Quality assurance of the research process plays an important role in research to assure that the results generated provide evidence based on common quality standards and the findings are worth considering as a contribution to the body of knowledge (Golafshani, 2003). The discussion about which criteria are applicable across the different research strategies has not found common grounds (Flick, 2007; Golafshani, 2003). However, Yin (2009) emphasises the importance of standardized quality consideration when conducting case studies and qualitative research, such as validity and reliability. However it is questionable whether these two quality characteristics are applicable to qualitative research (Golafshani, 2003). Quality measures are required from both, quantitative and qualitative research strategies, but the approach, how to meet them is as different as the philosophical paradigms and the methodologies themselves differ (Bryman & Bell, 2011). In other words, the data, the analysis, interpretation and conclusions drawn upon follow different procedures and processes. The analysis in quantitative research primarily
focusses on quantifiable, measurable evidence, applying mathematical methods to replicate and test the process and the results (Creswell, 2009). Qualitative research aims to understand the phenomenon in a real-world setting, not isolating elements of the investigated unit and the researcher, but including the whole unit and the researcher to understand the phenomenon in its complexity (Creswell, 2009). This means the narrative and interpretative process of qualitative research itself is the method to justify reliable results. Following Golafshani (2003) for both qualitative and quantitative research strategies, in order to meet quality standards, the researcher has to apply defined procedures to ensure reliability and validity of the analysis, interpretations and conclusions. A general requirement is to follow a consistent, systematic and methodological research process that is precisely documented (Bryman & Bell, 2011; Creswell, 2009; Flick, 2007; Yin, 2009). This starts with the research question and the unit of investigation, the selection of appropriate methods, planning the research, collecting data and applying appropriate methods of analysis (Bryman & Bell, 2011; Creswell, 2009). Qualitative research shares no direct comparison with quantitative quality characteristics, such as generalizability or external validity, consistency and stability of the results (Creswell, 2009). Therefore, the qualitative researcher follows other criteria and procedures to meet the quality standards of validity and reliability.
Reliability starts with the collected data such as interviews, the main portion of data utilized for this thesis and the transcripts. The researcher should check the data carefully against writing errors, while transferring audio information to transcripts (Creswell, 2009; Silverman, 2011). Another quality measure is to follow a defined coding procedure, which aims to keep the meaning and definitions of categories consistent and to make sure they are properly linked to the statements, words and paragraphs (Creswell, 2009).
The coding method applied in this thesis was based on an analysis that focuses on meaning following the steps of defining keywords on text passages of the transcripts. In addition, categorization and meaning condensation to structure the data and a critical interpretation of the meaning of what was said in the interviews following Kvale and Brinkmann (2015). The process was supported by the computer program NVivo, which offered consistency checking over the complete coding stack. Accuracy of the findings is another quality requirement of validity to be achieved by of the researcher.
Creswell (2009) describes several validity strategies to assure the accuracy of the findings. Triangulation, which was applied to this research, added to the validity of the research by using different sources of information from different perspective and documentary sources to support the evidence (Creswell, 2009; Golafshani, 2003). This research used semi-structured interviews and
documentary information from the investigated sites about their history, business model, hierarchical and cultural aspects. This allowed comparing perceived internal structures and cultures of an organization with what was published or perceived outside the organization. In other words, contradicting answers in the interviews were questioned, but also showed that real-life culture, power distribution and processes of decision-making may differ from how they are perceived.
Self-reflection about bias of the findings related to the researcher’s biography, culture and the field he or she comes from allows the researcher to reflect how the results are constructed. This means to what extent the researcher is able to construct the reality that is reflected in the constructed reality of the investigated (Flick, 2007). In addition, the discussion about these possible biases provides the reader with an understanding of issues about interpretation and if the findings are applicable to other social settings (Creswell, 2009). A discussion about contrary results that may occur during the research could convey that the research took place in a real setting that could contradict with the expected results. One of the most important measures to increase validity of the findings is to have a supervisor, who critically assesses and audits the findings, provides feedback about the reasoning and the conclusions and examines if the researcher followed the defined procedures (Bryman & Bell, 2011). A comprehensive explanation of the findings and the setting in which they were produced is another measure to increases validity; because the reader is able to follow the context the research was conducted and allows further discussions about the results. Yin (2009) adds four additional approaches to increase the quality of the analysis, including covering the research question and providing clear interpretation and using the available evidence. If rival interpretations exist about the findings they should be addressed either to explain why they appear or if they are not rival there should be a recommendation for future research. In addition, the analysis should focus on the primary issue of a case study, because avoidance of the main issue could be interpreted as the researcher avoiding discussing contradictory findings. Finally, the experience about the topic of the study could increase the quality of the findings because relevant parameters are identified by expert knowledge of the researcher providing an in-depth understanding about the investigated unit (Yin, 2009).
In qualitative research, the researcher determines the quality of the findings because he or she is part of the inquiry, following the philosophical paradigm of constructionism. In other words, the awareness about construction of reality, the bias this may cause, and the measures to cope with them improve the quality of a research. In addition, a comprehensive explanation of how the research was conducted, why it was conducted, what are the results and how the findings are derived, are the key factors of the quality assurance. The
criteria described above were applied in this research in order to provide the level of validity and reliability required to comply with the common standards of qualitative inquires.