Research method

This section discusses the interview as the preferred research method in combination with cognitive mapping.

The interview

The preferred method of data collection is the interview. In the previous discussions on the epistemological background of this research and the choice of an appropriate methodology, the interview as the method of choice often shines through. The reason for this is the nature of the interview and it matches the motives of the applied interpretive research approach.

Secondary data like e.g., documentary or a survey might be difficult to find or if found, inappropriate as it will have been collected for a purpose that most probably differs from the research questions in this research. Moreover, and this is the crucial point for not working with secondary data, is the fact that an interpretive researcher focusses on situated and contextualized meaning-making. Gaining a constitutive understanding of correlations, also through improvising in response to the field conditions, emphasizes the relevance of the researcher’s identity as this can lead to the extraction of hidden information. The aspired explorative character of this research cannot be implemented by the analysis of secondary data, especially when trying to uncover the motives of price strategies and the pricing manager’s personal appraisal of the critical success factors that influence the whole pricing process.

The collection of primary data in interpretive research can be performed by observations, questionnaires, or interviews. Observations and questionnaires do not come into

consideration because these methods are outside of a dialogue in which the researcher can improvise and adapt to the individual explorative process by which an essential

understanding might be gained. Particularly when trying to illuminate pricing IT services as a rarely explored area, the researcher considers it very important to be able to check the

understanding of a statement and even go deeper into an unforeseeable topic to uncover unknown influential factors.

The interview as the preferred research method can be structured, semi-structured, or even unstructured (in-depth interviews). Again, too much of a pre-definition of questions and areas of interest might narrow the discussion the way that it loses its explorative character. Moreover, the precious interview time is limited as pricing managers are overloaded and have a chronic lack of time. On the other hand, performing an unstructured thus unguided interview might lead to too unspecific conclusions and a one-sided illumination of the topic within a limited time frame. This is especially true for the pricing topic as a complex and diffuse area of the research that consists of high-quality and rigorous pieces that are dispersed across disciplines like accounting, economics, and marketing. Therefore, interpretive research in pricing needs a guide that explains the conceptual framework to involve the participants and ensure their correct understanding. A semi-structured interview ensures that the focus is on the relevant research questions within a framework that considers the basic elements of pricing but simultaneously provides the necessary tolerance for an explorative research approach.

The conceptual framework illustrated and explained in section 2.4 serves as a basis that shows a differentiation between price-setting practices (internal pricing) and price strategies (external pricing), provides the possibility to draw connections between both, and leaves space to reflect on influential factors that might lead to a successful pricing process. The semi-structured interview is based on the conceptual framework to ensure the goal-oriented progress of the dialogue but also explicitly asks for the participants’

individual experiences and ideas regarding relations, critical factors, and improvements.

As a researcher gains a deeper understanding and can reflect on complex problems when visually looking at a structure, the researcher decided to combine the semi-structured interview with a cognitive mapping process. For instance, Correira dos Santos and Mira da Silva (2015) apply this method in their qualitative analysis of the critical success factors for IT outsourcing. What makes this approach interesting and complements the semi- structured interview is the interactivity that, in contrast to a survey approach, allows richer data to be obtained. During the interview, the researcher and the interviewee draw the map and position the interviewee’s statements within the conceptual framework. This

documentation process enables the researcher to check the correct understanding and enables the interviewee to indicate misunderstandings. Moreover, the risk that the

discussion slows down and concentrates just on single points is reduced because both, the interviewee and the researcher, continue to approach the topic once they have documented and placed the relevant point on the map.

In contrast to Correira dos Santos and Mira da Silva (2015), a consolidation of different maps resulting from different interviewees is rejected because according to the interpretive research approach, single opinions, practical experiences, and especially underrepresented ideas are appreciated to gain an individual in-depth insight. Thus, every map of a pricing manager is discrete and not consolidated to one map to keep up a manifold picture that might stimulate further reflection (also see section 3.2.1.2).

Cognitive mapping

Montazemi and Conrath (1986) consider the cognitive map as a representation of existing relationships that influence the state or movement of concepts, elements, statements, and factors in a defined environment. Cognitive mapping is a research method that is open to identifying and analysing features that cannot be reliably identified without the map. The map also acts as a structure that can establish a mutual understanding of the topic (Bryson, Ackermann, Eden, & Finn, 2004).

The cognitive mapping technique is based on the theory of personal constructs formulated by Kelly (1991). It suggests that people give meaning to the world to predict the future under the same conditions. People decide then how to intervene in order to achieve their preference. Ackermann, Eden, and Cropper (1992) call this “a predict and control view of problem solving” (p. 1). Cognitive mapping deals with subjective rather than objective reality. It illustrates relationships between statements. These relationships describe the perception of behaviour resulting from personal observations, experiences, and education. Bryson et al. (2004) attribute the mapping’s success to its simplicity that makes it possible to articulate many ideas and their interconnections. The technique of cognitive mapping helps with making sense of complex problems and communicating possible solutions. According to Eden (2004), “maps are not just a graphical description of what is said; rather they are interpretations of what is meant by the interviewee” (p. 675). Therefore, the

quality of an interpretive research approach utilizing cognitive mapping depends on the quality of the researcher as a listener and an interpreter.

The construction of a cognitive map requires a well-defined purpose to direct the search for the critical success factors and the understanding of relationships. The main purpose of the critical success factors is the clarification of business needs and the identification of priorities.

Ward and Griffiths (1996) see the critical success factors within a top-down flow where high-level business strategies determine the objectives of lower level business units. Most organizations link the strategies and objectives by this approach although there are also researchers like Laudon and Laudon (1991) who follow a contrary approach, namely a bottom-up approach that aggregates the individual critical success factors to a set of critical success factors that are relevant in the entire organization.

This research setting does not specify one of the previously mentioned procedures but explicitly leaves room for the interviewee for a holistic reflection without any pre- classification of importance. In the end, it is the researcher who interprets the cognitive map and its construction.