The implementation of the quality aspects of the interpretive research on internal and external pricing of IT services must be measured against the criteria discussed in section 3.3.1.1.
Aspects of trustworthiness in a situated and contextualized meaning-making research approach like bottom-up concept development, a constitutive understanding of causality,
the relevance of the researcher’s identity, as well as the need to improvise in response to field conditions were presented in detail in the justification on the research topic-oriented decision for the interpretive research approach in section 3.1. In a nutshell, research on pricing IT services requires a bottom-up concept development to reflect the necessary explorative tendency and overcome the obstacle of limited information in this area. The understanding of the causality of price-strategies, price-setting practices, and critical success factors can grow up step-by-step through individual conversations in interviews. Applying cognitive mapping during the interview dialogue depends on the researcher’s identity very much, namely his access to the right interviewees in the pricing community as well as his ability to speak the same language when it comes to the pricing topics. The semi-structured interview style gives on the one hand the possibility to catch every aspect and cover all research questions. On the other hand, improvisation remains an option in the case of an unexpected dialogue course that in the end is appreciated to provide additional value for explorative findings.
It might appear that it does not make sense to a priori discuss a process that seeks to be evaluated as high-quality that is part of the analysis in this thesis. But by reflecting on the evaluation criteria of the research quality consciously, quality issues and philosophical objections might be identified at an early stage. Designing the research setting in the light of the criteria that support a high research quality does not necessarily mean that the research analysis satisfies the requirements, particularly when the act of quality evaluation belongs to the reader. Nevertheless, independent from the outcome of the research, during the research process up to the analysis and interpretation phase, the researcher needs to put attention on three points:
Firstly, consistency of evidence from different resources must exist. This is implemented by consciously choosing research participants either working for other companies than the researcher or working as freelancers for several companies independently. This choice shall offer a broad spectrum of individual experiences and professional backgrounds as different companies perform different pricing processes.
The researcher also acts as one interviewee himself in one interview. This approach seeks to overcome possible bias and clearly distinguish between the researcher’s and the
interviewees’ orientations and ways of putting emphases on the topic. Performing the interview with himself prior to the other main interviews prevents the researcher from both, making others’ good ideas his own assuming these are his own ideas, and mixing them up during the analysis and interpretation phase. Moreover, once expressing himself and having said what he – through his own experience – would answer to these questions, prevents the researcher from pushing the following interviews in a certain direction. As everyone wants to make their voices heard, once having documented his own thoughts shall ensure minimizing his influence on the participants’ statements.
Secondly, coping with conflicting interpretations shall be made in the sense of the research’s philosophical orientation. This means that interpretations need to be made thoughtfully against the background of the individuality of the research participants, appreciating every single opinion. Thereby, the order of the interviews should not play any role when the researcher perceives a contradictory statement to a previous interview as he should seek to avoid any influence that could harm the research quality.
Thirdly, the researcher needs to pay attention to the logic with which an argument is developed. This point can hardly be considered in the construction of the research method but at least during the interview and the interpretation. The researcher can scrutinize the logic of an interviewee’s argumentation regarding its coherence. In the case of a
contradictory or illogical argumentation, the researcher needs to intervene and clarify whether the argumentation is defective, or the researcher just misunderstands the interviewee’s arguments. In the end, this approach can also serve the interviewee as a possibility to challenge and structure his own thoughts regarding their plausibility.
Besides the aspects of trustworthiness and reflexivity, member-checking discussed in section 3.3.1.1 is a quality evaluation criterion closely linked to systematicity and
transparency. This important process needs to be considered already in the design phase of the applied method and executed after the semi-structured interview combined with the cognitive mapping process. Member-checking seeks to check whether the researcher captured the facts right and check the accuracy of his situational understanding of the participants’ shared experiences.
After collaboratively building the cognitive map during the interview, the researcher will start analysing the cognitive map as presented in section 3.2.2.5 for simplification reasons. The aim is the structural clarification of the cognitive map without changing the major structures that helps the interviewee recognize his own thoughts and without omitting any ideas. The researcher can change unclear sentences or inaccurate expressions. These elements could be replaced by more precise keywords that put ideas in a nutshell. This procedure is justifiable because after the simplification exercise, the interviewee will be asked to examine the cognitive map regarding its structural integrity, its comprehensibility, as well as its unsophistication to prevent any degeneration.
Additionally, the interviewee can complement the new elements to the cognitive map as he might continue reflecting on the pricing topic after the proper interview. In a closing meeting, the interviewee can present and discuss his request for revisions and can explain the additional elements to be added to the cognitive map (also see section 3.2.1.3).
In the end, cognitive mapping itself contributes to a higher research quality as illustrated by Bryson et al. (2004). Besides contributing to the systematicity and transparency of the interview process and its documentation, the visual presentation of the research topic starting in the conceptual framework and resulting in individual cognitive maps helps with reducing complexity. Both, the research participants’ understanding of the research focus and the researcher’s possibility to prevent misunderstandings and ensure accurate and founded sense-making by having a clear overview, not neglecting important details, is supported through the cognitive mapping method. The contribution of this structured method following a strict process is, besides the required researcher’s reflexivity and trustworthiness, the main foundation for providing a piece of research with a quality claim.