As stated by Mouton (1996:107), a research design or strategy is “the set of guidelines and instructions to be followed in addressing the research problem”.
Creswell (2007:10), Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) and Yin (2009:8) identify the following as research strategies: case study, investigative journalism, action, critical enquiry, surveys, experiments, action research, grounded theory, and history and archival research.
This study adopted a case study strategy which involves investigating a particular individual, group, program, entity or event (case) in depth for a defined period of time (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010).
Yin (2009) expresses the view that a case study is a practical investigation that explores a contemporary observable fact in depth and within its real life
48
circumstance in particular when the confines between phenomenon and background are not clearly set out. Yin (2009) adds that case studies are used when the related performance cannot be controlled (in which case factors and case studies are used to provide the basis for scientific solutions). Thomas (2003), Yin (2009) and Leedy and Ormrod (2010) concur on their definition by emphasising that the foci (individuals, groups, organisations, events and concerns) must be indicated.
However, only Yin among these scholars is clearly highlighting the significance of the contemporary phenomenon by mentioning it.
The reason for using a case study for this research is because of the researcher’s intention to explore and understand factors affecting the agility and implementation of BPM at a FETC. One advantage of using a case study according to Thomas (2003) and Yin (2009) is that it allows one to use a variety of factors to come up with distinctive make-up of the organisation (in this case a FETC) being studied.
Additionally, case studies can respond to questions such as ‘why?’, ‘how?’, ‘so?’
and ‘as what?’ Moreover, case studies deal with functional connections, necessitating the mapping of data collected over time (thus, not absolute incidences) and are more explanatory although it decreases the utility when mappings are too long and unreadable (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009; Yin, 2009). Case studies enable the researcher to benefit from previous theories and propositions in data collection and analysis (Thomas, 2003). Flyvbjerg (2006) draws attention to the main misunderstandings surrounding case studies, which makes society look down upon them. Some of the misunderstandings are that case studies are useful at the initial stage of the entire research process and in generating hypotheses, while other methods are used for hypothesis testing and theory building. Case studies are also misunderstood as being there to confirm the researchers’ predetermined notion of the case being studied. A further misunderstanding is the belief that one cannot generalise on a single case study. To counter the misunderstanding, Yin (2009) states that one should not mistake using case study to teach or conducting research using case studies until one has learnt about its strengths and weaknesses. Commencement with research should be avoided until the researcher has thoroughly studied the strengths and weaknesses of case studies. These counter guidelines are needed because there are researchers who do not scientifically follow the required research processes. Yin (2009) argues that the scientific research is not solely experiments and hypothesis testing, but the use of case studies is also important to collect data which are unlikely to be collected using other research methods. Thomas (2003) points out that conclusions made in one case study can be different from the conclusions in
49
another case study, causing doubt on the first case study. This aspect limits the effectiveness of case studies. Furthermore, case study data collection and analysis is time consuming (Mouton, 1996). To alleviate this problem, Yin (2009:9) proposed the following five case study research design components: research questions, claims, units of analysis, a connection between data and proposition, and a scheme for analysing the findings. Some of the solutions put forward by Yin (2009), i.e. field involvement, literature analysis, use of real figures and comparisons avert the case study validity threats.
There are three conditions which motivate a researcher to use case studies: the research questions; the extent of control the investigator has over social events; and the degree of emphasis on prevailing as opposed to historical events (Yin, 2009).
The idea to use a case study is also annotated by Yin (2009:8) in Figure 3.1 which shows the relevant situation for different research methods. The illustration supports the choice based on the three conditions which motivate a researcher to use studies.
Figure 3.1: Applicable conditions for diverse research techniques (Yin, 2009:8)
50
In Figure 3.1, Yin (2009) suggests that the questions in the second column are meant for exploratory studies using any research method to develop a hypothesis and suggestions for further research. Furthermore, the ‘how many?’ or ‘how much?’
questions are suitable for archival or survey research where researchers need to investigate or enquire on ways societies deal with issues and predict these issues statistically. In addition, the ‘how?’ and ‘why?’ questions are explanatory and appropriate for case studies, histories and experiments as they trace events over time rather than investigating on regularities and occurrences. The researcher made use of ‘what?’ questions, appropriate for any research technique, and ‘how?’
questions, which Yin (2009) recommends in case studies (Figure 3.1).
The study has been undertaken as a cross-sectional study which gathers data just once or over days, weeks or months, while a longitudinal study does so over years in order to answer research questions (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).
3.6 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES