Choice of Research Strategy / Method

For various reasons ethnography, grounded theory, experimental, quasi-experimental, narrative and action research were not considered appropriate choices for use in this

147

particular research study and were therefore rejected. Ethnography was considered an inappropriate choice because the method involves the researcher studying an intact cultural group in a natural setting over a prolonged period of time (Creswell, 2009 p13; Ellis, 2011; Polit and Beck, 2003). Given the nature of investigation associated with this research, ethnography was excluded as a suitable method applicable to this research.

Similarly the grounded theory was regarded as an unsuitable choice because the method attempts to derive a general, abstract theory of a process, action or interaction grounded in the views of participants in a study (Creswell, 2007 p14). As this investigation proceeds on the basis that a theory about asset management already exists, grounded theory was discounted as an appropriate method for this research.

The limitations inherent in the case studies method also led to the disregard of this approach for utilisation in this study. The case study method involves the development of detailed, intensive knowledge about a single case, or a small number of related cases (Robson, 1996, p40; Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, 2010). Good research must demonstrate objectivity. It should also have a broad focus and be representative of the population being investigated. This can be achieved through random sampling (Locke, Spirduso, and Silverman, 2007). Research should also allow valid generalisations to be made from samples to populations (Babbie, 2010). The choice of variables relevant to samples, that will reflect population characteristics must be based on their typical attributes. Unfortunately, case studies (as well as ethnography, grounded theory, action research, Phenomenology, Narrative analysis) based on qualitative paradigm are fundamentally flawed.

Because of their narrow focus on a few units, case studies (and indeed the rest of the qualitative methods) are limited in their representativeness. They do not allow valid generalisations to the population from which their units came until the appropriate follow up research is accomplished, focusing on specific hypotheses and using proper sampling methods. Case studies are particularly vulnerable to subjective biases. The case itself may be selected because of its dramatic, rather than typical attributes; or because it neatly fits the

148

researchers perceptions. To the extent selective judgements rule certain data in or out, or assign a high or low value to their significance, or place them in one context rather than another, subjective interpretation is influencing the outcome (Isaac and Michael, 1995). The narrative research is focused on studying one or more individuals to explore their lives in order to tell their life experience story. As this particular research study is concerned with asset management performance at organisational level and not concerned with individuals’ life stories, the narrative research approach was therefore also disregarded.

The action research was equally found to be unsuited to this study. Action research is a study of social setting involving the participants themselves as researchers collaborating with the primary researcher. The collaborative participation between primary researcher and participants in the research process associated with the phenomenon being studied is seen as central to action research. The purpose of action research, according to Robson (2011 p188), is to influence or change some aspect of whatever is the focus of the research. While one of the objectives of this research is to come up with a flexible and adaptable asset management framework that can be adopted by local authorities to improve asset management practice, the approach for realising this objective is not to engage study subjects as researchers and for the researcher to participate in the practice of asset management alongside practitioners. This makes action research not suitable for this study. Like the qualitative methods of narrative research, case study, action research, grounded theory and ethnography, the quantitative methods of experimental and quasi-experimental were also been deemed unsuitable for this study. The experimental method is not an appropriate choice because it is normally used within scientific, often laboratory-based research, in which strong control can be exercised over the research environment and variables manipulated (Manstead and Semin, 1988; as cited by Robson, 1996). Similarly, quasi-experimental method has been excluded as it is not the aim of this research to undertake a longitudinal study of asset management performance.

149

The experimental and quasi-experimental (quantitative methods) and the ethnography, grounded theory, experimental, quasi-experimental, narrative and action research (qualitative methods) are excluded as they are deemed unsuited to the study. As previously stated (section 5.3.2), the mixed methods approach has been adopted for use in this particular research study. In terms of the choice of research methods appropriate for the study, the survey (non-experimental) approach is the most appropriate quantitative method while the phenomenology methods is the most suitable qualitative option.

According to Yin (2009) the choice of research method is largely guided by two criterion namely the purpose of the research; and the research question. The decision to settle on these two research methods (surveys and phenomenology study), was informed by these two parameters, namely purpose of the research and research questions. The purpose of the research and research questions provided the basis for alignment to the choice of potential research method (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). A tripartite classification is commonly used to distinguish between exploratory, descriptive and explanatory research purposes (Robson, 2011). An exploratory approach seeks to find out what is happening and asks questions. Exploratory study intends to clarify an understanding of a problem, such as if the researcher is unsure of the precise nature of the problem (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). This study is not exploratory in nature as the research problem has been clearly identified. On the other hand a descriptive approach aims to portray an accurate profile of events or situations. Such portrayal of events or situations is achieved by observing, counting, delineating or classifying them. According to Polit and Beck (2003), description can be a major purpose for both qualitative and quantitative researchers. Quantitative description focuses on the prevalence, incidence, size and measurable attributes of phenomena. Qualitative researchers, on the other hand, use in-depth methods to describe phenomena.

This research can appropriately be stated to be descriptive in nature as it focuses on establishing asset management practice in local authorities in England and Scotland. Both

150

the quantitative survey method and Phenomenology methods are therefore appropriate for this study. Inherent in the survey method is the development of the instrument for measuring asset management performance. According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) descriptive research may be an extension of a piece of explanatory research. This study design is sequential in nature starting with the quanlitative approach and ending with the quantitative study. The sequential approach acknowledges the need for an indepth follow study of the issues arising from the initial phenomenology method. In this study the phenomenology approach is therefore best suited for carrying out the in-depth initial qualitative study to describe in a clearer manner the asset management practice issues uncovered to be generalised during the follow on survey approach.

As for an explanatory approach, this seeks an explanation of a situation or problem, usually in the form of causal relationships or association.. Explanatory research is often linked to theories, which represent a method of deriving, organising, and integrating ideas about the manner in which phenomena are inter-related. In quantitative research, theories or body of evidence are used deductively as the basis for generalising explanations that are then tested empirically. Researchers make specific predictions that, if upheld by the findings, add credibility to the explanation (Polit and Beck, 2003).

This study is explanatory in nature as the purpose is to explain asset management performance in local authorities in England and Scotland. In particular, the study seeks to provide an explanation of the barriers that hinder asset management performance and how by applying an appropriately designed asset management framework, asset management practice can be improved. This study is guided by appropriate theory on which asset management is anchored and which formed the basis for developing the asset management framework. The framework explains the key constructs associated with asset management and the relationships amongst them. However, critical is understanding the association between these factors in order to offer generalised understanding of the underlying causes or full nature of the factors influencing asset management performance. Since theory guides

151

the study and there is need to understand the issues behind asset management performance and for best practice to be generalised, the survey method is the most appropriate method to utilise. The approach is appropriate as it can measure underlying causes or association amongst factors and allows for empirical testing of the explanation. Both the survey and phenomenology methods are appropriate for assessing whether the way the property assets are managed portray an accurate profile of property management processes (descriptive). The survey method in particular is most suited for explaining any causal relationship between asset management performance and those factors affecting it (explanatory).

According to Yin (2009) the type of research questions posed is of greater assistance in helping to select a research method. A survey research is best suited to dealing with Who? What? Where? How many? How much?, type of questions. The research investigation established who were the research subjects? What was the role of research participants in the organisation? Where were the subjects of study located? How many local authorities or individual participants would take part in the study? How much asset management performance progress had been made? Ellis (2011) cites Yin (2003), who stated that a Phenomenology study approach best addresses questions about how?, and why? questions. The research investigation sought to establish how asset management process was undertaken and why there were differences in asset management performance in local authorities, where those existed. On the basis of both, the purpose of the research and key

research questions involved in the study,suggested that both surveys and phenomenology methods were appropriate as research methods. A sequential exploratory mixed method design was adopted for this research investigation, commencing with phenomenology for intensive analysis followed by survey investigation to provide extensive analysis of issues (Polit and Beck, 2003).