4.3.4 Chosen Approach
A three year longitudinal single case study via participant observation was chosen that also utilised the pre-post method as the researcher wanted to study the relationship between cause and effect, therefore the longer the period over which phenomena are studied, the greater the opportunity to observe at first hand the sequential relationships of events (Voss, et al., 2002).
As a result of this approach, cycles of reflection and action naturally occurred
(Stevenson & Noffke, 1995). In this context Macpherson (2000) states that actions are planned and implemented in the first cycle, and in the second cycle, their outcomes and effectiveness are evaluated. In following this methodology, changes arising from outcomes from various research exercises presented in this thesis were recommended and implemented in the next cycle (year), cycles continued in a circular fashion as practices and policies were constantly refined. The practical application of this was that within the case study research, on an annual basis CRM activities were reviewed, analysed and reflected on so as new annual initiatives, amendments and action could be devised and added to the company’s asset management plans (AMPs). As a result the quality of collaborative relations and the commitment to change remained high among researchers and participants so that the cycling research process was
“sustained” (Feldman & Atkin, 1995).
Having addressed the three year longitudinal single case study via participant observation methodology, the researcher will now discuss why a single case study methodology was chosen.
4.3.5 Single Case Methodology
Perry (1998a) states that the literature recommending the use of case studies rarely specifies how many cases should be developed and presents the following perspectives:
1. The sampling decision is left to the researcher (Romano, 1989).
2. Cases should be added until “theoretical saturation” is reached and recommend (K.
Eisenhardt, 1989).
3. Sampling selection should be “to the point of redundancy”. (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
4. Or the view that “there are no rules” for sample size in qualitative research. (Patton, 1990).
Perry (1998a) goes onto point out that the views of these writers ignore the real constraints of time and funding in postgraduate research, that is, postgraduate students need some guidelines to plan their program around.
With regard to this, several constraints which included time, physical and financial resources impacted on the scope and nature of the research undertaken. Three years were available to the researcher to complete the research, in most instances only the researcher was available as a human resource and limited financial assistance was available to fund the project. Other suggestions for the number of case studies include the following:
1. Four and ten cases (K. Eisenhardt, 1989).
2. Four to six groups probably form a reasonable minimum for a serious project (Hedges, 1985).
3. For the maximum, sets an upper limit of 12 because of the high costs involved (Hedges, 1985).
4. More than 15 cases makes a study “unwieldy” (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Based on the limited level of resources available it was decided that the fewer the case studies, the greater the opportunity for depth of observation (Voss, et al., 2002). In the
example given by Narasimhan & Jayaram (1998), Karlsson & Ahlstrom (1995) and Schonberger (1982) a single, in-depth case study was used to conduct a three year longitudinal research project.
Voss et al. (2002) states that there is no clear definition of what is a single case study or unit of analysis and single cases may sometimes involve the opportunity to study several contexts within the case (Mukherjee, et al., 2000).
Table 4-12 presents advantages and disadvantages when selecting either a single, multiple, retrospective or longitudinal case study methodology.
Table 4-12 Choice of Number and Type of Cases
Choice Advantages Disadvantages
Single Cases. Greater Depth. Limits on the generalisability of conclusions drawn.
Biases such as misjudging the representativeness of a single event and exaggerating easily available data.
Multiple cases. Augment external validity, help guard against observer bias.
More resource needed, less depth per case.
Retrospective Cases.
Allow collection of data from historical events.
May be difficult to determine cause and effect, participant may not recall important events.
Longitudinal Cases.
Overcome the problems of retrospective cases.
Have long elapsed time and thus may be difficult to do.
(Voss, et al., 2002)
Perry (1998a) states that a researcher can use one case study only if one or more of the three justifications in Yin (1994) apply, and the appropriateness of two or more theories can be tested with the case; Yin’s (1994) justifications for a single case methodology are as follows:
1. The case represents a critical case in testing well formulated theory.
2. The case represents an extreme or unique case.
3. The case is a revelatory case where the researcher has an opportunity to observe and analyse a phenomenon previously inaccessible to scientific investigation.
In relation to this single case study approach framework, the researchers justification for a single case study methodology fits with two of Yin’s (1994) criteria as follows:
1. The case study organisation CRM initiative represents a unique case study opportunity as CRM research within a New Zealand electricity lines company has not previously been undertaken.
2. The case is revelatory, as until this research was undertaken such access was not available; traditionally only engineering based research has been undertaken within this industry (Nicols, 2003).
It is important to note that single cases have limitations. These include the limits to the generalisability of the conclusions, models or theory developed from one case study as when only one case is used, there may also be other potential problems (Leonard-Barton, 1990).
These include the risks of misjudging of a single event, and of exaggerating easily available data. Such risks exist in all case research, but are somewhat mitigated when events and data are compared across cases. Multiple cases may reduce the depth of study when resources are
(Voss, et al., 2002). To address these limitations, the researcher used a quantitative CRM survey in the following way:
1. Four of the case study’s executive team completed the survey (including the Customer Relations Manager).
2. The survey was also conducted within 16 other electricity lines companies.
3. The survey was also completed by over 1200 New Zealand businesses and organisations.
This provided the ability to compare the single case study against other organisations within its industry and then against New Zealand business as a whole. Also, multiple
respondents of the survey within the case study organisation allowed for some level of comparison within the organisation.
Having sufficiently addressed the issue of using a single case study, the researcher will now address why a single informant was used for the purpose of an in-depth interview.
4.3.6 Single or Multiple Respondents and Viewpoints
Voss et al. (2002) states that a key question is “what should be the number of respondents within a single case study”? In answer to this Voss et al. (2002) provide two considerations relevant to this research as follows:
1. If a set of questions can be reliably answered by one "key informant", then the research process should focus on identifying these and validating that this person(s) is indeed one.
2. When there are questions for which no one person has all the required knowledge, or the events being studied may have different interpretations or viewpoints, how and why questions may be subject to different interpretations.
Another consideration when discussing the above two issues is the trade-off between efficiency and richness of data. By asking the same question to a number of people, the researcher may enhance the reliability of the data, and by going beyond formal interviews can collect much valuable data. The other side of this is that this process is very time consuming. In summary, Voss states that the researcher should be seeking multiple viewpoints particularly where there is likely to be subjectivity and bias, but be wary of committing too much time and resources (Voss, et al., 2002). In consideration of this the researcher decided on the following approach:
1. Single informant depth interview as only one individual was in a position to speak with depth and authority in the area of operational CRM.
2. Multiple respondents (i.e. the case study executive team) participated in the CRM quantitative survey to provide additional input and address the issue of single informant bias. The results of which are reported on in the next chapter.
According to Kumar, Stern, & Anderson (1993), the authors advocated the use of multiple informants to increase the reliability and validity of informant reports. However, inter-organisational research still tends to rely on single informants. Relying on key informant accounts is appropriate when the content of inquiry is such that complete or in-depth
information cannot be expected from representative survey respondents proposals (Kohli, et al., 1993); this indeed was the situation with the case study organisation.
Like other research techniques, the key informant methodology has some significant drawbacks. Both informant bias and random error can taint informant reports (Kumar, et al., 1993). Several researchers have advocated querying multiple informants to increase the reliability and validity of reports (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991; Golden, 1992; Phillips, 1981;
Schwenk, 1985; Seidler, 1974). Two problems using multiple informants exist:
1. Selection problem: the challenge of identifying two or more informants competent to