Research method

Research method, also referred to as strategy of inquiry, is concerned with the practical, specific processes of collecting, analysing, and reporting or interpreting

empirical evidence (Creswell, 2002; de Vaus, 2001; Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). In essence, research methods describe

the skills, assumptions, enactments, and material practices that researchers-as-methodological-bricoleurs use when they move from a paradigm and a research design to the collection of empirical materials. … [They] connect researchers to specific approaches and methods for collecting and analysing empirical materials. [They] locate researchers and paradigms in specific empirical, material sites and in specific methodological practices … (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 379).

3.5.1 Prevalent research methods

A key feature of qualitative research lies within the variety of research methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Silverman, 2000). In general, four different methods are frequently discussed in qualitative research: ethnography, grounded theory, case study research, and action research (Creswell, 2002; Denzin & Lincoln, 2003;

Myers, 2009; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

3.5.1.1 Ethnography

Stemming from the discipline of social and cultural anthropology, ethnography, in its broad sense, refers to the task of describing a specific culture, organisation, or person, with reference to the particular customs and characteristics, within a society in its own natural setting over a prolonged period (Alexander, 2005; Myers, 2009). Tedlock (2005) further draws distinctions within ethnographic research.

According to the scholar, ethnography is dualistic in two realms of experience:

public versus private, and objective versus subjective. Public ethnography is referred to as monograph while private ethnography is referred to as memoir;

objective ethnography is referred to as ethnography while subjective ethnography is referred to as autobiography.

Due to the nature of ethnography, ethnographers are often required to devote a sizable amount of time in the field to observe. Furthermore, ‘Ethnographers immerse themselves in the life of people they study (Lewis, 1985) and seek to place the phenomena studied in their social and cultural context.’ (Myers, 2009, p.

93) Ethnographic research often provides depth yet a highly limited breadth of knowledge (Myers, 2009).

3.5.1.2 Grounded theory

Grounded theory refers to ‘an inductive, theory discovery methodology that allows the researcher to develop a theoretical account of the general features of a topic while simultaneously grounding the account in empirical observations or data’ (Martin & Turner, as cited in Orlikowski, 1993, p. 311).

Grounded theory consists of two main characteristics differentiating itself from other qualitative methods, according to Strauss and Corbin (1998). First, researchers employing this method start their empirical research without any theoretical assumptions relating to the subject or phenomenon under study.

Second, in this method, the theory of the subject or phenomenon emerges from the empirical evidence collected by the researcher. Therefore, the theory is ‘more likely to resemble the “reality” than is theory derived by putting together a series of concepts based on experience or solely through speculation (how one thinks things ought to work)’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 12). In other words, the research processes in grounded theory is contextual and processual (Orlikowski, 1993).

3.5.1.3 Case study research

Yin (2009) indicates that although the case study has existed as a scientific research method for a considerable time, it is still widely misunderstood, which can be observed from two perspectives. First, some scholars, including social scientists, still consider the case study as ‘the exploratory stage of some other type of research method’ (Yin, 2009, p. 17). Second, some scholars confuse the case study with ethnography since observation of participants is central in both methods.

In response to the definitional issues relating to case study research, Yin (2009) conceptualises this method from two aspects: scope and technicality. From the aspect of scope, case study research is defined as a method of empirical research that ‘investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident’ (Yin, 2009, p. 18). From the technical aspect, case study research

copes with the technicality distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest than data points, and as one result; relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion, and as another result; [and] benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis (Yin, 2009, p. 18).

Gable’s (1994, p. 113) definition of case study research is elegant and bears noting:

The case study approach seeks to understand the problem being investigated (where the word ‘understand’ is used in the phenomenological or hermeneutic sense, and where ‘understanding’ the meaning held by a subject or group is contrasted with the ‘explanation’

produced by a scientific observation …). The approach provides the opportunity to ask penetrating questions and to capture the richness of organisational behaviour, but the conclusions drawn may be specific to the particular organisations studied and may not be generalisable.

3.5.1.4 Action research

Emerging around World War II, action research is ‘an interventionist approach to the acquisition of scientific knowledge that has sound foundations in the postpositivist tradition’ (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 1996, p. 236).

Action research is a close collaboration between researchers and practitioners in which the researchers are often considered as a consultant (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 1996). It is typically considered as a cycle consisting of five iterative phases: diagnosing, action planning, action taking, evaluating, and specifying learning (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 1996). In the first phase, the researchers and practitioners identify the primary, underlying problems to be changed or tackled. In the second, the researchers and practitioners specify a series of actions to tackle or treat the problems previously identified. In the third, the researchers and practitioners intervene in the subject or phenomenon under study, and execute the actions or treatments. In the fourth, the researchers and practitioners evaluate the outcomes of the applied actions or treatments. This is followed by the last phase, which involves undertaking an ongoing, formal process of specifying the knowledge gained during the action research (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 1996). The cycle of action research can continue after the last phase until the researchers and practitioners are fully satisfied with the knowledge developed in the research.

3.5.2 The research method employed in this study

Yin (2009, p. 8) advises that the researcher should consider four aspects when choosing a particular method: the form of research question, ‘the extent of control the investigator has over actual behavioural events’, ‘the degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events’, and the existence of theoretical assumptions prior to data collection.

In this study, the research questions are primarily concerned with ‘how’ and ‘why’, the researcher cannot manipulate any campaign team’s e-campaigning utilisation, the research focus is on a contemporary event, and theoretical assumptions have been made before data collection. Under such circumstances, says Yin (2009), case study research is justified as the research method. Accordingly, this study employs case study research.