Qualitative multi-case studies 74

To enable an understanding of risk-related phenomena in financial institutions, a qualitative case study methodology was chosen for this study because of the match between the exploratory nature of the inquiry posed by the research questions and the nature of the answers that a qualitative method seeks to discover.

Real-world risk-related phenomena, as they occur in complex organisations, can be understood, explored, described and interpreted by applying a qualitative case study method because this enables a holistic understanding and explanation (Al-Busaidi 2008) where multiple variables are considered jointly rather than in isolation. In addition, a qualitative case study permits an in-depth investigation into how people interpret and make a case of specific circumstances, and this assists the investigator in probing the underlying complexity, which cannot be as well accomplished with quantitative methods of inquiry (Matveev 2002). Therefore, a qualitative case study inquiry employs tools and strategies (such as interviews and observations) to enable making sense of the inherent complexity of supply chains related to service-orientated financial institutions. These tools and strategies are deemed relevant where the study questions are exploratory in nature, such as those accessed by how and why questions (Yin 2017).

Yin (2014, p. 13) argued that the use of case study inquiry ‘copes with the technically distinctive situation where there will be many more variables of interest than data points, and as one result relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion, and as another result benefit from the prior development of theoretical positions to guide data collection and analysis’. The advantage of adopting a case study approach is that there is no specific data collection or analysis method; rather, a variety of methods can be used in conjunction to provide triangulation and rigour (Patton 1999; Yin 2014). This makes the case study approach a comprehensive research strategy (Yin 2017).

Although there are many advantages associated with the adoption of case studies as a research method, there are also many criticisms. Case studies typically make use of only a few examples to represent a wider range of examples being investigated, and the credibility of these generalisations is often criticised (Yin 2014, 2017). Further arguments suggest that case studies should not be limited to just one case, but instead generalised to similar cases because there are similar influences operating on the same case types, as even though each case may be a separate entity, it may share common contexts (Yin 2014, 2017). For example, different banks and risk management practitioners have certain contexts in common, such as shared business types, strategic objectives and regulatory contexts, as well operating from a shared risk management knowledge base.

Eisenhardt (1989) defined the case study approach as a study strategy that seeks to develop an understanding of the complex dynamics present in real-life settings. The application of a case study design is suited when employing questions such as ‘how?’ and ‘why?’. The case study design is suited to this type of understanding and, accordingly, is also suitable when an in-depth

and comprehensive investigation is required to comprehend a complex issue (Yin 2014). Section 3.3.3 describes the nature of the how and why questions used in the current study.

A multiple case study approach is used in this research, because it is useful to explore multiple cases in natural settings for the purpose of obtaining in-depth knowledge, where what is found may be applied collectively. A multiple case study design allows for validation of understanding, on the assumption that the different cases selected exhibit differences in resolution (Yin 2014, 2017). A case, in the context of a method of inquiry, can be defined as ‘a phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded context’ (Punch 1998, p. 119). Further, the trade-off in case study methodologies between depth and generalisability is mitigated to some extent where multiple cases are used rather than a single case.

Case studies can be grouped into three main categories: the intrinsic case study, the instrumental case study and the collective case study (Stake 1995). An intrinsic case study aims to enhance an investigator’s understanding of a specific case undertaken or when ‘we have an intrinsic interest in the case’ (Stake 1995, p. 3). The instrumental case study, conversely, aims to enhance a researcher’s understanding of a particular issue by using a specific case as a medium. Stake (1995, p. 3) claims that an instrumental case study as a method of inquiry is necessary when there is ‘a need for general understanding, and [we] feel that we may get insight into the question by studying a particular case’. Last, a collective case study is an extension of the instrumental case study, where the main objective is to include multiple cases for better insight into a certain phenomenon or population (Punch 1998). Therefore, a collective case study implies ‘important coordination between the individual studies’ (Stake 1995, p. 3). This allows for the development of a common understanding applicable or generalisable to each of the participating cases. While Stake’s (1995) may not be mutually exclusive, this research best fits the collective case study category as it

involves studying multiple cases simultaneously in an attempt to generate a consensus appreciation of the risk-related issues under investigation.

A multi-case study approach is also justified on the basis of its aim of exploring the strategic approach of financial institutions to enable potential adaption arising from the common understanding so developed, to further understand what changes are required to transition from the current state to a more desired future state. The strategy that guides this adaptive change is similarly developed from the multi-cases to develop a shared understanding through iterative cross-case validation. Further, in the banking sector, a case study approach is considered beneficial because it allows the investigator to examine both the micro and macro issues affecting the decision-making aspects of the key policy participants of the respective institutions (Ruddy 2008). Leisyte (2007) claimed that the case study method is best used when aiming to include consideration of contextual conditions that might be highly pertinent to the phenomenon of study. According to De Vaus (2008, p. 252), a comparative cross-national study design, structured on a multi-case basis, utilises a ‘cultural and interpretive model in that it is taken for granted that any behaviour, attitude, indicator or effect can only be understood within its historical, cultural and social context’. This implies that a specific understanding of organisational practices can be appreciated in accordance with a specific set of historical, cultural and social contexts. Further, it was argued that a study of an organisation should be comparative as a result of factors, such as institutional dynamics, that shape the nature of industry sectors across different regions and countries under investigation (March & Olsen 1998; Ruddy 2008; Välimaa 2008).

Bryman (2004) presented a comparative inquiry that employed multiple methods of probing conflicting cases. In a collective, multi-case study design, a comparative inquiry enables a more diverse and richer understanding of a social phenomenon when it is conducted with two or more

conflicting cases (Bryman 2004; Pauwels & Matthyssens 2004). A comparative inquiry has been undertaken in a previous study focusing on the policy issue of equity and widening participation practices of selected public higher-education institutions (Graham 2010). In the context of this study, policy frameworks are thought to be able to shape the social inclusion practices of the selected group of financial institutions in Australia.