of the embedded network actors. These individuals carry out the tasks and activities managed by the work-unit level (Bennis, 1989; Kirk, 1999; Mitronen & Möller, 2003).

4.4 Research phases and data collection