COMARCAL Y SU RELACIÓN CON EL RELIEVE

In order to obtain data that would help with the third objective, it was axiomatic to research organisations within the industry. The lack of literature prevented a grounded research approach which was excluded as methodology. The researcher was fortunate that synchronously with the start of this inquiry, several pipfruit organisations started

implementing Lean. As the lack of Lean organisations at the start of this inquiry precluded a quantitative method, the methodological options were restricted to qualitative methods. This suited the inquiry, as Lean is probing intangible aspects of organisations such as vision,

leadership, engagement and culture. These elements are difficult to measure and a qualitative approach was decided to be more suitable to obtain rich data without requiring a large sample. A qualitative inquiry obtains a deeper understanding, and the small number of companies engaging in Lean suited the selection of a qualitative methodology to achieve objective 3.

3.5.1.1. Options within qualitative research methodology

Relatively few options are available within qualitative research; these include grounded theory and ethnography, as well as case study and action research. Ethnography was not

Page 129 of 372

considered a practical solution as it would engage the researcher wholly, while grounded theory was considered possible but impractical due to lack of data. One of the problems encountered was that at the very start of this inquiry, no known organisations engaged in Lean. For this reason, the only option to research Lean in the pipfruit industry appeared to be action research, where the researcher can engage with a willing organisation that intends to adopt a new paradigm. Two such organisations were found, one being an orchard group and one being a packhouse. The emergence of two packhouse organisations that had unbeknown to the researcher started to implement Lean at the time of start of the inquiry offered the researcher the opportunity to engage with these two companies as case studies. It appeared therefore that action research, combined with case study would offer the best opportunity to collect rich data from different implementation methods to achieve the third objective. These two options are now expounded after discussing measurement instruments and the protocol .

3.5.1.2. Measurement instruments used

Because the action research orchard and packhouse—as well as the two case study

packhouses—started implementing Lean at the start of this inquiry, it offered an opportunity to measure progress during the course of the inquiry. The researcher considered the

measurement instruments from the literature review and selected the Tapping et al (2002) instrument as applicable and reasonably easy to understand by the research companies. The research companies were asked to complete a self-assessment at the start of their Lean programme; again after one year and again at the end of the second season which was the end of the research period.

During the course of the investigation, the research orchards and packhouses expressed curiosity about their standing in relation to the industry and asked to complete the industry survey at similar intervals to relate their position to the wider industry. This would add data and was promptly added to the protocol.

3.5.1.3.Researcher embeddedness inside the research

Lean as a socio-technical system involves people in their environment. The researcher was in a unique position, knowing both the industry and being a student of Lean. As Lean is

Page 130 of 372

significantly people-oriented, involvement of the researcher in studying Lean by engaging with the people attempting to adopt Lean was imperative.

Accordingly, the researcher recognised the possibility of active and passive bias (Onwuegbuzie, 2003), respectively the effect of the researcher on the people being

researched and the reverse. Miles and Huberman (1994) called this ‘Bias A’ (the effect of the researcher on the participants) and ‘Bias B’ (the effect of the participants on the research er). Researcher bias is a very common threat to legitimation in constructivist research because the researcher usually serves as the person (i.e., instrument) collecting the data (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2006). Guba recommends insulating the researcher e.g. by double blind

procedures (Guba, 1981), however this was not a possibility. Instead, the researcher used standard methodologies to ensure that the research was not contaminated by bias; these included the protocol design, offering transcripts to participants for feedback and discussing discoveries with participants. Safeguards to mitigate researcher bias are discussed in the trustworthiness section and the effect of the embeddedness of the researcher is repeated in the limitations to the inquiry.

3.5.1.4. The protocol; providing guidance and consistency

Case study requires strict protocols in order to provide robust research results (Yin, 2009). Stake (2013) and Yin (2009) observe that use of a protocol ensures accuracy. The case study protocol follows a number of considerations. Yin (2009) emphasises the importance of researcher preparation and protocol design before the actual data collection phase starts. In case of multiple researchers, the protocol gives guidance to each researcher and will result in reliable findings across researchers based on consistent research questions and aims. In addition, and particularly in case of a single researcher—as is the case in this inquiry—a protocol ensures that the researcher stays ‘on track’ and firmly focuses on the rese arch questions and the way in which his research will be analysed and reported (Yin, 2009). The protocol for the case study phase of the research project provides guidance for the following:

1. Basic information: Establishing the case study questions and propositions including validity and reliability considerations.

Page 131 of 372

2. Data collection procedures: Identification of research subjects and decisions such as who to interview, an interview guideline, what to observe, and the evidence, documents and artefacts to collect.

3. Proposed analysis and method: Establishing the units of measurement and analytical techniques to link data to propositions.

4. Proposed report structure: Organising data and analysis while collecting data. The protocol used for the case studies is attached as appendix 9