Quality of the Data and Validity of the Study

There are no generally accepted guidelines for the assessment of case studies aiming at creating theory and model building (Eisenhardt 1989). To test the quality of empirical social research, the tests of construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability are common (Yin 1994: 32-37). The important issue of criteria is that the validity assessment of the study should concern the whole research process, and it does not matter what quality criteria are used (Olkkonen 2002: 114-115). Credibility corresponds to internal and construct validity, transferability corresponds to external validity, dependability corresponds to

85 _{Data reduction refers to the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data}

that appear in written-up field notes or transcriptions. Data reduction occurs continuously throughout the life of any qualitatively oriented project. (Miles & Huberman 1994: 10).

86 _{Generically, a display is an organised, compressed assembly of information that permits conclusion drawing}

and action (Miles & Huberman 1994: 11).

87 _{From the start of data collection, the qualitative analyst is beginning to decide what things mean – is noting}

reliability, and conformability refers to general objectivity (Olkkonen 2002: 115; Yin 1994; Brinberg & McGrath 1985).

Construct validity means establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being investigated. According to the research theory, the triangulation can improve the construct validity, because the multiple sources of evidence provide multiple measures of the place marketing phenomenon. The key informants commented on the report drafts, multiple sources of evidence were used and efforts were made to keep the chain of evidence during the research process of the focal study.

Internal validity establishes a causal relationship where certain conditions lead to other conditions. Internal validity is not a relevant issue for an exploratory or descriptive case study (Yin 1994). External validity is concerned whether the findings are generalisable beyond the immediate case study, and establishes the domain to which the study’s findings can be generalised. Critics of single case studies typically state that a single case offers a poor basis for generalising (Yin 1994; Easton 1995). A theory must be tested through replications in multiple-case studies, and the present study used the replication logic. Important for the replication procedures is the development of a theoretical framework, which should state the conditions under which a particular phenomenon is likely to be found (literal replication), as well as the conditions when it is not likely to be found (a theoretical replication) (Yin 1994: 46).

Reliability demonstrates that the operations of a study can be repeated, with approximately the same results. Replication refers to the possibility of obtaining similar results and conclusions when a study is repeated in the same manner (Yin 1994). In the strict sense replication is not possible, because the research setting will be always somewhat changed due to the passage of time and the preunderstanding of an investigator of the phenomenon. It is, therefore, even more important to determine the scope of the findings, meaning under what conditions the findings will hold (Brinberg & McGrath 1985). The goal is to minimise the errors and biases. In this study case study protocol and study database were used as relevant tactics during data collection. High reliability was pursued by tape-recording key interviews, and by detailed memos, as well as by describing the place marketing practices process

properly. Also, a careful reporting of the study contributes to the reliability of the study. An auditor should be able to repeat the procedures of the same case, arriving at the same findings. Maintaining the chain of evidence contributes to the reliability of the information (Yin 1994: 90-100). The interview citations together with written case descriptions display sufficient evidence to make the interpretation plausible (cf. Olkkonen 2002: 109). Empirical data were collected at several points for the pilot case during 2000-2001. For the longitudinal cases, the data collection started in April 2002, continued in several phases, and lasted till March 2003. Through the process of iterating between data, theory and literature, validity and reliability concerns were addressed during the analysis. It was aimed at systematic planning and management of the research project, and also to a systematic feedback from key informants. The cases were selected carefully, and discussions took place with colleagues to increase validity (cf. Olkkonen 2002: 115). It remains, however, a challenge to establish the validity and reliability of the qualitatively derived findings (cf. Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 1994).

When choosing a research strategy, there is a trade-off between generalisability, precision, and realism (McGrath 1982: 74). In the present study, generalisation as such was not the primary goal, because the purpose of the study was to develop a theory by building a framework and forming propositions. However, generalisation in case studies is “theoretical” or “analytic”, and the use of the replication logic is recommended (Yin 1994). Generalisability in a case study can be gained by interpreting empirical case findings through existing theories or systematic induction through comparative case analysis (e.g. Eisenhardt 1989). Lukka & Kasanen (1995: 82) list three elements which form the preconditions for generalisability in any properly conducted (accounting) study, namely 1) theoretical knowledge of the subject area, 2) prior empirical results and their interpretations, and 3) the empirical results, and their interpretations, provided by the study in question. “In descriptive case studies, the researcher has to understand and communicate the real business context and uncover deeper general structural relationships. Contextual generalisation rhetoric rests on the convincing linkage of relevant history, institutions and markets around the case to the argumentation net of the study”. As the three preconditions mentioned seemed to be present in the present study, there is, however, a chance that the present study has produced results that are generalisable to some extent. (Cf. Lukka & Kasanen 1995: 85).