Qualitative or Quantitative Research Methods

Traditionally, authors have supported either a qualitative or quantitative method, not both (Saunders et al. 2007). The research design should be determined by the research philosophy (e.g. epistemology, ontology) (Bryman, 1984; Saunders et al. 2007), or the research topic (Creswell, 2009). Despite using these factors for guidance, it was still helpful to weigh up the arguments and debates which have been developed for each approach so that advantages and disadvantages could be compared for each one prior to arriving at a decision.

4.6.1 Qualitative Method

Traditionally, qualitative research has been supported by an inductive, theory building approach (Bryman, 2008). The typical qualitative process is outlined in Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5: The main steps taken in qualitative research (Developed from Bryman, 2008, p. 384). Kovacs and Spens (2005) recognised that qualitative or interpretive research in supply chain studies had historically been a less popular choice by authors. Instead Kovacs and Spens found that a quantitative approach using modelling techniques was most commonly used. Accepting Silverman’s (2000, p.8) view that qualitative research was better able to provide the researcher with a “deeper understanding of social phenomena” using “how” and “why” questioning, this makes it a relevant choice for this research and especially for answering RQ1 (How does the strategic orientation decision support supply chain management?) and RQ2 (How may supply chain orientation be applied as a strategic orientation?). Silverman and Saunders et al. (2007) argued that complexity occurs when the individual constructs of individual employees, such as trust and power affect overall business behaviour patterns; hence qualitative approaches should be utilised.

This research examines the behavioural factors in SCM and SCO, so endorsing the views by the authors profiled in this section, a qualitative method can be defended as an appropriate for this research.

4.6.2 Quantitative Method

In contrast to qualitative research, the quantitative method lends itself to a deductive, theory testing approach. Kovacs and Spens (2005) acknowledged the quantitative method as a popular choice in

General research question Research Design Selection of research site and research subjects Collection of relevant data Interpretation of data Conceptual and theoretical work Conclusions

supply chain research. Quantitative research is best applied for testing a theory or hypotheses with numerical data (Bryman, 2008). The typical quantitative research process is exhibited in Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6: The main steps taken in qualitative research (Developed from Bryman, 2008, p. 161).

However, Matthyessens (2007) stressed that over-reliance on quantitative methodology may lead to a relevance gap only suited to answering “what” questions, such a RQ3 in this research (What is the role of strategic orientation?). Quantitative methods are criticised as not providing scope for addressing the “why” and “how” questions, such as RQ1 and RQ2 (Saunders et al. 2007). However, as noted by Snijdres and Voss (2007, p.169), “Whatever the method, it needs to be well-defined, well-argued and well-executed”. To aid decision making in this research, Table 4.4 summarises the arguments presented for both qualitative and quantitative approaches.

QUALITATIVE METHOD QUANTITATIVE METHOD

Traditionally a inductive approach Traditionally a deductive approach Observed data is interpreted Fact is measured

Emphasis on process Emphasis on external value gains and making an impact

“...provides a deeper understanding of social phenomena” (Silverman, 2000)

Theory or hypotheses testing

Highly criticised in logistics, termed as “the soft

underbelly of social science” (Gherardi and Turner,

1987, p. 82)

Termed as “courageous, hard biting, hard work” (Goulding, 2002, p. 11)

Emphasises the researcher, “the researcher is pre-

eminently the research tool” (Goulding, 2002, p.

18).

Increases generalisability Emphasises the data

Generates new theories for facilitating theory building Creswell (2009), Glaser (2004), Saunders

et al. (2007)

Used either to provide foundations for qualitative study or further strengthen qualitative study

Table 4.4: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Research (Developed from Bryman, 2008 and other Authors included in the table)

It was felt that a quantitative approach limited the researcher’s ability to probe deeply into understanding supply chain problems. In contrast, a purely qualitative method limited the opportunity to explore deeply into the root causes of supply chain problems. Accepting there are challenges and debates on using both methods, Mason (2007) emphasised that a qualitative method provided “meat

T Thheeoorryy & & H Hyyppootthheessiiss R Reesseeaarrcchh D Deessiiggnn D Deevviissee m meeaassuurreess ooff ccoonncceeppttss

S Seelleecctt rreesseeaarrcchh

ssiittee && rreessppoonnddeennttss

C Coolllleecctt

on the bones” (Bryman, 2006 in Clark and Cresswell, 2011, p.63); this inferred meat as qualitative data and the bones as quantitative data.

4.6.3 Mixed Methods

A mixed methods approach has become a popular choice of method amongst business authors since the 1990s era (Clark and Cresswell, 2011). However, it is important to note the view by Saunders et al. (2007) who proposed that combining qualitative and quantitative requires distinct skill sets from the researcher (Saunders et al. 2007). The fundamental principle of adopting a mixed methods approach is to collect different but complementary data for the same topic (ibid.). A mixed methods approach requires a greater level of introspection from the supply chain researcher (Dul and Hak, 2007). Accepting that criticisms exist, suggestions for ensuring greater success with this approach were offered by Clark and Cresswell, (2011, p. 5):

 Collect and analyse both qualitative and quantitative data in a persuasive and rigorous manner

 Mix or link the two forms of data concurrently by combining them sequentially by having one build on the other, or embedding one with the other

 Give priority to one or both forms of data (in terms of what the research emphasises)  Uses these procedures within philosophical worldviews and theoretical lenses

 combines procedures into specific research designs that direct the plan for conducting the study

Mixed methods research has long been recognised as improving the validity and reliability of the data collected (Denzin, 1978; Danermark et al. 2002). Bryman, (2008) argued that careful amalgamation of both methods provides the researcher with a powerful set of tools for data collection; it was definitely not a case of being indecisive. In support of a mixed methods approach, Bryman (2008, p.108) and Clark and Cresswell (2011) put forward several arguments but the ones felt most appropriate for this study included:

 May ‘offset’ the weaknesses and draw on the strengths of each approach  Provides an additional data source; the original may be insufficient

 Qualitative research can “put meat on the bones” of dry quantitative findings  Provides a fuller picture of phenomena under examination

 Provides a deeper explanation of initial results

 Triangulation – the use of different methods and sources to check the “convergence” of findings

Bartezzaghi (2007) accepted the on-going debate for qualitative and quantitative methods, but stated that the focal point of research should not be about creating a bias towards one research method; instead the decision should be dependent on the research questions being asked. The research questions for this research ask a combination of how (RQ1, RQ2) and what (RQ3) type questions which indicates both qualitative and quantitative methods could be used.

In their special issue of Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (Vol. 13, issue 3, 2007), Dul and Hak highlighted problems with unclear definitions and boundaries for each research method and invited authors to bring greater emphasis and clarity on justifying the chosen method. The mixed methods approach was once criticised as “blurred genres” representing uncertainty from the researcher (Denzin, 1978). Accepting all these arguments for both qualitative and quantitative approaches, the combined approach has increasingly been adopted by authors in the post-modern era. After weighing up the pros and cons for all methods, a mixed methods approach was the method adopted for this research.

A further reason for adopting this methodological stance is that the mixed methods approach has been argued as relevant for critical realist ontology, with authors, such as Ackroyd and Fleetwood (2000; 2004) noting that quantitative and qualitative approaches are complementary and valuable in the search for causal relationships.

To consider the extent to which mixed methods research has been adopted in SCO studies, a search was conducted using Google Scholar in 2011. Table 4.5 confirms that between 2000 and 2010 there were no published studies utilising a mixed methods approach for examining SCO.

TYPE OF RESEARCH NUMBER OF STUDIES

(2000-2010)

PERCENTAGE NUMBER OF STUDIES

Qualitative research method 32 26%

Quantitative research method 92 74%

Mixed methods research 0 0%

TOTAL 124 100%

Table 4.5: Dissemination of research methods used in SCO studies

During the writing up period for this study a further search was conducted using Google Scholar in November, 2014. Google Scholar revealed 21 studies including the terms “supply chain orientation” AND “mixed methods” yet still, not one of these studies specifically examined SCO, which provides additional justification for this fresh method of investigation.