Qualitative data analysis in the case study

The reason for applying a case study can be an intention of explaining the relationships

between variables by analysing the same phenomena by various methods. As explained, the

aim of this study was to investigate the effect of absorptive capacity on board task

performance. Furthermore, in this qualitative study I am working with a relatively new

concept in the board context since absorptive capacity has not former been analysed in a

board context. The goal is thus to answer the research question: "How can the effect of

absorptive capacity on board task performance be described and explained?” The study will

therefore be exploratory. Nevertheless, when utilising triangulation to analyse the

connections and importance of the variables, some explanations should appear. The purpose

of this case study will thus have an exploratory as well as an explanatory intention. As

described in chapter 3.3, there are various methods when analysing case studies exploratory

and explanatorily. Based on the collected information an exploratory model will be built

(Thomas, 2011). Further, I will study how persons behave, argue, cooperate and utilise the

available information and knowledge. The persons in a social context are thus the observed

elements. In this context the interpretative case study fits in. In addition to the understanding

of the research subject itself, a deep description and explanation of the environments are

crucial to obtain a correct picture of the research questions, the observations and the

conclusions (Thomas, 2011).

I will apply a method described as "the Constant Comparative Method - Eliciting Themes”

This method is the standard one of interpretative inquiries (Thomas, 2011, p.171-172). By

going through data again and again, comparing each element with all other elements, themes

are developed from merging of data. These themes, also named categories, are the building

blocks of the analysis. Further, within-case (Eisenhardt, 1989b) and cross respondent, cross

153

themes the variables from the quantitative analysis as well as the elements from the social

context will be included.

Based on these analyses, patterns and concepts will be derived and conclusions presented as

described by Thomas (2011).

To further describe the method of analysis I will present a detailed worked example below.

About “consensus” – an example

The analysis was conducted through four stages: (past)

 Stage 1 was based on the emergence of themes from observations and themes from the media reports.

 Stage 2 was based on the identification of themes from the interviews transcripts.  At stage 3 these themes were compared with data from the other data sources to see if

they were confirmed or not. The themes were further compared across respondents.

There was also an iterative process between the stages.

 At stage 4 the emerged categories were compared against literature. Table 18: A worked example of case data analysis - stage 1

Data Observations

From media Consensus has not been a theme in the media.

From meeting observations  Consensus was observed for all items at 9 out of 11 board meetings

 At one meeting one of the items was resolved by vote

 At one meeting two of the items were resolved by vote

154

Table 19: A worked example of case data analysis - stage 2 and 3

Board member 1 Board member 2 Union representative Users’

representative

Board chair CEO

From interviews

“Well, it happens that there are disagreements, but it is not very often because we in a way initially want to make a

consensus” “I might think that the chair was almost too concerned with finding a compromise instead of just let it be a

contradiction”

“that there should be a consensus, so in a way we will not get a voting pro et contra. There has occasionally been, but not for.... I am sure I am not tough enough to do it either.”

“So, and it is clear that this also makes things very difficult for the other organisations to cooperate and have consensus, because we do not always totally agree, and we coming from a Union context, we are probably more aware trying to include our item in the

decision.

”They use a lot of time to agree. And I think it might be, be a bit wrong to show that they agree so much, too.”

” If we have agreed, and you have a genuine believe that going on discussing things makes us ending on something which, that if everyone agrees, then it is probably more correct, then it might be a better decision than what was first laid there.”

Then there was a creative process, and then there was a lot disagreement, too, but then we made it the way that we had many seminars as mentioned, and then we worked through it, didn’t we? And when we ended up with the decision, I believe we had used 30 seconds, but this was because everything had been discussed, right?”

Comparison across respondents

The two board members explained reasons for the use of consensus in Healthy’s board, also admitting that the use of consensus was too extensive and inhibited disagreements.

Furthermore, the CEO, the chair and the two ordinary elected board members all defended the need for consensus

The users’ representative and the union representative were the two who expressed doubt about the consensus practice.

The CEO and the chair argued for consensus as a means of good board performance. Furthermore, the CEO, the chair and the two ordinary elected board members all defended the need for consensus

155

A full list of the quotes related to consensus is reported in appendix IV.

Stage 4

Research on consensus practise in boards is limited:

 Leblanc (2005) included the concept in a performance evaluation for the board chair in relation to board leadership.

 Gautam & Booker (1994) studied the effects of board size and diversity on strategic functions of boards. They proposed that “large boards may face a number of barriers in reaching a consensus on important decisions”, but this was not empirically tested.  Bainbridge (2002), referring to Janis (1972), proposed that groups as boards value

consensus more than they do a realistic appraisal of alternatives.

3.14 Conclusions

Based on the literature and the methodology review this research project will be conducted by

1. A quantitative analysis based on data from the Norwegian Value Creating Board

Survey, testing the hypotheses and the model derived in Chapter II. Regression and

Structural Model Equations will be used as the statistical tools in the analyses.

2. A qualitative analysis based on case study of Healthy with multiple data sources. A

data analysis will be conducted by the Constant Comparative Method.

The data collection and the analyses will be conducted by the methods which have been

156

IV. Results

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter the results from the quantitative and the qualitative analysis are presented. In

both analyses the data were checked to as far as possible secure an unbiased, valid and

reliable source. In the quantitative analysis I applied SPSS v.19 and AMOS 19 (with

structural equation models) for the calculations of the statistical results. The "Constant,

Comparative Method" (Thomas, 2011) was used in the case study. The results are presented

in tables and figures in the following chapters.

4.2 The quantitative results