Justification of Research Method

Achieving the goals of this study requires understanding customer focused design

and research methods from the perspective of the SME who is actively carrying out NPD

activities. The existing body of research surrounding NPD activity predominately focuses on

study seeks not to measure, but rather to increase the understanding of SME attitudes

towards customer focused research, and identify those methods which will reap the most

benefits for them. For this reason, the chosen method of study is a Participative Action

Research (PAR) case study.

A typical survey based research project would involve the following activities: 1)

develop a list of potential respondents from an industry association list or directory. 2)

generate a series of survey questions and an associated response scale based on research

hypothesis. 3) mail surveys and collect respondent information 4) tabulate responses and

utilize statistical tools to support or contradict the original hypothesis. In the majority of

NPD research, surveys usually seek to identify corporate behaviors exhibited by successful

innovators and compare those with less successful firms.

While survey methodology is most commonly utilized for NPD research, this

approach is found to be problematic for several reasons:

1) There’s no guarantee that surveys are completed thoughtfully or accurately - Mass

mailing or telephone type interviews rely on the interviewee honestly disclosing

details of their internal operations. In the absence of a relationship with the

interviewer, surveys may not be taken seriously or seen as a distraction.

Interviewees may struggle in their objectivity when asked to put their own firm’s

shortcomings under the microscope. Surveys often experience low response rates.

In a study of New Zealand export behaviour, Chetty chronicled feelings of “survey-

fatigue” in her participants, come of whom had been surveyed as many as 10 times

in the previous year (Chetty 1996).

2) Surveys do not illuminate underlying behaviours - Most studies involving the

to the quantitative values obtain. Often, the value of study is found in the insight

acquired through direct conversation with participants.

3) Survey questions may not adequate capture what SMEs are doing - Specifically with

SMEs, conventional survey designs often reflect larger business processes, and

SMEs may not be able to adequately describe their informal processes within that

framework (Gawith, Grigg et al. 2007). Even a soundly constructed questionnaire

imposes a framework for response, which may not be suitable to capture the

responses of a varied audience.

4) Qualitative data implies a mechanistic cause and effect model - The mechanistic

model implies that if a certain set of causal factors are known and present, then

predicted outcomes are likely to occur (Chetty 1996; Mariampolski 2002). While

correlations of individual factors can be made with particular outcomes, such

calculations are misleading as a predictive tool. In reality, a company’s operations

are far more complex. A company behaves as a result of a composite of interactions

between individual employees. In effect, a company forms it own sort of

“personality” similar to a person, with its own character, strengths, weaknesses, bias

and idiosyncrasies.

In contrast, a case study methodology follows a much less controlled path with less

predictable outcomes. Yin emphasizes three main attributes in his description of the case

study methodology:

The distinguishing characteristic of the case study that it attempts to examine a) a contemporary phenomenon in its real-life context, especially when b) the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident and c) in which multiple sources of evidence are used (Yin 1981).

Case studies can be employed to observe an individual firm’s NPD activities in a

more thorough fashion. A richer contextual understanding of events can be achieved

through observation of a company’s actions and behaviors. “Action research” techniques

may be used in circumstances where the researcher wishes to influence the company’s

actions, and observe the results. In this situation, the researcher seeks to understand

behaviors by becoming an active participant in the organization under study. Platts states:

‘Action Research’ takes participation one stage further. Here the researcher not only participates in the activity but seeks to direct and influence the way in which the activity is conducted. He imposes is conceptual frameworks on the tasks and interprets the events within these frameworks. He is not so much concerned with gaining a better understanding of current approaches to tasks as with changing those approaches and observing the effects (Platts 1993).

Here the researcher works in a less controlled setting, and must be more prepared to

improvise and consider multiple sources of information as they are presented.

The outright benefits of a case study approach are also worth mention. A case study

provides a more direct record of behaviors, rather than interpretations of constructed

responses to surveys (Chetty 1996). Since the research takes place in a realistic setting, this

approach maximizes the relevance of results to the industry that may most benefit from

them (Platts 1993).

Case studies have been criticized as being uncontrolled and hence “quasi-scientific”

investigations. The most common objection is that he findings provide little basis for

scientific generalization (Chetty 1996). Information obtained through case study often is

acquired from varied and incongruent sources. Research tends to be qualitative rather than

quantitative in nature. This fact is troublesome to some observers since it makes it difficult

Yin argues in favor of the validity of the case study method as an attempt to explain

a phenomenon. “It is a valid test of a theory, since within a particular case, the facts and

events must fit the implications of the theory. Here an explanation of events is being tested,

rather than the importance of a single factor” (Yin 1981). Montoya-Weiss and Calantone

acknowledge the value of case studies to identify new concepts for further research

(Montoya-Weiss and Calantone 1994).

Truly, there are merits to both methodologies and “research is best served by going

back and forth between qualitative and quantitative research methods” (Platts 1993). For

the purposes of this study, participative action research through case study will provide us

with the most in-depth understanding within the SME context.