Data Collection in Case Study

As noted by Yin (2014), case study allows the researcher to collect evidence using a range of data collection methods which will assist the researcher to triangulate the evidence, enhancing construct validity. The range of data collection methods under the case study approach, with their ‘strengths’ and ‘weaknesses’, is illustrated in Table 5.4. Semi-structured interview as the main data collection method alongside participant observation, was used as the data collection method for the final phase study. However, the documents, website, and artefacts modes of data collection were not used, as they were not available in the studied MBs.

104

5.8.5.1 Semi-Structured Interview for Case Study

Interviewing is ‘a respect for and curiosity about what people say, and a systematic effort to really

hear and understand what people tell you’ (Rubin and Rubin, 1995, p.17). The semi-structured

interview method, which is the most common way of collecting data in qualitative research (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000), was used as the primary means of data collection for the final phase study under the case study method. This method allows exploration of complex phenomena like RL (Barriball and While, 1994). As noted by Yin (2003), semi-structured interviews are a critical source of data gathering for case studies.

105

Source of Evidence Strengths Weaknesses

Documentation • Stable - can be reviewed repeatedly

• Unobtrusive - not created as the result of the case study • Specific - can contain the exact names references, and

details of an event

• Broad - can cover a long span of time, many events, and many settings

• Retrievability - can be difficult to find • Biased selectivity, if collection is incomplete

• Reporting bias - reflects (unknown) bias of any given document’s author • Access - may be deliberately withheld

Archival Records • [Same as those of documentation] • Precise and usually quantitative

• [Same as those for documentation] • Accessibility due to privacy reasons Interviews • Targeted - focuses directly on case study topics

• Insightful - provides explanation as well as personal views (e.g., perceptions, attitudes, and meanings)

• Bias due to poorly articulated questions • Response /bias

• Inaccuracies due to poor recall

• Reflexivity -interviewee gives what interviewer wants to hear Direct Observation • Immediacy - covers action in real time

• Contextual - can cover the case’s context

• Time-consuming

• Selectivity - broad coverage difficult without a team of observers

• Reflexivity - actions may proceed differently because they are being observed • Cost - hours needed by human observers

Participant

Observation • [Same as above for direct observations] _{• Insightful into interpersonal behaviour and motives} • [Same as above for direct observation] _{• Bias due to participant-observer’s manipulation of events}

Physical artefacts • Insightful into cultural features • Insightful into technical operations

• Selectivity • Availability

106

Besides, semi-structured interviewing has become a common way of extracting information in the study of RL (Bernon and Cullen, 2007; Sonya Hsu, Alexander and Zhu, 2009; Genchev, Richey & Gabler, 2011; Cullen et al., 2013; Venkatesh et al., 2015).

There are both similarities and differences in the way semi-structured interviews are interpreted and conducted for both the first and the final phase studies. Hence, the description of what constitutes the semi-structured interview and how it can be conducted is explained in Section 5.7 of this chapter. The only difference is that the semi-structured interview was conducted with 15 interviewees in the first phase study, while the interview was conducted in an in-depth manner with six owner/managers of the six cases for the final phase study.

Unit of analysis is the basis to understand the interviewee for the semi-structured interview. The unit of analysis in this study is the UK Micro Retailers and their RL process (Yin, 2009). Hence, the owner/manager, the staff members, and all those external people who may be involved in the process of RL were intended to be interviewed. The owner/managers were the priority as main respondents; however, their consent was needed before interviewing others involved in their businesses. The limited number of employees, which is the nature of MBs, did not allow the conducting of enough interviews. The owner/managers of two firms allowed their staff to be interviewed, while others were hesitant to give their consent. Hence, to maintain similar protocol, interviews were conducted with the owner/managers only. The saturation point was achieved using the interviews and participant observation in the six cases (Mason, 2010). Hence, there was no requirement to find more interviewees or more cases for further interviewing.

As noted by Gummesson (2000), a researcher is required to devote a significant amount of time to collecting basic evidence if they do not have a pre-understanding, and this preunderstanding may come from the related understanding of theories, models, and concepts or from a precise understanding of the state of the social constructs and its forms. In this instance, the questions to be used in this interview for the final phase study were not only guided by the literature reviews and theoretical foundations, but also guided by the themes (presented in Appendix C) collected from the first phase research. Besides, comparatively speaking, both the depth and breadth of the interview were larger for the final phase study under the case study approach than for the first phase study. More relevant questions were added to the semi-structured interview for the final phase study, so that a broad investigation in an in-depth manner would be possible.

107

Gordon (1975) notes that the wording and arrangement of all the questions in the interview should be consistent so that any variations in the answers are due to the variations in the respondents’ view, and not because of the types of questions asked. Consequently, in such interview types, validity and reliability may not depend on the constant use of the same wordings in each question, but may depend upon how the meaning associated with those words is conveyed (Denzin, 1989). As every respondent may not have the same understanding from the same word and vice versa (Treece and Treece, 1986). In this instance, rather than providing a structured questionnaire format, a set of questions accompanied with themes, concepts, words and phrases, as an interview guide, was used (Reuter et al., 2010). The interview guide for the final phase study is presented in Appendix E. Additionally, other documents that may help to provide consistency in the interviews were carried during interviewing (presented in Appendix F). These documents can give an impression of a controlled semi-structured interview. However, as noted by Bayliss et al. (2003), such additional measures can be used to explore the meaning of what the researcher intends to get out of the respondents.

A face-to-face interview which would capture visual cues and small utterances was used (Stephens, 2007, p.9). Again, to explore this complex and under-researched phenomenon, ‘prompting’ and ‘probing’ during interviews were made (Stephens, 2007, p.4). However, to avoid bias, over intervention during the interview was avoided (Charmaz, 2006). Interviews did not last any longer than an hour, which helped keep the attention of the interviewees (Hansen, 2006), which has again allowed collection of the necessary data maintaining the systematic protocol.

The interview recordings were made using audio recording equipment (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006). During the interview, memos and notes were taken and these were later used in the analysis process. The recording process and interview technique were kept the same for all interviews to ensure construct validity. A number of visits were made to the respondents prior to the interviews in order to establish a rapport and build trust. This measure enabled the acquisition of answers to the research questions in a more effective manner (DiCicco‐Bloom and Crabtree, 2006).

108

5.8.5.2 Participant Observation

The final phase study used the semi-structured interview as the main data collection method, but the researcher also took the role of participant observer as well, which helped in the triangulated data analyses.

Observation can be defined as ‘the systematic description of events, behaviours, and artefacts in

the social setting chosen for study’ (Marshall and Rossman, 1989, p.79). Gill and Johnson (2002,

cited in Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009) note that the observers’ role can be of four various types, among which the participant observer role was taken for this research. Participant observation can be defined as ‘the process of learning through exposure to or involvement in the

day-to-day or routine activities of participants in the researcher setting’ (Schensul, Schensul and

LeCompte, 1999, p.91).

The participant observation role was adopted for this research because, apart from engaging in the day to day activities, this role allows the gathering of information and involved ‘active looking,

improving memory, informal interviewing, writing detailed field notes’ (DeWalt and DeWalt, 2002,

p.vii). In due course, data collection using this process involved three phases: participation, observation, and interrogation (Stocking, 1983). This method enabled annotation of nonverbal communication and grasps the moods and feelings of the respondents as well (Schmuck, 2006). Moreover, as noted by Marshall and Rossman (1995), this approach allowed verification of the meanings of language the respondents used during the interview period, and also highlighted actions that they were either unable or unwilling to share, due to many reasons. Further, this approach enabled the to compare and contrast the situations described by the respondents during interviews (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). To achieve this objective, the interview was conducted before the participant observation.

Participant observation provided the opportunity to be a more ethical researcher by being face- to-face with the respondents, revealing the identity of the researcher (Kawulich, 2005). This also gave the chance to explain to the respondents the aims and objectives of the research and how the data will be used. It has been noted that:

‘…ethics of participant observation should be addressed in relation to the sensitivity of the research topic, the vulnerability of the researched individuals, and the plasticity of field membership roles’ (Li, 2008, p.10).

109

However, the sensitivity of the research may not always be found in the research topic. The research on RL, on the whole, may look like general business management research, but there were some aspects which were found to be sensitive among the participants. For instance, ‘how much of the goods remain unsold or excess?’ and, ‘how much of the goods are brought back by the customers?’ were found to be sensitive questions among some of the respondents, as they were hesitant to answer these questions which may have revealed them to be incompetent in some way. Hence, gaining trust and rapport was an important factor to consider before getting the answers to these questions (Bernard, 1994). Rapport with the respondents was not built in the first meeting, but rather over time, after becoming more familiar with the respondents (Kawulich, 2005). Several short and informal meetings before the interview and observation were conducted to gain trust and build rapport. In the course of maintaining trust and rapport with the respondents, it was important not to lose sight. Hence, a vigilant approach in getting a good grip on the aims and objectives of the research was taken (Iacono, Brown and Holtham, 2009).

Observation was made over a relatively short period (a week for each businesses), and a focused approach was used through which relevant data could be collected without wasting any time (Jorgensen, 1989). The aims and objectives of the research and research questions guided the observation. However, a semi-structured approach to observation was deemed appropriate, which aligns with the semi-structured interview. Semi-structured observation was also deemed appropriate because this comes between the structured observation, as noted by Angrosino and DePerez (2000), and a more open structured observation, as noted by Merriam (1998). Not being too structured has allowed some unexpected data to come up that has aided in the development of a new emerging theme (Merriam, 1998).

In order to remember the issues that were observed, recording of the observation data for each business was made on the same day for the seven consecutive days (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). Furthermore, as suggested by Kawulich (2005), to make data recording more efficient and effective, notes were taken and memos were written. These notes and memos were reviewed to look for repeated configurations and core themes in the participants’ actions. These reflections were then reported (Kawulich, 2005). Overall, to ensure validity and reliability, a continual comparative method was used where the actions and responses of participants were compared against each other (Barnes, 1996; Davies and Crane, 2010).

110

Figure 5.3 Final Phase Research Design

Ethical consideration was made by informing the participants about the research purpose, and reassuring them about the confidential use of information (Sampaio, Thomas, and Font, 2012). An ethical approval form was secured from the faculty office, which was presented to the participants. All the interviews and site visits were conducted between September 2015 and February 2016. Figure 5.3 gives an overview of the final phase research, as per the discussion made in the above sections.