Data Collection Methods

There are various tools available to researchers for defining, exploring, understanding and describing phenomena. Galliers (1992) described data collection methods as a process of evidence collection in the course of data gathering.

The data collection methods include the following:

Interview - A formal meeting where one party queries the other; this was the primary method of data collection in the current research.

Direct observation - Field visits when conducting an investigation.

Document review - Letters, memoranda, newspaper articles.

Archival records - These include organisations’ records and past correspondence.

Participation - The observer seeks to be one of the people, or part of the process, being observed, but this can lead to bias.

In Case study research strategy, it allows researcher to structure collection methods in different ways (Robson, 2002). One important fact to note is that all data collection methods have their own strengths and weaknesses, Table 7, below, shows:

Table 7. Strengths and weaknesses of sources of evidence.

Source Strengths Weaknesses

Documentation  Stable - can be reviewed repeatedly.

 Unobtrusive - not created as a result of the case study.

 Exact - contains exact names, references and details of an event.

 Broad coverage - long span of time, many events and many settings.

 Retrievability can be low.

 Biased selectivity, if collection is incomplete.

 Reporting bias - reflects (unknown) bias of author.

 Access may be deliberately blocked. Archival records  (Same as above, for

documentation).

 Precise and quantitative.

 (Same as above, for documentation).

60 Interviews  Targeted - focus directly on case

study topic.

 Insightful - provide perceived causal inferences.

 Bias due to poorly constructed questions.

 Response bias.

 Inaccuracies due to poor recall.

 Reflexivity - interviewee says what interviewer wants to hear.

Direct observation

 Reality - covers events in real time.

 Contextual - covers context of event.

 Time-consuming.

 Selectivity - unless broad coverage.

 Reflexivity - event may proceed differently because it is being observed.

 Cost - hours needed by human observer. Participant

observation

 (Same as above, for direct observation).

 Insight into interpersonal behaviour and motives.

 (Same as above, for direct observation).

 Bias due to investigator’s manipulation of events.

Physical artefacts  Insight into cultural features.

 Insight into technical operations.

 Selectivity.

 Availability. (Source: Yin (2009 p.102))

3.8.1 Justification for Triangulating Data Collection Methods:

Data triangulation is the most suitable method or technique that a researcher can use to enhance confidence in his or her analysis and evaluation of the observation (Campbell and Fiske, 1959). It involves the gathering of data from various sources, at different times. According to Robson (2002 p.52):

“The use of evidence from different sources, of different methods of collecting data and of different investigators, where feasible, are all triangulation techniques which enhance credibility”

According to Denzin (1984), there are four aspects of triangulation: Data source; Investigator; Theory and Methodological Triangulation. In light of the above, the current study was based upon open-ended, semi-structured interviews as the primary method of data collection, supported by additional sources, such as direct observation and document review, to enhance data triangulation.

While no single source has an advantage over the others, using multiple sources of evidence does assist the researcher in clarifying the authentic meaning of the phenomena under study (Yin, 2009). It also helps in guarding against bias that may occur in the course of using any single method (Collis and Hussey, 2009). Using multiple sources of data can also massively enhance the quality of the research (Golafshani, 2003).

In addition, using different sources gives confidence that the research is concentrating on the most important issues (Saunders et al., 2012). However, according to Sekaran (2009), the choice of collection method depends on experience of the researcher, the time and extent of

61

the study, the degree of accuracy required and other costs and resources connected with data gathering. According to Yin (2009), researchers need to draw on a wider collection of documentary information and interview data to be able to know ‘how’ and ‘why’ something has occurred.

In this study, interviews were used as the primary source, while direct observation, archival records and documentation were selected and used as a secondary method, for gathering the relevant data in the case studies. Participant observation was excluded, because the researcher was not involved in any of the case study activities, and physical artefacts were also not suitable, because of the focus of this study. Combining various methods in this research encouraged an in-depth understanding of the study.

3.8.2 Data Collection Methods:

Interviews

The interview is a powerful tool for capturing data, especially in the context of a qualitative case study approach. According to Yin (2009), the interview is one of the most valuable sources of information in case studies. It is a purposeful discussion between two or more people (Saunders et al., 2009). It is defined by Amarantuga (2002 p.25) as a practice:

“whose purpose is to gather descriptions of the life-world of the interviewee with respect to interpretation of the meaning of the described phenomena”

Types of Interview

According to Robson (2002), there are three types of interview, namely: fully structured interview, semi-structured interview and unstructured interview. This was corroborated and supported by Saunders et al. (2012):

 Structured interviews: a standard set of questions is presented, with the use of a questionnaire.

 Semi-structured interviews: whilst there is a list of questions, there may be variation from one interview to the other.

 Unstructured interviews: There may not be a restriction on the list of questions asked, so the researcher may comprehensively explore areas of interest.

62

Justification for Choosing Semi-structured Interviews, Documentation and Observation

One justification is the interaction between the interviewer and interviewee in a modifiable and agreeable mode, which provides the opportunity for meaning to be probed, with the respondent being complicit in this process. This interaction also allows the subject matter to be considered from a number of angles. The validity of the semi-structured interview is therefore very high (Saunders et al., 2012). Easterby-Smith et al. (2008) pointed out that the validity of the semi-structured interview also relates to the degree to which the researcher can have full access to the knowledge and meaning of interviewees.

As part of the case study strategy and phenomenological approach, the semi-structured interview has been deemed to be relevant, and so has been used in the current research.

According to Ghauri et al. (2005), more qualitative techniques come into play when qualitative methods are involved, such as semi-structured interviews and conversations.

In addition, Patton (2002) suggested that the transcripts of in-depth interviews may be included as part of the data of qualitative research. Sekaran (2009) and Oppenheim (2000) both stated that in-depth, semi-structured interviews can help researchers to understand the connotations of people’s activities, and they allows them to explain the purpose of the study, clarify any doubt and avoid any misunderstanding.

Jankowicz (2005) acknowledged that semi-structured interviews are a strong and effective data collection method when used within the context of a case study research strategy. The semi-structured interview has been selected as the main method of data collection in the current study because its flexibility allows the researcher to adjust the questions in order to comprehend the phenomenon under investigation. In comparison to an unstructured or conversational approach, a number of pre-determined questions have to be included, rather than leave the respondents to give more details about the research problem.

Saunders et al. (2012) stated that in-depth, semi-structured interviews are used in qualitative research to place more emphasis on the ‘how’, as well as the ‘what’. The current research has placed emphasis on words, rather than numbers, on interactions and behaviour, on cultural

63

responses and on people’s experiences and attitudes. Jankowicz (2005) asserted that the semi- structured interview allows the flexibility required for such a study.

It can be seen that the semi-structured interview is acknowledged to be the most suitable method for the current research study, because it focuses on examining barriers to, and enablers for, sustainable packaging in SMEs. Although the same questions were used for all participants, the semi-structured interview made it easy to probe further, and also allowed interviewees the flexibility to express themselves in any way they chose, enabling in-depth understanding and exploration of new areas efficiently and effectively.

The choice of method is supported by researchers such as Yates (2004), who confirmed that the interview is a good way of exploring participants’ subjective meanings. The interviewer can adapt questions to ongoing concerns of the participants, who can talk about things the interviewer might not have thought about before, which may be of particular benefit to the study.

Documentation

Mason (2004) stated that documentation, as a research method, is acknowledged as a meaningful and useful tool for collecting qualitative research data. According to Yin (2009), documentary information is likely to be relevant to every case study topic. Documentary evidence is used in the current research to mitigate the low level of reliability of the data generated from the interviews.

Documentation includes the minutes of meetings, plans, reports, attendance records, training file samples, work and project schedules, visitor records, stock data, sales records, shipping schedules and waybills, communication documents, records of the organisational structure and job description documents. Appendix 9 shows various documents from different units, gathered from all three of the organisations that the researcher visisted. (The researcher was only allowed to use the documents on the premises of the case study organisations, as they were classified as confidential).

64

Direct Observation

Delbridge and Kirkpatrick (1994) mentioned some of the benefits of direct observation, such as the ability to observe how different processes interact, and how some documents are processed and recorded. According to Sekaran (2009), direct observation is a means to:

“provide rich data and insights into the nature of the phenomena observed”.

Furthermore, Ben-Japer (2010) and Al-Haj (2006) are among those who have adopted direct observation as one of the methods of data collection in their case studies. The current research used some formal direct observation, such as attending some meetings in all three of the organisations, observing personal communication among employees, and also observing the processes of the organisation and how they impacted on the organisation’s sustainability experience, especially in relation to packaging. The details of this will be reviewed in Chapter 5.

Whilst the researcher had scheduled interview dates with the participants, access to various units in order to physically observe various operational processes was also requested. Although participants were mainly managers and heads of various departments, access was granted to other employees who personally showed the researcher various operations and how they were carried out. Figure 17 shows the researcher visiting one of the farm units of NFA; he was also given access to finished goods departments, and was also able to observe how various products are bagged and palleted. Figure 18 shows the packaging used for various products; the components of various packaging materials was explained and demonstrated. Whilst visiting Ades and BMAC, the researcher was also given access to various packaged products and their components. See Figure 13 and 14, from ADEs and BMAC, respectively. Appendix xxx also shows various documents that were provided for the researcher.

Archival Records

Yin (2009) described archival records as being appropriate for many case studies. Examples of archival records include maps and charts, organisational and personal records, lists of names and other relevant items, including survey plans. For the current research, an examination was made of records related to efforts on sustainable packaging, such as improvement charts, and the organisations’ history and hierarchical structure.

65

Appropriate permission was sought before undertaking any of the methods of data gathering described above.