Research Methodology and Methods

To develop understanding of process improvement and organisational learning, where relationships and content are not fully understood, research that enables descriptions, mapping of processes and building relationships is necessary (Handfield and Melnyk 1998, p.324). McCutcheon and Meredith (1993), Meredith (1998), Stuart et al. (2002) and Yin (2009) highlight that case-based research is appropriate and necessary for answering such ‘how’ and ‘why’ research questions. Case study based research is consistent with a pragmatic ontology and interpretivist epistemology (Saunders et al. 2007) necessary for undertaking exploratory research into process improvement. By taking the firm as the unit of analysis, a holistic analysis of each firm will allow a more representative depiction of the firm as a whole that accounts for the views of a number of individuals (Yin 2009).

67

A pragmatic worldview suggests the need for a research methodology that is able to make use of multiple forms of data. Case studies represent an appropriate research methodology, being able to draw from both objective and subjective forms of data that can include observational, interview, archival, numerical and publically available forms of data, helping locate the research within the contemporary environment (Stake 2005). Stuart et al. (2002) and Radnor (2001) considered this aspect of case studies important for improving reliability of findings and enabling a degree of triangulation between different types of data (Jick 1979). From an interpretivist perspective, case studies based primary on interview data are considered most appropriate (Meredith 1998). Interviews allow the development of understanding of the world from the subjects’ point of view (Kvale and Brinkman 2009). This view is consistent with Stuart et al. (2002), who stated that “the

most important data come from analyzing and interpreting what individuals are trying to say” (p.427). Interviews allow interaction with practitioners to discuss the processes that

are in place and how practitioners interact with them, that will be necessary for addressing the three research questions.

Holstein and Gubrium (2004) considered that emphasising facts alone was like viewing an interview as simply a knowledge pipeline, through which knowledge was extracted as interviewees answered defined, survey style questions. Stuart et al. (2002) even highlighted that tightly defined interview protocols may get in the way of collecting the best information (p.425). Kvale and Brinkman (2009, p.48) defined this as perceiving the interviewer as a miner, extracting valuable knowledge in an unaltered form. Unless the construct/phenomena under investigation was well understood, with very little ambiguity between the researcher and the subject, misinterpretation of data was considered likely. Handfield and Melnyk (1998) highlighted the importance of matching research techniques with the nature of the research problem.

Section 2.2 presented the wide range of perspectives on, definitions and aspects of process improvement. Section 2.4 outlined the range of models of organisational learning employed within operations management. To account for the wide-range of definitions, testing posits related to process improvement or organisational learning was considered inappropriate within initial stages of the research. Instead discussions need to be initiated

68

in a manner that allowed interview candidates to discuss these topics in their own terms related to their own experiences (Miller and Glassner 2004). Also researching organisational learning in SMEs, Zhang et al. (2006) asked questions about specific episodes to initiate discussions. This is considered important within interpretivist research, to move away from standard or rehearsed responses to questions (Radnor 2001, p.103) and reduce bias associated with posing leading questions (Kvale and Brinkman 2009, p.301). For example, practitioners may consider process improvement as the application of quality management tools by quality professionals as presented in section 2.2. Defined questions on process improvement may elicit rehearsed responses about interviewees’ knowledge of quality tools, which may provide limited value for addressing exploratory research questions.

To address the potential risks of misinterpretation when not asking defined, unambiguous interview questions, there is a need for an active approach to interviewing, where shared understanding of topics is created during the data collection process (Holstein and Gubrium 2004). Within this setting, common examples can provide a means of ensuring topics have been correctly understood by the interviewer or interviewee, which can help improve the reliability of data (Radnor 2001, p.108). A structured interview, with defined interview questions would not allow the development of shared understanding, so increasing the risk of misunderstanding of interview topics.

Crotty (2003) highlighted the need for consistent epistemology, theoretical perspective, methodology and methods. The approaches selected for the current research are the highlighted elements of Table 3.1, showing consistency between them. The selection of research methods is also shown to be appropriate with consideration of Saunders et al.’s (2007) “Research Design Onion” (Figure 3.1). As the research progresses and understanding is developed about process improvement and organisational learning by addressing research question 1 and 2, the research will become more deductive in nature (demonstrated by the arrows). However, efforts were made to manage the interplay between theory and context, to allow for inductive insight during the deductive stages of the research. The approach reflects the types of case studies McCutcheon and Meredith (1993) described where “the researcher may take an

69

interpretive approach in understanding and explaining the data or a more positivist approach” (p.244). This was operationalized by the exploratory phase focusing upon

developing understanding of operational processes and practices of practitioners. The confirmatory phase then attempted to determine the relevance of the researcher’s externally developed perspective on process improvement to operational practices within other firms.

Table 3.1: Relating the four elements of research design together, (adapted from Crotty 2003; p5)

Epistemology Theoretical Perspective Methodology Methods

Objectivism

Positivism (and post-

positivism) Experimental research Sampling

Constructionism Interpretivism Survey research Measurement and scaling

Subjectivism - Symbolic interactionism Ethnography Questionnaire

(and their variants) - Phenomenology Phenomenological research Observation

Etc. Grounded theory -Participant

Action research - Non-participant

Etc. Interviews Focus Group Case study Narrative Comparative analysis Interpretative methods Etc.

70

Figure 3.1: The Research Onion (adapted from Saunders et al. 2008, p102)

The exploratory phase of the research was primarily inductive, focusing on discovering, describing and mapping process improvement practices in order to identify and explore relationships (McCutcheon and Meredith 1993; Handfield and Melnyk 1998). While process improvement practices were explored, the frameworks presented within Table 2.3 provided a means of assessing the relative applicability of the different organisational learning frameworks. This highlights aspects of a deductive research appropriate for addressing research question 2, but still aiming to develop understanding of the relative applicability of the different models of organisational learning. Established theoretical frameworks were considered to provide construct validity for this element of the exploratory phase (McCutcheon and Meredith 1993, p245).

Following the exploratory phase of the research, the confirmatory stage gave greater emphasis to confirmation and deduction. By taking a more positivist approach to collecting and analysing data, it was possible to confirm the findings from research questions 1 and 2, and allow finer-grained analysis from addressing research question 3. This approach guides the research as a whole towards an abductive research approach (Järvensivu and Törnroos 2010) that is both inductive and deductive, which is broadly consistent with an interpretivist approach to research.

` Realism Interpretivism Objectivism Subjectivism Pragmatism Functionalist Interpretive Radical humanist Radical structuralist Inductive Deductive Experiment Case Study Action Research Grounded Theory Ethnography Archival Records Mono method Mixed method Multi methods Cross Sectional Longitudinal Positivism Survey Abductive Data Collection and Data Analysis

71