Data Triangulation

To put it simply, triangulation is a ‘field-surveying’ term which, in social science research, refers to the ‘converging lines of enquiry’ (Yin 2009) that result from using several different sources of case evidence (even within a chosen method as described above, including several sources of interviewees). There may be several types or levels of triangulation, for example, those identified by Patton (2002) (with regard to evaluation research): data triangulation, investigator triangulation, theory triangulation and methodological triangulation. Most importantly, in the context of this study (for one reason, there was only one investigator and one case), the main form of triangulation was data triangulation.

Several data triangulating strategies were mentioned in this chapter already. At a general level, before coming to some more specific examples, ‘checks and balances’ (Kelly & Yin 2007) were applied from the start of this study. For example, early on, in the literature review and scoping stages, the clearly positive self-reporting of the food banks in their annual reports (their stated claims) were checked against contrary views of food banking in diverse literatures and a judgement was made (within the study’s realism paradigm, above) about food banking and the realities surrounding food waste management in Australia. This ‘check and balance’ Kelly & Yin 2007) informed how the data was to be viewed in the chosen setting (Yin 2009). Also, as demonstrated in Table 3.4 above, with regard to the respondents, different people situated in different places provided diversity and rigour to the method (Eisenhardt & Graebner 2007). More specifically, with regard to documentary analysis, the diary interrogation involved, for example, (1) selectively taking entries on face value, and (2) cross checking critical events with other sources (mainly through other documents but sometimes people). For example, the stated reason for establishing the food bank (which had implications for better understanding management’s strategic priorities over time) was first documented from diary sources of data

and then corroborated by conversations with other staff involved with the start-up. In addition to this, different accounts were given of the primary purpose of the food bank (e.g. to address food insecurity versus to collect and redistribute food surpluses) depending upon whom was interviewed. This data was reconciled by comparing observed events categorised accordingly (see coding above) and comparing views about the desirable (philosophical) goals versus the reality of redistribution activities and the apparent net outcomes of these in triple bottom line terms, with judgements subsequently made as a part of further triangulation by discussing these observed activities with suitably qualified staff (see Table 3.5 above). If there was no agreement then the data was disregarded or noted accordingly. With regard to the criteria for judging the quality of case study research, in the context of the realism paradigm (see Healy & Perry 2000), this includes: construct validity, internal validity, reliability, and external validity, of which the first three have particular importance in this single-embedded qualitative case study.

3.5.4 Construct Validity

Construct validity refers to a situation whereby different concepts accord in a manner expected in theory (Babbie 2001). The manner in which this study addressed the issue of construct validity was, after Yin (2009): (1) to use multiple sources of evidence (see data triangulation), (2) to make reference to a ‘chain of evidence’: that is, the linking of research questions, data collected and the conclusions drawn, and (3) to have the case reports reviewed (by food bank management) to assess their accuracy. For example, during the review of electronic diary, Respondent A gave ongoing feedback during the process of writing up the results.

3.5.5 Internal Validity

Internal validity mainly refers to the problems associated with drawing inferences about the data (Yin 2009). That is, in doing so, the researcher may stand accused of showing bias. However, a misunderstanding about case research (as reviewed and corrected by Flyvbjerg) is that there is a ‘tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived ideas’. Flyvberg (2006, p. 237) counters that:

The case study contains no greater bias toward verification of the researcher’s preconceived notions than other methods of inquiry. On the contrary, experience indicates that the case study contains a greater bias toward falsification of preconceived notions than toward verification.

Generally speaking the study paid much attention not only to the primary but to the secondary literature review, which allowed the researcher to focus on the ‘realities’ and not on preconceived notions of ‘good’ charitable works or ‘bad’ food industry agendas. Specifically, the use of the case study protocol and triangulation meant that the data was relevant to the study aims and not treated as sacrosanct until either considered more fully or cross-checked with another source (Yin 2009).

3.5.6 Reliability

Reliability relates to the in-principle re-undertaking of this study by another researcher and, in doing so, that researcher obtaining similar results (in other research, simply ‘repeatability’) (Babbie 2001). There are methods available (e.g. the case study protocol) and techniques (such as keeping a case study database) for recording the steps and actions taken in qualitative case research (Yin 2009), which were followed in this study. However, the main purpose of this explorative, qualitative case study was to gather data within its real world context (i.e. it was context-dependent) that is rich in meaning and insights (Silverman 2010). Therefore, it would have been counter-productive to the research aims to over emphasise a concern with the

problems associated with other types of research (i.e. context-independent research) (Flyvbjerg 2006). Instead, issues around the quality of the research design and reliability were more about academic rigour, ethical conduct and integrity and not, for example, an obsession with the

actual ‘repeatability’ of the case study. In sum, the case study protocol overall was the main means of ensuring and communicating internal validity and reliability (Yin 2009) (again see Appendix A).

3.5.7 Ethics Approval

Approval for the study was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) Tasmania Network. In addition to the previously stated management of potential ethical issues, the data collected and persons interviewed were treated in accordance with the HREC guidelines, including their privacy and confidentiality considerations.

3.6 Conclusion

This chapter started out by presenting a description and a justification of the realism paradigm within which the study is located. The chapter then went on to outline the case study as a research strategy including the advantages (and disadvantages) of the quasi-longitudinal single- embedded case study. The qualitative methods were then justified and explained as being flexibly but rigorously applied by way of the case study protocol; and the data analysis and the criteria for judging the quality of the research were outlined. Several potential problems were encountered in this research (as pre-empted by Yin 2009). However, the methods employed allowed for an in-depth look into the case study organisation while flexibly adapting in order to: (1) maintain access to the case over the required time, in order to (2) successfully address the research questions. In the next chapters the findings are presented. Firstly, Chapter Four

development of the supply chain integration of the case study organisation (based on both primary and secondary sources of data). Based on this new information, Chapter Five directly addresses the last chapter’s research questions about food bank processes of integration and value creating activities.

Chapter Four

4.0 Case History

4.1 Chapter Objectives

The objectives of this chapter are two-fold. Firstly, the chapter will provide some contextual information about Australian food banking organisations, the different models they employ and their recent growth, with the emphasis on SecondBite. Secondly, the chapter details events in the formation of SecondBite Tasmania, the first not-for-profit food banking organisation dedicated solely to the large-scale and coordinated redistribution of food surpluses in Tasmania (the last Australian state to embrace food banking). Details will be provided of the social and business context of SecondBite Tasmania’s formation, establishment and then consolidation and expansion, leading up to the fuller social and business integration of this food bank.