Data Collection Methods

According to Merriam (1998) interviewing, observation and analysis are activities central to qualitative research that focuses on meaning in context. The choice of the main data collection methods for this research based on links to the research questions and the philosophical stance were participant observation and open ended interviews along with documents, archives etc. to achieve a methodological triangulation of findings. According to Daymon and Holloway (2002), relying on observation without talking to people in order to understand their perspectives is to risk misinterpreting their actions. Similarly relying on what people say about what they believe and do without also observing what they actually do is to neglect the complex relationship between attitudes and behaviour. So both Participant Observation and Interviewing were suitable to be used together.

3.4.1 Participant Observation as a suitable data collection method

3.4.1.1 Characteristics and classification

The main assumption underlying advocacy of a qualitative method is that the nature of the social world must be discovered: and that this can only be achieved by first hand observation and participation in ‘natural’ settings, guided by an exploratory orientations; that research reports must capture the social processes observed and the social meanings that generate them (Easterby et al., 1991). A classic definition spells out the crucial characteristics of this approach and the things which distinguish it from systematic

observation. By Participant Observation is meant the method in which the observer participates in the daily life of the people under study, either openly in the role of researcher or covertly in some disguised role, observing things that happen, listening to what is said and questioning people over some length of time. Participant Observation discloses things through the researcher’s experience of participating in the culture or event. Only by experiencing things from the insider’s point of view does the researcher become aware of the crucial factors explaining the culture or event (Gillham, 2000). With Participant Observation, the aim is to get insights into cultures and events, insights only coming to one who experiences things as an insider. The insider experience puts participant observation in a particularly strong position to deal with the meaning of actions from the participants’ point of view. The nature of Participant Observation also allows the researcher to place greater emphasis on depth rather than breadth of data, and be better able to reflect the detail, the subtleties, the complexity and the interconnectedness of the social world it investigates. Emphasis is placed on holistic understanding in which the individual things being studied are examined in terms of their relationships with other parts and with the whole event or culture. In those respects Participant Observation scores highly in terms of the validity of the data according to Gillham (2000).

In the case of this study, the investigator was participating in the work and observing. The researcher’s role was explicit to the senior management and although not hidden from the rest of the employees it was not loudly advertised either. This was because a major objection to unstructured participant observation is the effect of your presence on those you are observing as described (Gillham, 2000). This impact needs to be mitigated and hence the investigator has adopted a suitable semi explicit Participant Observer’s role with limited participation in the normal setting. Again Participant Observation was chosen as a part of a multi method approach with different kinds of evidence gathered in different ways but bearing on the same point.

3.4.1.2 Merits and demerits

Advantages of Participant observation in which one is not merely a passive observer but may actually participate in the events being studied include the ability to gain access to events or groups that are otherwise inaccessible to scientific investigation, the ability to perceive reality from the viewpoint of someone “inside” the case study rather than external to it and the ability to manipulate minor events such as convening a meeting of a group of

persons in the case study. Other advantages include the fact that this method requires little by way of technical/statistical support. As Gillham (2000) contended, it is a good platform for gaining rich insights into social processes and is suited to dealing with complex realities in contrast to questionnaires and interviews which base their data on what informants tell the researcher and in contrast to documents where the researchers tend to be one step removed from the action.

As a disadvantage the participant role may need too much attention compared to the observer role not leaving sufficient time to raise questions about events from different perspectives. Researchers’ perceptions of situations might be influenced by personal factors and that the data collected could thus be unreliable. However these constraints affect all qualitative research and the advantages and opportunities in this strategy are far greater. It was also realised that other corroboratory evidence obtained may be helpful to reduce the opportunity for the researcher’s bias to creep into the study.

3.4.2 Interview

3.4.2.1 Characteristic features

A semi structured form of interviewing is recommended in case study research. Interview techniques are suitable when a small number of people are involved, they are accessible and questions are open needing an extended response with prompts and probes to clarify answers (Yin, 2003). In favour of interviews it is said that it is impossible to get a complete account any other way. Gillham (2000) contended that interviews are to be guided conversations rather than structured queries. In the interview process the investigator has two jobs: to ask actual conversational questions in an unbiased manner that serves the needs of the line of inquiry of the research and to follow the researcher’s own line of inquiry in the responses provided. The desirable skills of the investigator were noted as the ability to ask logical, relevant questions with sensitivity for novel and unexpected issues in data collection (Yin 2003), to interpret the answers without losing the insight and quality of data, to be a good listener with flexibility and to not be trapped by his or her own ideologies and perceptions. It is important as an interviewer to be attentive, sensitive to feelings of the informant and tolerate silences and be non-judgemental as far as possible to create a rich dialogue with the interviewee to gain deep familiarity, systemising those ideas in relation to kinds of information one might gather. The picture that emerges should be representative of the total reality.

3.4.2.2 Merits and demerits

Arguments against interviews dispute the accuracy of claims about what happens in ‘natural’ settings on the basis of data produced in settings that have been specially set up by the researcher. Interviewees and interviewers have their own preferences and prejudices and these are likely to have some impact on the chances of developing rapport and trust during an interview. The gender, age and ethnic origins of the interviewer can have a bearing on the amount of information people are willing to divulge and their honesty about what they reveal. But the overwhelming strength of the open ended face to face interview was viewed as the richness of the communication that is possible.

The advantages of interview including depth of information, insights, informants’ priorities, opinions, ideas are captured, flexibility, validity and high response rate were more relevant for the study compared to some of the disadvantages such as the fact that interviewees can invade privacy if they ask questions which are perceived as too probing beyond their comfort level by the respondent or can be time consuming. In terms of ease of accessibility interviews require consent to take part but a one to one interview is relatively easy to arrange with only two people’s diaries to match.

3.4.3 Application for this Study

Thus Participant Observation and Interviews were used in this study to build a chain of evidence through explicit links between questions asked, data collected and the conclusions. Evidence available in the form of electronic mails, letters, memos, agendas, announcements, and minutes of meetings, newspaper clippings and other written reports as well as internal records was also used. The researcher made weekly rough notes of relevant incidents and changes in electronic format based on participant observations. Also documentary evidence including emails, reports written after visits to every sales office etc. was regularly classified into electronic folders. Surveys of staff, customers and suppliers were conducted as part of the marketing audit for the company and these were also collated to be used as evidence for the research. The events are described in the observations chapter and also chronologically listed in the appendix.

Being employed at a senior level within sales and marketing was beneficial in terms of attendance at key events, meetings etc. and inclusion in all relevant business communication by the owners/Directors and by rest of the management. At the same time most employees were aware that that this was a dual role with an ongoing study at the

university and so the investigator was viewed as a separate independent entity rather than part of the Head Office Management body. This dual advantage helped the investigation and the researcher attempted to mitigate some of the disadvantages of the chosen research methods such as bias against the researcher, lack of openness etc. As an employee who had previous commercial experience in senior roles within Marketing, it was possible to gain trust of the Management so that suggestions to improve attitudes and activities within Marketing were taken seriously and Directors shared their concerns openly. If the researcher had been presented as someone with only academic interests, it was felt that some of the Management may have been reluctant to place confidence in the researcher due to their natural distrust for jargon in concepts and theories. At the same time by assuming an open minded neutral role of an interested newcomer and outsider it was possible to hold open conversations with the front line staff who viewed the researcher with respect and at the same time did not feel the researcher was a part of the senior management team.

Forty one to one interviews of staff across all the sales offices and managers were conducted with prior consent. These were recorded to be transcribed and analysed thereafter. As open ended interviews there was not a set time limit but it was found that these lasted for roughly forty to sixty minutes each. These interviews were repeated across many staff members and were all conducted in the middle period when the changes started occurring within the units were being analysed.

The first six months were used to explore the initial understanding of Market Orientation and the final six months helped to analyse the nature of Market Orientation at the end of the project. A fixed format of questions was not used and the interview was guided by the indicators picked up in the literature review and conceptual framework so that they revolved around the key elements identified namely market intelligence collection/ dissemination/ response, customer focus, competitor focus, inter-functional coordination vis-à-vis process/systems/communication, Attitudes of staff and management influencing the above behaviours, understanding of Professional Marketing, family Owner’s influence, attitude towards organisational change and the management Style of the family owner and directors in the SME. These interviews were over and above participation in group meetings which presented many opportunities to record and analyse views of key people.

In summary it was noted that good research design must be relevant, feasible, accurate, objective and ethical as described in Coghlan and Brannick (2005) from the beginning of the process in terms of formulation of specific research questions to the selection of appropriate design and method, collection and analysis of data, generalisation and evaluation of the analyses and formulation of findings.