3.4 Research Methodology
3.4.3 Research Methodologies
Given that the interpretivist paradigm (design science) has been selected as the most appropriate paradigm under which this research is undertaken, only qualitative research methodologies are considered in this section. The possibility of having one or more quantitative methods in the overall research design is still permitted if a pluralist approach is adopted (Goles & Hirschheim, 2000).
Four research methodologies are discussed: action research, case study research, ethnography and grounded theory.
3.4.3.1 Action Research
There are numerous definitions of action research; however, one of the most widely cited is that of Rapoport (1970), who states that action research “aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework” (p. 499). This definition draws into the mix the collaborative aspect of action research and emphasises the ethical dimension of qualitative research. The definition given by Baskerville and Myers (2004) that action research “aims to solve current practical problems while expanding scientific knowledge” (p. 329), claims that action research not only addresses practical problems but also adds to the body of knowledge. Action research differs from most other research methods in that the researcher seeks to create organisational change during the investigation (Baburoglu & Ravn, 1992).
Baskerville and Myers (2004, p. 333) describe four research assumptions relevant to action research:
1. The purpose of any action should be established before action is taken. 2. Action must be practical.
3. Practical action must inform the theory, and as a consequence theory must be adjusted based on the outcome of the action.
4. Action and reasoning must be socially situated. In other words action researchers must be participant observers, and that collaborative involvement
117
in reasoning, action formulation, and action taking is required. A social setting supports reflection and subsequent action is then seen as a social act.
3.4.3.2 Case Study Research
The term "case study" has two different meanings. It can be used to describe a research methodology or define a social or scientific field of interest of a group within an organisation. In this thesis both meanings are used, however, in this section its role as a research methodology is the object of the discussion.
According to Creswell (1998), a case study is "an exploration of a…bounded system... a program, an event, an activity, or individuals" (p. 61). A more detailed description is provided by Yin (2003) who states that a case study research method takes information from multiple sources and in so doing gains a broader and more in-depth understanding of the target environment, which, when subjected to triangulation methods is able to enhance the validity of the research. In Yin’s approach the researcher is able to acquire information from a variety of information sources including documentation, interviews, and artifacts. Boudreau, Gefen and Straub (2001) further add to our understanding of case study when they claim that case study research takes a contemporary phenomena within a real life context, and empirically examines a small number of entities. Boudreau et al. (2001) go on to say that case study is not designed to study a large unit or enterprise, but instead its purpose is to focus on a single issue, activity or unit of analysis.
Case study research can be performed within most research paradigms and
philosophical assumptions. Yin (2003), Dubé and Paré (2003), and Benbasat,
Goldstein and Mead (1987) are supporters of positivist case study research, whereas Walsham (1993), Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991), and Alavi and Carlson (1992) support interpretive case study research. It is claimed that case study research is the most frequently used qualitative method in information systems (Alavi & Carlson, 1992; Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991).
3.4.3.2.1 Types of Case Study Research
According to Yin (2003), there are three types of case study research: exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory.
Exploratory case study is aimed at defining the hypotheses and research
questions to be used in a subsequent study, or at determining the feasibility of a particular set of research procedures.
118
Descriptive case study presents a complete description of a phenomenon within
the chosen unit or context.
Explanatory case study seeks to explain how events have occurred, and is
usually concerned with cause-effect relationships.
Yin (2003) proposes a further form of case study where there is more than one sub-unit of analysis.
Embedded case study: This approach facilitates the integration of both
quantitative and qualitative methods into a single research study (Scholz & Tietje, 2002; Yin, 2003). The embedded case study design is an empirical form of inquiry well suited to descriptive studies, where the objective of the research is to describe the features, context, and process of a phenomenon.
Benbasat et al. (1987) claim that the descriptive form of case study is particularly well suited to information systems (IS) research.
The process of undertaking the case studies research proposed by Yin (2003, p. 50), often referred to as the COSMOS case study model, is shown in Figure 3-3. In this model the process follows five basic phases: develop the theory, select the domain of interest and form research questions, undertake the case study, carry out data analysis within and between cases, and lastly, formulate the conclusion and carry out reflection.
Figure 3-3: Stages involved in conducting case studies research (Yin, 2003, p. 50)
3.4.3.2.2 Strengths and limitations of case studies research
Case study is located within a real world environment. The researcher observes and records detailed information that is rich and insightful and which promises to advance the quantum of knowledge about a phenomenon. Case study is particularly useful for
119
applied fields of study such as information systems, administration, and information rich environments.
Although focusing on a single case raises issues of generalisability, the researcher is able to formulate a narrative description that is interesting and meaningful and which can be viewed as a prototype for more detailed research and study at a later date. However, there are a number of limitations associated with case study research that need to be considered:
Subjectivity and Ethics: It is imperative that the researcher exhibits a high level of integrity and awareness when working in their chosen domain of interest if bias is to be avoided. Guba and Lincoln (1981) refer to a particular concern in what they describe as “unusual problems of ethics. An unethical case writer could so select from among available data that virtually anything he wished could be illustrated” (p. 378). They also suggest that care must be exercised in all aspects of case study research including the evaluation and report writing.
Generalisability: Many researchers take the view that results obtained from case
study research cannot be applied outside the immediate domain of interest. Yin (2003) strongly disagrees, and draws a difference between analytic generalization and statistical generalization: "In analytic generalization, previously developed theory is used as a template against which to compare the empirical results of the case study" (p. 32-33). Yin is quite emphatic when he states that treating a single case study as being comparable to taking a single sample from a universe of cases is clearly not appropriate.
Validity and reliability: Validity is concerned with the appropriateness,
meaningfulness and usefulness of a test to measure what it is supposed to measure. It is important in case study research to take into consideration all forms of validity: construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability (Paré, 2004; Yin, 2003).
Construct validity: The degree to which a test measures an intended hypothetical
construct.
Internal Validity: The degree to which inferences concerning causal relationships can be said to be true.
External Validity: The degree to which study results generalize to populations and contexts beyond the particular ones included in the studies themselves.
Reliability: The degree to which an assessment or instrument consistently
120
To improve construct validity researchers endeavour to gather and use
information from multiple sources (Denzin, 1984; Yin, 2003). Denzin ("Methodology," 2011) and Anderson (1991) claim that triangulation is not limited to data, but also applies to investigator, theory, and methodology. Denzin ("Methodology," 2011) describes these four approaches:
Data source triangulation: There is data consistency when taken from different
contexts. This involves time, space and persons.
Investigator triangulation: Different researchers examine the same phenomenon.
Theory triangulation: Researchers with different theoretical perspectives interpret the same results.
Methodological triangulation: This approach accesses the same problem using
differing methods to gather data, interviews, observations, questionnaires, and documents.
3.4.3.3 Ethnography
Ethnographers spend a significant amount of the time within the study environment, and “immerse themselves in the lives of the people they study and seek to place the
phenomena studied in their social and cultural context” (Lewis, 1985, p. 380).
Ethnography is applied extensively in information systems research primarily in organisational settings, for example, information systems development (Hughes, Randall, & Shapior, 1992) and management of information technology (Davies, 1991; Davies & Nielsen, 1992).
3.4.3.4 Grounded Theory
According to Martin and Turner (1986), grounded theory is "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" (p. 343). There is strong emphasis in grounded theory on developing a mutual exchange between the data collection phase and analysis phase. Orlikowsky (1993) claims that the method is particularly useful in developing context- based, process-oriented descriptions and explanations of phenomena.
3.4.4 Section Summary and Conclusion
Ethnographic research is not an appropriate research methodology. Although the evaluation of the semantic artefact does draw upon scenarios extracted from the ‘real’ world, there is no direct attempt in this research to consider the social and cultural setting in which the research takes place. There are some elements of grounded
121
theory in the research as there is some attempt to give value to the role of the semantic framework in society. However, the significance of this connection is quite modest in terms of the overall research effort.
The research endeavour shares some features of action research in that it aims to solve practical problems while expanding scientific knowledge, and there is some agreement that practical action during the design and development processes does inform the theory. However, it is not possible to claim that reasoning and action are socially situated, and that there is a collaborative team involved in reasoning and action.
Of the four methodologies described in this section, case study is the most appropriate. In the first instance it satisfies Creswell’s (1998) requirement that the study is concerned with a bounded system where the research endeavour is on a single event or activity. That is the situation here, where the research focuses on a semantic artefact designed and constructed to meet the specific requirements of an e- government semantic framework. Secondly, the descriptive form of case study envisaged by Yin (2006) where a complete description of the phenomenon is presented, is particularly relevant as it conforms to the requirement of the design science paradigm discussed in the previous section. That is the situation in this research, where the documentation of the process of creating an innovative artefact leads to better understanding of the design process. Thirdly, the embedded case study methodology proposed by Scholz and Tietje (2002) and Yin (2003) is pertinent as it creates the opportunity to accept both interpretivist and positivist methods to be incorporated into the study, and it caters for research where the objective is to describe features, context and process of a phenomenon.
A number of issues arise when using case study and these need to be addressed in the research plan (Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Yin, 2003). These relate to subjectivity and ethics, generalisability, and validity and reliability.