With regards to our methodology limitation, we will first discuss the general criteria indicated for business and management research, and, finally, those for case studies. Specifically, in business research there are three main evaluation criteria. Namely, these are replication, reliability, and validity (Bryman & Bell, 2015). On the other hand, qualitative researchers show some concerns regarding the relevance of these criteria when the measurement aspect is missing (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Thus, considering our qualitative research methodology, the criteria of authenticity and trustworthiness will be used to evaluate the weaknesses of our study (Bryman & Bell, 2015).
Methodology
55
In relation to authenticity (Bryman & Bell, 2015), we acknowledge that a possible weakness is represented by the fact that only a certain number of customers of the two specific pick-up points were interviewed. This means that readers might see a lack of transparency in the criteria we followed for our purposive sampling (Bryman & Bell, 2015). However, as previously discussed, we always selected participants based on fixed selection criteria and reasons related to our research purpose.
Regarding trustworthiness, it is made up of four criteria labeled as transferability, credibility, dependability and confirmability, each of which has a parallel criteria in quantitative research (Bryman & Bell, 2015). To begin with, we cannot ensure the transferability of our research findings [equivalent to the quantitative criteria of external validity (Bryman & Bell, 2015)]. In fact, our research is limited to only two pick-up points of the home furnishing industry which represent the only two examples of the new format under investigation, at the time of our research. Furthermore, the semi-structured interviews were conducted with a relatively small number of customers of the selected case study (i.e. IKEA). Thus, it is not possible to generalize our findings to other countries, sectors, formats or other pick-up points.
Concerning credibility [parallel to internal validity in quantitative research (Bryman & Bell, 2015)], it evaluates how plausible the researchers' findings are (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Since our study is based on interviews with only IKEA customers, our findings cannot be easily generalized, and they might only be credible within this narrow context. On the other hand, as previously mentioned, IKEA represents the leader in the home furnishing sector, and it is the only company who engaged in the development of the new pick-up point format to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, the lack of credibility can be justified by the uniqueness of the phenomenon studied.
In relation to dependability [equivalent to reliability in quantitative research (Bryman & Bell, 2015)], it helps to assess how reliable is the study for other researchers. Specifically, our study relied on documentation, direct observation of the format and semi-structured interviews in combination with video elicitation which, due to their qualitative nature, generate some concerns in terms of interviewee and interviewers possible biases (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Consequently, the reliability of our study could be questioned since the interviewers’ comments, non-verbal behavior or tone of voice were not easy to “audit” (Bryman & Bell, 2015), and might have generated bias in the interviewees’ responses (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).
However, throughout the process we maintained evidence of every step of our study from the problem formulation, to the literature review, the interviewees' selection criteria, the interview transcripts, and the data analysis decisions in order to reassure that our decisions and processes followed were clearly presented to the reader.
Moreover, on the interviewee side, bias deriving from personal reasons (i.e. relative dissatisfactions or satisfactions from the new pick-up format), and uncomfortable feelings in the interview's setting might have resulted in a partial picture of the situation studied (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). However, as already discussed, we did our best to create a pleasant and relaxing atmosphere by creating rapport with respondents and offering drinks and appetizers (i.e. “We are students from Lund University… there are no right or wrong answers… it is just a conversation to understand your anonymous opinions while enjoying some coffee together…). Furthermore, we always urged interviewees to be clear about their personal beliefs (i.e. “is your opinion based on a particular experience you had, or is it a general characteristic of this store?”). Another aspect affecting the dependability of our study might be our frame of reference and our interpretation and construction of questions (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Consequently, it is essential to take into account our ability in defining and asking questions, listening to answers (Sörgärde, 2016) and, in general, in conducting semi-structured interviews (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Specifically, we are Master students with no significant experience in interviewing. However, thanks to the use of an interview guide, the efforts we made in studying the chosen data collections techniques and our abductive approach (see Appendix 6), we are confident about our performances. Finally, all over the study and data collection we strived to report and analyse the customers’ opinions with a strong focus on the possible reliability (i.e. we always
Methodology
56
considered if the insights were bounded only to a specific interviewee’s situation, or if they were part of wider patterns). Furthermore, we audio-recorded all the interviews, and they are available for any future application or enquiry.
Lastly, with regards to confirmability [parallel to objectivity in quantitative research (Bryman & Bell, 2015)], it is hard to guarantee and prove that we did not allow theoretical inclinations and personal values “to sway the conduct of the research and findings deriving from it” (Bryman & Bell, 2015, p. 403). Moreover, the semi-structured interviews were held in English in both Tromsø (Norway) and Norwich (UK) and, thus, linguistic issues could be raised (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Specifically, it might be pointed out that English is neither Norwegians’ nor our first language. However, as previously discussed, all respondents we interviewed in Tromsø were fluent in English. Furthermore, we are both students of a well-respected Master taught in English, and the qualitative methods used allowed us to further explain questions/concepts whenever lack of clarity occurred. Finally, in order to increase the confirmability of our study, we always strived to prevent our theoretical inclinations and personal values to affect our judgments and general conduct of the research (i.e.
our analysis followed an abductive approach, which resulted in a significant importance given to customers’
insights, despite possible lack of connections with existing literature). In line with that, since we were two researchers working on this study, we utilized our intersubjectivity as a benefit to independently reflect on the various processes and, at the same time, exchange our thoughts in order to be more receptive and reduce biases. To conclude, we believe that, despite the above limitations and in line with our research purpose, our methodology choices enabled us to acknowledge the importance of individuals' perceptions of store image, and to gain a deeper understanding of the field under investigation.
With regards to the limits of a case study, we attempted to follow the directions suggested by Yin (1994).
Specifically, the author underlines the importance of using multiple-methods and source of evidence to increase the validity of a case study. Accordingly, we combined documentation, direct observation as well as a good number of interviews (i.e. 19, with an average duration of 42 minutes), and video-elicitation to guarantee a certain degree of data triangulation (Bryman & Bell, 2015). For example, store image attributes and dimensions were only coded if patterns and connections were identified among customers’ opinions and pick-up point’s characteristics, but also documentation and direct observation confirmation. Consequently, the triangulation of data also increase the accuracy and validity of our findings and conclusions (Yin, 1994).
However, as already mentioned before, we cannot certify the external validity of our study since this would have required to quantitatively test our findings, and replicate the study on other cases. Nonetheless, as already discussed in previous sections, IKEA pick-up points respected the criteria indicated by Yin (1994) in terms of suitability and importance of the case study.
Finally, another limitation might be the fact that we are not experts on the case study strategy and conducting some pilot beforehand is generally suggested (Yin, 1994). However, we did our best to overcome this problem by studying as much as possible methodology papers and textbooks before starting our research process.
In conclusion, the weaknesses and limitations of our research design that we discussed above are mostly related to its qualitative nature. Nevertheless, our study's methodology might find justification and support from the topic’s characteristics and purpose of the study (i.e. to explore the effect on store image of format development and, specifically, of the new pick-up point format in the home furnishing sector) (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). As already mentioned earlier, the new pick-up point format represents a special topic. In fact, it combines a set of characteristics (see “Arguments for the case study” at section 3.3.1) that results in a unique and new touchpoint for customers, which required us to “wear glasses again” to uncover its effect on store image. Furthermore, as proven by our new findings, previous stores’ image studies were neither fully transferrable to the new format that we studied since their focus was mainly on traditional formats and grocery sector, nor unquestionable in view of the sector and format specific nature of image.
Methodology
57
Thus, we believe that the overall benefit of flexibility deriving from our qualitative and abductive research counterbalanced the limitations previously discussed. In support of our point, Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) claim that overcoming the limitation of a qualitative approach “would not be realistic or feasible without undermining the strength of this type of research” (p. 328), which, instead, proved successfull to fulfil our purpose, answer the research questions and generate new knowledge.