Taking a Qualitative, Case Study Approach

A qualitative case study approach was determined as most appropriate for this study given the paradigm discussion above, the research question and the literature examined.

73

Qualitative research is distinct from quantitative research in that it positions the

researcher within the context or natural setting, and through this develops an holistic, in-depth picture. McCracken (1988) notes, “qualitative research does not survey the terrain, it mines it. It is, in other words, much more intensive than extensive in its objectives”

(p.17). Creswell (1998) defines qualitative research as follows:

Qualitative research is an inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human problem. The researcher builds a complex, holistic picture, analyses words, reports, detailed views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting. (p.15)

Denzin & Lincoln (2005) put forward a similar definition, but bring the reader into the picture noting that through qualitative research, the researcher makes “the world visible”

(p.3).

4.2.1 Qualitative Research In Light of the Research Question As noted above, qualitative methods are most appropriate when exploring a social or human problem, and when an holistic picture is required to be painted for the audience.

This is consistent with this study‟s purpose. The main research question for this study is:

How do companies make decisions when considering arts sponsorship? It has been noted that organisational decisions may involve a number of people and therefore occur in a social setting. Greater understanding of this social situation and the intricacies of the decision will be best understood if the researcher directly enquires about the processes. In addition, the potentially complex processes of “how” companies make these decisions may only be understood well if an holistic picture is painted.

Authors have also given researchers more specific guidelines of when to conduct qualitative research. Creswell (2003) advises researchers to consider three things when making a choice: the research problem, their own personal experiences and the audience.

In terms of the research problem, Creswell suggests qualitative research is appropriate especially when the question asks “how” or “what”. This is in agreement with the research question concerned. Creswell and others also note that qualitative research is useful in theory building, as in this study. Qualitative research is useful when the topic

74

needs to explored, when “variables cannot be easily identified, theories are not available to explain behaviour of participants or their population of study, and theories need to be developed” (Creswell, 1998, p. 17). Qualitative studies are “often mounted to explore a new area and to build or emerge a theory about it” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 90), and

“they have often been advocated as the best strategy for discovery, exploring a new area”

(p.12). As noted in the literature review, there is sufficient information to identify a gap and provide some direction for research, but there is not enough information to generate hypotheses. Based on this criterion, qualitative research is again supported.

Within qualitative research there are a number of methodologies which may be employed (Creswell, 1998), one of which is the case study. As a qualitative, multiple case study approach will be taken in this research, further exploration of case-study research now follows.

4.2.2 Justification for Case-Study Research

In this investigation a case-study approach was considered the best research method given the research question as well as the literature reviewed. Case-study research allows the researcher to investigate a situation, event or issue within a context and

“focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 534). Yin (2003) notes,

The case study method allows investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events – such as individual life cycles, organizational and managerial processes, neighbourhood change, international relations, and the maturation of industries. (p. 2)

Yin further states that the case study method is preferred if the question is a “how” or

“why” question, the researcher has no control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context. The study proposed here meets these criteria.

In terms of theory building, the use of case studies is also recommended by Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007). These authors propose that cases are more likely to generate novel theory and creative insight, more likely to result in theory which is “testable with

75

constructs that can be readily measured and hypotheses that can be proven false”

(Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 547), and more likely to generate empirically valid theory. Yin also notes the relevance of case studies to theory building and suggests that this should be the purpose of case studies:

Case studies … are generalizable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or universes. . . your goal will be to expand and generalize theories (analytic generalization) and not to enumerate frequencies (statistical generalization)” (Yin, 2003, p. 10).

Therefore, the case study is an appropriate method in this investigation on a number of fronts. Firstly, consistent with the argument for qualitative research, a case study

approach allows for an in-depth examination of people and processes within their natural setting, here, the organisational context. Secondly, this study is theory building. While there is some knowledge on aspects surrounding arts sponsorship, there is not enough information to develop hypotheses. In this sense also, a case approach is useful.

It is also important to note the drawbacks and criticisms to a case study approach. Due in large part to the vast quantity of data which results from a case study, researchers are cautioned to be aware of developing overly complex theory which is rich in detail but lacking in simplicity; or, alternatively, theory which is too narrow (Eisenhardt, 1989).

Recommendations are thus given to researchers to be rigorous, thorough and systematic in the literature review, research design, data collection and data analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003). Guidance and recommendations by these and other authors (such as Stake, 1995) have therefore been taken into account in this study.

Examining the existing sponsorship and philanthropy literature also suggests there is opportunity to approach this question using a qualitative case study method, especially in gathering data from multiple informants, from both sides of the dyad. A summary of these studies is contained in Appendix 4, and will be explored in the following.

In the sponsorship literature there is evidence of the benefits of a case study approach and in gaining responses from both sides of the relationship. Some studies have taken a similar approach, illustrating the value in this, although these studies concerned sports sponsorship (for example, Farrelly and Quester, 2003), or were concerned with a

longer-76

term relationship rather than the initial decision (Ryan and Fahy, 2003; Olkkonen, 2002).

However it is also noted that many studies in the sponsorship literature focus on the company rather than the dyad, many use surveys and secondary data, and the majority study sports sponsorship and use a single informant. This is understandable in many contexts, with difficulties acknowledged in seeking out multiple informants. However, this suggests that case-based research across the dyad and gathering data from multiple informants would be illuminating.

In the philanthropy literature there is a much stronger trend towards quantitative methods and the use of secondary data. Of the 25 studies noted, 20 were quantitative and 14 of these used secondary data such as income tax statistics. In addition, the focus in the philanthropy research has been to study the giving company, with only two studies having considered the dyad. Finally, when gathering data, researchers have tended to use single informants. Based on the philanthropy literature, interviews of the dyad, within a case approach and qualitative methodology appear to be lacking.

Therefore, the methodology selected here may also be justified based on the examination of studies noted in philanthropy and sponsorship literature. In terms of understanding a company‟s decision to support the arts, a deeper, richer picture needs to be painted, which may be achieved using a case approach and multiple informants from both sides of the relationship. This both addresses the question and addresses a methodological gap in the literature.

Given that this study is also informed by OBB literature, research from this area were also examined. Here again opportunity is evident for qualitative case study research. This is an approach suggested by Silk and Kalwani (1982), who called for more descriptive qualitative statistics in the industrial purchasing literature. These authors attempted to measure influence in organisational purchase decisions, and found conflicting results:

they found that consensus was high for who was involved in the decision, but low for how much influence individuals commanded. Respondents tended to attribute more influence to themselves than other respondents did. This highlights a potential limitation in quantitative and/or single informant research, where respondents may misrepresent their or others‟ influence. This also suggests that rich data may be obtained through multiple informants.

77

Wind and Thomas (1980) also call for research using multiple informants, suggesting specifically that research engage in circular sampling, where each interviewee indicates another person to interview, who is then interviewed and then may suggest another key informant. Multiple informants are suggested by these and other authors, and have been studied (Drumwright, 1994; Krapfel, 1985; Pettigrew, 1975; Wind & Robertson, 1982), but there is little evidence of this approach within the CCI literature.

Given the research question, the suitability of the design and opportunity apparent within the literature, a qualitative study, using a case approach and gathering data via multiple informants from both sides of the dyad was designed. Multiple informants for each case were sought using snowballing. To further reinforce that such an approach could yield insight, a small selection of articles published in the Journal of Marketing were

examined, each of which dealt with decision-making in an organisational context, cited Eisenhardt (1989), reported on a theory-building study and used qualitative methods (Drumwright, 1994; Gilly & Wolfinbarger, 1998; Narayandas & Rangan, 2004). These studies gave an indication of “acceptable numbers” but also illustrate the value and use of multiple informants to contribute a better understanding of organisational processes.⁶ The remainder of this chapter will explore this method in more detail, including the definition and selection of cases, the data collection process and data analysis.