Research strategy

This section characterizes the existing research strategies, individually discusses their compatibility to the interpretive research approach and the research questions.

Every research strategy is associated with either a more positivist or a more interpretivist epistemological background. Strategies that would not fit to the epistemological

background of this research are e.g., an experimental strategy, a survey strategy, or even action research.

Experimental strategy

The experimental strategy has its roots in the natural and medical sciences but is rare in business and management research. Its epistemological background of objectivism determines a high precision regarding the design of conditions. The classic experimental strategy involves random assignment to an experimental group and a control group. The manipulation of one condition (variable) in one group to make a comparison to the control group with unchanged conditions shall then lead to insights.

Survey strategy

The survey research gives a quantitative and numeric description regarding the trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population. It comprises a cross-sectional strategy, which means that data is collected on more than one case at a single point in time. It shall be noted that a cross-sectional strategy does not necessarily determine a quantitative research design. When a researcher is epistemologically orientated towards interpretivism, a cross-sectional strategy can also be combined with a qualitative design, whose typical form could be an in- depth or semi-structured interview. In the end, a cross-sectional design entails the

collection of quantifiable data with two or more variables to detect patterns of association.

Action research

Action research assumes continually changing social phenomena, thus the researcher needs to be part of the changing process. One objective of the action researcher is the

transformation of the organization to improve and learn about it. The underlying

epistemology of some forms of action research is located between positivism and realism.

The previously mentioned research strategies do not suit either the epistemological background of this research project or the mono-method research design mainly due to their quantitative elements and their claim of generalizability. Particularly, action research

does not apply as the research questions do not refer to a changing process but explore the unknown aspects of the pricing process.

Strategies that rather fit to the interpretive epistemological background of this research are e.g., archival research, interpretive phenomenology, grounded theory, or a case study design.

Archival research

Archival research uses the existing actual or historical data like e.g., administrative records, government reports, or annual reports from companies. As archival research makes use of secondary data collected for other purposes, answering the research questions might be constrained by not containing the precise information or being censored due to confidentiality. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the available data quality before determining the research strategy. Archival research tends towards interpretivism when the words are in focus of the existing data.

As the focus of this research project is on the individual experiences of pricing managers and their views on the critical success factors in the internal and external pricing process, the researcher does not consider archival research appropriate to reach a satisfactory and exploratory rich outcome. Motivational aspects are neither part of decision documentation nor can they be concluded from the price strategy and the prices decided.

Phenomenological research

Phenomenological research strategy means that the researcher identifies the essence of human experiences about a phenomenon and tries to understand those lived experiences deeply (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Ensuring a clear understanding, the researcher needs to take a detached position when studying a smaller number of subjects. Although certain biases like assumptions or preconceptions appear inevitable, the researcher needs to at least explain those biases and integrate them into the research findings.

The researcher does not consider the phenomenological research approach appropriate for this research project as the researcher’s detached position would not give him personal access to the pricing manager’s individual experience, and that is what makes the difference. As epistemologically justified in section 3.1, the researcher’s identity is

relevant to gain access and gather information on the influencing factors and the pricing managers’ motivations as the personal dialogue determines the outcome.

Grounded theory

Grounded theory as a methodological strategy describes the process of creating a theory that was derived from data, which is systematically gathered and analysed. Thus, theory and data analysis stand in close relationship to each other (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Glaser and Strauss (1967) first formulated grounded theory as a development of theory through a precisely articulated comparative method by examining an event or process in different settings and situations. Subsequently, different versions of grounded theory were

developed by each of them, which are based on different ontological and epistemological perspectives. In comparison to Glaser (1992), who supports a rather positivist

epistemology, and Corbin and Strauss (2008), who epistemologically tend towards a weak positivist position, especially Charmaz (2005) takes the most interpretive stance. Her epistemological perspective emphasizes the interaction between the researcher and the subject rather than the researcher and the data; she criticizes that other epistemological stances of grounded theory neglect individual experiences during analysis by

systematically splitting them into fragments, thus not representing the whole experience of the subjects.

What makes grounded theory inappropriate for this research project is its purpose to develop theory by a comparative method. This controverts the additional value of

determining the way that people interpret their social world by leading a dialogue and gain access to exclusive information. Practically, the implementation of a grounded theory strategy conducted by a comparative method seems difficult regarding the research quality as the quantitative character of this approach lacks a sufficient number of pricing managers in the IT services sector being able to share their experiences.

Case study

A case study explores the research topic in one or more real-life contexts. The advantage of a case study is that the boundaries of the research phenomenon and its context are not necessarily congruent. Epistemologically, this absence of limitations in a case study is considered an additional benefit, being able to enlarge the horizon of study beyond the

context. In contrast, e.g., an experimental or a survey strategy, which consider a high number of variables as a threat to the validity of the results, limit the ability to understand the context to the number of variables (Yin, 2018).

Yin (2018) distinguishes between two discrete dimensions of strategies: firstly, single case versus multiple case, and secondly, holistic case versus embedded case.

A single case study is used when a case is critical or considered as unique and typical, e.g., the study of an organization. A multiple case study is performed to replicate the findings across cases, a so-called literal replication. Epistemologically, a single case study orientates rather towards interpretivism whereas a multiple case study tends towards positivism. A more intermediate position between positivism and interpretivism is taken by Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007), who recommend using established case study strategies, collecting data through mixed-methods, and finally conducting analysis through both, single case and multiple case studies.

The second dimension distinguishes between holistic case and embedded case, which refers to the unit of analysis. That means that e.g., an organization can either be treated as a whole or as a composition of sub-units like departments (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2015). Within a case study, the case is an object of interest with its own claim of which the researcher aims to provide an in-depth insight. What distinguishes the case study from a cross-sectional strategy (e.g., survey) is the claim to lighten the unique features of the case (idiographic approach) in contrast to generating statements that apply regardless of time and place (nomothetic approach) (Bryman & Bell, 2015).

What makes the case study strategy appropriate and interesting for this research is its epistemological orientation towards interpretivism when focussing on a single case, namely the IT services sector. Exploring a real-life context and being able to enlarge the horizon of study beyond the context due to the absence of limitations to a fixed number of research variables emphasizes the explorative character of the research questions and the aim of highlighting the unique features of the case. The second discrete dimension is preferred to be considered an embedded case. This should be understood in the way that every pricing manager shall be considered as a separate unit of its own regarding the analysis. As previously stated (see section 3.1), the interpretive approach appreciates every

single opinion, practical experience, and especially underrepresented ideas, and shall provide an individual in-depth insight. The aim is rather to get a manifold picture and stimulate the practitioner’s reflection than to draw conclusions that refer to an

organizational structure.