Qualitative research method using a case study approach

The discussions in the previous chapter identified how the management of OHS is dependent on a number of issues. It includes for example socio-economic factors affecting the organisation and the social relation between the employers. Earlier studies, such as by Kochan (1998) and Vaughan (1999) show that for appreciating issues related to workplaces, it is important to look into the wider context and investigate the central as well as some of the peripheral issues.

Similarly, Yin (2003) pointed out that because different factors affect workplaces in varying degrees no two workplaces are the same. As a result the research subject gets heavily embedded in the context, so much so, that the boundary between the context and

the subject becomes blurred. Thus, matters pertaining to workplaces must also be studied along with the factors affecting the core subject. Eisenhardt (1989), too, highlighted that an in-depth study of the subject in its natural setting leads to a good understanding of the type and the strength of the ‘unknown’ variables.

Whipp (1998), too, provided a similar argument. The author pointed out that for understanding the problems in the world of work each workplace needs to be looked at separately and deeply by getting under the skin of the organisation. Hidden features of employment relations, for instance, are likely to be revealed only if individual attention is paid to each of the cases. An apparent single problem may have its roots extended to a number of social issues. Following this argument, Kochan (1998) pointed out that for a full appraisal of the social elements within a workplace or industrial setting, the ‘case study’ approach is most suited.

Similar claims can also be made in the case of my study. It can be argued that the ‘numerous’ factors that affect the operation of the ISM Code cannot be removed from the context in which they occur. As a result, for a better appreciation of what affects the operation of the Code an understanding of the context is equally important. Thus a case study approach involving field trips to the ships in particular is considered a very important element of my research.

Selection of Case Studies

The argument that naturally follows is ‘how then does a detailed study of the dynamics within a unique case add to the knowledge of a broader phenomenon in question?’ And if that is the question in hand, the other related issue that also needs to be addressed first is: ‘how do researchers choose the appropriate case or cases in the first place?’

For the selection of the case studies, research has pointed to the importance of having a low level of prior knowledge of the organisations where case studies are to be conducted. This, as pointed out by Miles (1979), gives an opportunity to the researchers to enter the field with some supporting structure about the organisations in mind. Yet it does not prejudice the researcher preventing him or her from ‘learning’ and building theoretical construct. Moreover, it also provides the opportunity for the researcher to decide on the types of organisations to approach and the sources of data to explore. In fact, a number of

researchers, such as Mintzberg (1979), Eisenhardt (1989), Gersick (1988) and Harris and Sutton (1986) have recognised its benefits and advocated an ‘in-between’ route of applying a limited yet informed knowledge on the subject matter and the phenomenon of research at the outset of case study. They point to the importance of the choice of organisations as cases should not be random. The cases chosen should reflect a well informed and purposeful sampling based on all known typologies that include balance and variety of the industry and most importantly the ones that provide the opportunity to learn (Stake, 1980;

2000).

Now, the argument on the detailed case studies of one or more cases for the understanding of the bigger picture is discussed. In the wider literature this issue is described as generalisability of case study research. The critics question the usefulness of the detailed study of a case which does not represent the population of the study. The proponents of this form of study acknowledge this as a problem and provide their counter argument. Yin (2003), for example, pointed out that the strength of this form of study draws on the detailed investigation which allows the researcher to immerse in the ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973) of the case. The research engages in thorough analysis and at the end of the research it leads to the development of theories. Unlike statistical generalisation, where the analysis may be transferred from the representative sample to the population of the study, each of the case studies gives the opportunity to create theories, and it is the theory that may be generalised and extended beyond the immediate case and applied to other cases (Meredith, 1998).

Many authors, such as Stuart et al (2002) and Bryman (2004), have gone on to argue that it is entirely possible to generalise from even a single case study. The criticism for not studying a sufficient number of cases does not wane if two, four or even ten organisations are studied. These are still very small numbers. The authors point out that attempting to evaluate the merit of case studies through numbers of cases is a cardinal error and an invalid criticism in the first place. No matter how many cases are studied, it is the evolving theory that is of significance, and not the number. Stake (2000) further highlighted the dangers of getting obsessed with generalisation from case studies. He pointed out that the essence of any particular case, even when it demonstrates atypical features, should not be lost in pursuit of generalisation. He emphasised on giving priority to learning from whatever each case has to offer and not consider its representativeness or typicality.

I considered these arguments when choosing the two case studies in my research. The selection process was based on purposeful sampling that took into account the type of ships the companies operated and the businesses they conducted.

In order to avoid the complexity of excessive variation which could have posed problem at the analysis stage, I looked at the better end of the market and chose the oil tanker sector. As pointed out in the review of the literature the tanker sector of the maritime industry is widely acknowledged as one of the safest (see for example Lloyds List, 2005b). By studying this sector the aim was to identify the general issues that affect the implementation of the ISM Code across the industry while accepting that other sectors may face specific challenges. Arguably, it could also expose certain best practices in the industry and show how these have contributed to making the tanker sector one of the safest in the maritime industry.

Then, for the purpose of bringing in variety I searched for large and small companies - in terms of number and/or size of ships operated (see section 2.1.1) and their type - ownership-based30 and third-party management based31 (see section 1.2 concluding remarks). These factors were considered as pertinent as the discussion in the literature review indicated that they may have influences on the organisations’ standard of OHS.

SH O R E-BA SED