The Argument for a Case Study Methodology

The researcher used a three year longitudinal single case study via participant observation. Phenomenology was the base methodology for this thesis but also utilised positivist approaches within the phenomenological framework. Based on this single case study methodology (Yin, 1994) quantitative methods were employed in the analysis and structure of the case study as follows:

1. The researcher was involved with the case study organisation via participant observation methodology.

2. The researcher was independent in conducting a quantitative study of CRM practices within 1244 New Zealand organisations.

3. Although a single case study was used in this research, a quantitative national survey of CRM practices and processes within New Zealand organisations and other electricity lines companies was used to provide a degree of external validity allowing the case study to be compared and contrasted with 16 of 24 industry peers and over 1244 other New Zealand organisations.

4. Drivers of CRM within the single case study organisation were identified while at the same time existing CRM theories were tested using the quantitative research.

5. Open ended in-depth interviews were used in the single case study as was a detailed review of current and historical documentation; in addition random quantitative sampling of New Zealand organisations was used to collect the 1244 organisations surveyed in the National CRM study.

6. Within this quantitative study, the researcher sought to validate or falsify the following hypothesis “all organisations utilise use CRM to the same degree”, “Unison’s CRM does NOT differ from other lines companies”, and “lines companies do not differ from other organisations using CRM”; at the same time theory developed by Reinartz et al. (2004) was verified.

As a result, the phenomenological approach to the research design benefited from the ability to achieve a degree to external validity using a positivist based quantitative

methodology. Table 4-7 below outlines issues considered in relation to reliability, validity and generalisability.

Table 4-7 Questions of Reliability, Validity and Generalisability

Positivist Viewpoint Phenomenological viewpoint Validity. Does an instrument measure what it is

supposed to measure?

Has the researcher gained full access to the knowledge and meanings of informants?

Reliability. Will the measure yield the same results on different occasions (assuming no real change in what is to be measured)?

Will similar observations be made by different researchers on different occasions?

Generalisability. What is the probability that patterns observed in a sample will also be present in the wider population from which the sample is drawn?

How likely IS it that ideas and theories generated in one setting will also apply in other settings?

(Easterby-Smith, et al., 1991 p. 41) 4.2.4 Using a Mixed Methodology

Case research is a very important methodology in the field of operations research (Voss, et al., 2002). Because much management research is based on rationalist research methods which utilises statistical survey analysis, the explanation of quantitative findings and the construction of theory based on those findings will ultimately be based on qualitative understanding (Meredith, 1998). As a result, the researcher used a mixture of qualitative case research and quantitative statistical analysis to understand more fully the nature of the CRM initiative being studied.

Leonard-Barton (1990 p. 250) state that “all research methods are seriously flawed – though each is flawed differently” therefore the challenge to the researcher was to “choose often to devise a set of research measures… that together work to transcend on all others methodological vulnerabilities (McGrath, 1982 p. 99). Leonard-Barton (1990 p. 250) highlights that in data gathering, real-time study and retrospective case methodologies have

compensatory strengths in efficiency and objectivity as follows:

1. Data Gathering

a. Efficiency. The more that the in-depth, real-time longitudinal study approximates a true ethnographic, participant-observation methodology, the more the researcher sacrifices efficiency for richness of data whereas most of the data for the

retrospective studies are gathered in two almost simultaneous phases.

b. Objectivity: In a real-time longitudinal study, the researcher is in danger of losing objectivity – of becoming too involved with the organisation, the people and the process. Whereas the examination of retrospective case data provided the researcher with the ability to review data objectively as reported by others at the time in question.

2. Establishing Validity

a. External validity: Multiple case studies on a given topic clearly have more external validity: i.e. generalisability, than does a single case, therefore the use of the CRM survey offers external validity (Leonard-Barton, 1990 p. 258).

b. Construct validity: if the multiple data sources yield similar results, they are evidence of a constructs convergent validity. If the construct as measured can be differentiated from other constructs, it also possesses discriminate validity (D. T.

Campbell & Fiske, 1959). The dual research methodology provided the researcher with better opportunities for construct validation than either design would alone.

c. Internal validity: Cause and effect. One of the greatest advantages of the dual methodologies derives from the ability to move back and forth between the two, formulating theory in one setting and then immediately placing the embryonic ideas in the context of the other kind of study for potential disconfirmation. This cutting and pasting of ideas is particularly useful in establishing internal validity, for the combination of the two types of case studies provide better evidence for hypothesis about causal relationships between variables that either could have alone.

According to Leonard-Barton (1990 p. 250) two sets of advantages are obtained from combining the longitudinal real-time study with the replicated historical cases as follows:

1. Specific strengths in the data-gathering process for each method that compensated for some particular lack or weakness in the other and,

2. Complimentary approaches in each method that, because of the synergy obtained by combining the two, enhanced three kinds of validity: external, construct and internal (Leonard-Barton, 1990 p. 255).

The researcher, in consideration of the above, used aspects of both longitudinal and retrospective methodologies while researching the single case study. Using aspects of Leonard-Barton (1990 p. 250) mixed methodology the synergistic integration of these two dimensions are as follows:

1. Case Study Methodology: A case study is a history of a past or current phenomenon, drawn from multiple sources of evidence. It can include data from direct observation and systematic interviewing as well as from public and private archives. In fact, any fact relevant to the stream of events describing the phenomenon is a potential datum

2. Longitudinal Study: The most significant limitation to wholly retrospective research is the difficulty of determining cause and effect from reconstructed events. Moreover, although studies have shown that the participants in organisational processes do not forget key events in these processes as readily as one might suppose (Huber, 1985), the participant-informant in a wholly retrospective study might not recall it

afterwards. Therefore, whereas multiple retrospective studies increase the external validity or research design, a longitudinal, real-time study can increase internal validity be enabling one to track cause and effect.

As a result of this approach, three research outcomes were achieved, as presented in the Table 4-8 below:

Table 4-8 Chapter 4 Research Outcomes

Outcome Explanation

1. Examination and presentation of the case study CRM practices.

This answers the many CRM related questions raised from the literature review as presented in chapter 3.

2. Conducting, analysing and subsequent findings of the case study stakeholder survey.

This allowed the researcher to address the CRM assumptions and subsequent hypotheses that Customers want a relationship with suppliers of products or services; that good service increases the level of emotional bond between customer and supplier.

3. Conducting, analysis and finding of the National CRM Survey.

This allowed the researcher to address the CRM assumption and subsequent hypotheses that CRM is a process or practice that all organisations to some degree either engage in or should engage in.

In summary, the researcher undertook a three year longitudinal single case study via participant observation. In describing the CRM initiative, retrospectively reviewed past company documentation and archival material to gain an insight into the antecedents of the CRM initiative being investigated. This provided an examination of historical initiatives and described their evolution to their current form and nature (current referring to their form and structure over the three years of the longitudinal study).

Having discussed the philosophical issues involved in determining an appropriate methodology and some of the specifics of the research methodology, the researcher will now define the nature of the case study methodology. Table 4-9 below presents an overview of how this will be achieved.

Table 4-9 Defining the Nature of the Case Study Methodology

Heading Explanation

What is a case study? Defines what a case study is.

When to use the approach. Outlines appropriate situations to use a case study methodology.

Types of case study approaches. Presents four types of case study approaches.

Chosen approach. Present the researchers chosen approach.

Single case study methodology. Discusses issues associated with single or multiple case study approaches.

Single or multiple respondents’

viewpoints.

Discusses issues associated with determining how many viewpoints should be used in the case study approach.

Once the nature of the case study methodology has been addressed, the researcher will discuss issues associated with case study data collection and presented in Table 4-10 below.

Table 4-10 Case Study Data Collection Issues

Heading/topic Explanation

Data collection. Presents six sources of physical evidence.

Construct Validity. Discusses issues relating to the extent to which the researcher establishes correct operational measures for the concepts being studies.

Internal validity. Discusses the extent to which the researcher established a causal relationship whereby certain conditions are shown to lead to other conditions.

External validity. Discusses issues of generalisation beyond the single case study.

Reliability. Discusses the extent to which the researchers operations can be repeated with the same results.

Participant observation.

Outlines the opportunities and disadvantages for collecting case study data.

4.3 Case Study Methodology