Research Design in the Hotels Study

There are three steps to designing the case studies in this research program: the rationale, the type and theory development (Yin, 2006). The first is in consideration of the design and the strategies which apply. As identified in Table 3.2, there are four types of case study designs, holistic single through to multiple embedded. The strategies and data techniques have been chosen to convey that some case information collected may require statistical inference in analysis and others not. Consequently, this is not a ‘quasi’ experimental design applied to case studies.

Table 3.2 Decisions regarding the use of Single or Multiple Case Studies

1. Holistic Case

– single emphasis 2. Holistic Case – embedded sub-cases

3. Multiple Cases – single emphasis

4. Multiple Cases – embedded sub-cases

Source: Adapted from Yin, 2006.

It is, however, an approach similar to the way a laboratory technician selects a topic for a new experiment. Multiple cases = multiple experiments (Yin, 2003a). The unit of analysis are the CEM practices of the hotels in the study.

This leads to the second step which is the decision to undertake multiple case studies - embedded, as shown in quadrant 4 in Table 3.1 (Yin, 2006; Yin, 2009). In the consideration of choosing multiple case studies for this research, quadrants 1, 2 and 3 were considered to have insufficient scope to draw any real conclusions that could be regarded as significant to advance theory and practice in CE management. Multiple cases-embedded by contrast would be of sufficient strength to be representative and provide replications of each other as deliberate and contrasting comparisons, but not as hypothesised variations. The basic rationale for Type 4 adoption was therefore on the basis that multiple cases, with embedded sub-cases would:

1. Fit appropriately with the theoretical framework as outlined in the literature review (chapter two);

2. Be typical or representative cases with expectations of confirmatory findings (as opposed to revelatory, extreme or unique, critical or longitudinal) given the number of cases examined;

3. Assist definitively with replication design both literal and theoretical (Yin, 2009);

4. Be accommodative for any rival explanations as asserted by Langley, (1999). In this case it would be with the chain, independent and resort hotels; and 5. With the assistance of a very comprehensive record of evidence, address the

research questions (chapter one).

The third step then involved how to use theory development in the selection of the cases. Yin (2006) argues in generality for and against theory development in case studies as shown in Table 3.2. Arguments For theory development were adopted as the most pertinent for this research, based on the researcher’s emerging knowledge and experience in this area.

Table 3.3 Theory Development in Case Studies

For Against

 Literature review supports the claim

in this example that CE strategies and customer data, needs to be managed better.

 Attempts can be made to build,

extend or challenge this perspective.

 A propositional or hypothesis testing

approach could be used.

 Researchers with less experience

with case studies would be advised to adopt some theoretical

perspectives.

 Limits ability to make discoveries

(i.e. to discover how and why manager’s individual skills/abilities contribute to the overall success of a CE management program).

 Requires a lot of experience to

conduct without theoretical foundation.

 Without prior experience, researchers

would have difficulty convincing others that the case study findings have any value to the field.

Source: Constructed from Yin, 2006.

In settling on the case study design elements for this research, an additional design element was in generalising the findings from the cases to CEM theory. Yin (2003a) identifies a model indicative of this principle as shown in Figure 3.2 subsequently adopted for this research. In looking at Figure 3.2, there are several key points to make. The first is to avoid thinking that the case studies are used as a kind of ‘population sample’ or ‘small sample size’ in the study. The aim is to generalise analytically, not statistically for achieving causal outcomes.

A further aim was to achieve level two inferences as shown in Figure 3.2. Where managerial policy in CE management is concerned, this could be significant for theory development. If two or more cases are shown to support the same theory, replication may be claimed. The empirical results may be considered more potent if two or more cases support the same theory, but do not support an equally plausible rival theory (Langley, 1999; Yin, 2003a).

Level Two

Level One

Source: Yin, 2003a.

Figure 3.1 Generalising from Case Study to Theory

From all of the foregoing, the following case study design was proposed for Phase Two, with the model to include data collection in the Australian accommodation hotels, categorised into Chain, Independent and Resort hotels as Figure 3.3 shows.

[Define and Design] [Prepare, Collect, Analyse] [Evaluate and Conclude]

Source: Adapted from Yin, 2003a.

Figure 3.2 Case Study Method for this Research

As an example, an interview with a hotel manager with responsibility for CE in that hotel, would be followed by the write-up of that case immediately following,

Write individual case report(s) Write case-study Discussions Conduct Case study- Chain Hotels Draw cross-case conclusions Conduct Case study- Independent Hotels Write individual case report(s) Modify theory with possible rival theory Conduct Case study- Resort Hotels Write individual case report(s) Design the case program Conclude the study Theory Development Rival Theory Policy Implications Rival Policy Implications Experiment Sample

Survey _{Case Study}

Findings

with recognition from the manager in email postscript follow-up. This would occur for each case study conducted. After that, case comparisons with cross-case discussion can be made.

Having addressed the theoretical perspectives in systematic research design, a third requirement in case research is to develop a criteria to ensure methodological rigour of the case studies (Yin, 2009; 2011). To address methodological rigour, this is detailed next under the banner of Phase One and Phase Two research.