For the purpose of this research, three different research design, methodologies and approaches were used which were as follows:
4.2.1 Triangulation
Triangulation was used in this study as a way of building confidence in the results by using different methods to collect the data. It involves a commitment to mutually corroborating methods. The advantage of using both qualitative and quantitative methods were due to their complementarily. Denzin (2000) states that research is a systematic examination intended to discover new information and to expand or verify existing knowledge in an attempt to solve a problem. The researcher uncovers facts and then formulates a generalization based on the interpretation of those facts. Thus, the triangulation was chosen because the weaknesses of one or other method were compensated for by the strengths of another. As noted by Leedy (1993:143), the situation where it is possible to combine qualitative research methods and quantitative research methods in the same project is called triangulation and many research projects could be enhanced considerably if a triangulation approach were taken. Johnson and Christensen (2008:51) state that by following a mixed research approach, the quality of the research improves and the researcher is less likely to make an error due to the different strengths and weaknesses of the research methods.
As pointed out by Creswell (2003), the reason for the use of the mixed methods approach is to gain a better understanding of the problem through the strength provided by the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The benefits of triangulation can include increasing confidence in research data, creating innovative ways of understanding a phenomenon, revealing unique findings, challenging or integrating theories, and providing a clearer understanding of the problem. Triangulation minimizes the inadequacies of single-source research. Two sources complement and verify one another. Triangulation reduces the impact of bias. Triangulation provides richer and more comprehensive information because humans share more candidly with an independent third party than they do with someone they know or think they know (Beckett & Turner, 2009:3).
In fact, Johnson and Christensen (2008:34) refer to mixed research as “research that involves the mixing of quantitative and qualitative methods or other paradigm characteristics”. Establishing the appropriate mixture depends on the research questions and the situational and practical issues facing the researcher. They further indicate that mixed research consider both quantitative and qualitative views to have positive value. The use of only quantitative research or only qualitative research is seen to be “limiting and incomplete for many research questions” (Johnson &
Christensen, 2008:35). Triangulation is the combination of two or more data sources, investigators, methodological approaches, theoretical perspectives (Kimchi, Polivka, & Stevenson, 1991), or analytical methods (Kimchi et al., 1991) within the same study.
According to Creswell (1994:174), the concept of triangulation is based on the assumption that any bias inherent in a particular data source, investigator and method would be neutralised when used in conjunction with other data sources, investigators and methods. Jick (1983:145-147) pointed out that the advantages of using triangulation in qualitative research is the following: it allows researchers to be more confident regarding their results; its use of multiple-methods can also lead to a synthesis or integration of theories; and lastly triangulation may also serve as the critical test by virtue of its comprehensiveness of competing theories. Thus, this study used methodological triangulation because it denotes the use of multiple methods to study a single topic, for example combining qualitative and quantitative methods in a single study (Padgett, 1998:97).
Denzin cited in Bryman (2007:3), triangulation involved contrasting research methods, such as a questionnaire and observation. He further indicates that sometimes this meaning of triangulation is taken to include the combined use of qualitative research and quantitative research to determine how far they arrive at convergent findings. Babbies and Mouton (2001) add that qualitative research differs from quantitative research in that it is conducted in the natural setting of social actors. Indeed, its emphasis is on process rather than outcome, with the primary aim being in-depth descriptions and understanding of actions and events. The key research questions were the following: what enables a firm to survive in this industry? How many firms have survived? Why have these firms survived? The researcher discusses how these forces interact, especially in order to explain the policy issues related to the sustainability and competitiveness of the textile and clothing industry in the SAR.
In the next section, the researcher will try to explain why the qualitative and quantitative methods were used by focussing on their advantages, disadvantages and their pertinence to this study.
4.2.2 Quantitative research
Quantitative data collection tools were used to adequately address the research problem and objectives. The research approach is mostly quantitative in that the firm data are analysed using non-parametric statistical methods which require no or very limited assumptions about the format of the data to be analysed. Thus, non-parametric methods are geared toward hypothesis testing rather than estimation of effects. In this study, the researcher administered a questionnaire to the different owners, managing managers or HR managers of the firms. The advantage of using a questionnaire was that the researcher asked all participants identical questions in the same order. Closed-ended or fixed questions were always preferable. According to Blaikie (2010:204), quantitative methods are generally concerned with counting and measuring aspects of social life. Johnson and Christensen (2008:33) refer to quantitative
research as “research that relies primarily on the collection of quantitative (for example numerical) data”.
Thus, Paton (1990:14) adds that the advantage of quantitative research is that it allows for a large sample of respondents to be measured against a limited set of questions. This facilitates the comparison and statistical aggregation of the data collected. Mouton and Marais (1990:155-156) argued that the quantitative approach is more highly formalized, as well as more explicitly controlled, than the qualitative, with a range that is more exactly defined, and that it is relatively close to the physical sciences. In contradiction, qualitative approaches are those in which the procedures are not as strictly formalized, while the scope is more likely to be undefined, and a more philosophical mode of operation is adopted. Leedy and Ormrod (2005:94) point out that quantitative research aims to answer questions concerning the relationships between measured variables by explaining, predicting, and controlling phenomena. They further indicate that data is summarized according to means, medians, correlations and statistics (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005:97).
Quantitative data are usually produced by coding some other data, which is reduced to a number by removing context from it. Later, after manipulating the numbers, they are interpreted, that is, expanded by adding content and context which enables one to see the social world through the numerical tokens (Halfpenny, 1996:5). Creswell (2003) states that a quantitative approach is one in which the investigator primarily uses strategies of inquiry such as experiments and surveys, and collects data on predetermined instruments that yield statistical data. Thus, Blaikie (2010:214) points out that an important feature of the use of quantitative methods is their highly structured nature.
In brief, Bryman (1988) has identified the preoccupations of quantitative researchers, which are as follow: Measuring concepts; Establishing causality; Generalizing; Replicating; and Focusing on individuals. 4.2.3 Qualitative research
The researcher used the qualitative method because it contributed to a better understanding and helped to gather data through interviews with the key informants, thus allowing more flexibility. Interviewing key informants, especially South African trade union representatives or other stakeholders is qualitative research. The qualitative method was more flexible than quantitative because, it allowed greater spontaneity and adaptation of the interaction between the researcher and the key informants. Thus, an open-ended questionnaire helped participants to respond freely in their own words.
Indeed, the researcher conducted telephonic interviews and via email correspondence with the key informant such as trade union representatives, Federation representatives, National Bargain Council representatives and other stakeholders as key informants to help understand what can be done to promote sustainability and competitiveness of the textile and clothing industry in the SAR region. Thus, eight informants were targeted among the above stakeholders with two in each category. But the researcher succeeded to interview only three categories in South Africa, expect National Bargain Council representative and only Trade Union representatives in the DRC. In South Africa, most of the other governmental stakeholders such as Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Cape Clothing Association (CCA) and Appareil Manufacturers South Africa (AMSA) representatives declined to be interviewed. But at the last minute AMSA director provided us with crucial information.
The interviews helped to understand what can be done to promote sustainability and competitiveness of the textile and clothing industry in the SAR and how to contribute to a better understanding of policy issues. Also, labour issues were part of the interview. The researcher took notes during the interviews. As argued by Greeff (2005), the purpose of in-depth interview is not to get answers to questions, nor to test hypotheses, and not to “evaluate” in the usual sense of the term. At the root of unstructured interviewing is an interest in understanding the experience of other people and the meaning they make of that experience.
According to Blaikie (2010:204-205), qualitative methods are more concerned with producing discursive descriptions and exploring social actors’ meaning and interpretations. Johnson and Christensen (2008:34) refer to qualitative research as “research that relies primarily on the collection of qualitative (for example non numerical data such as words and pictures) data”. Creswell (2003) states that the qualitative approach is one in which the inquirer often makes knowledge claims based on constructivist perspectives (for example the multiple meanings of individual experiences, meanings socially and historically constructed, with the aim of developing a theory or pattern). He further affirms that researchers seek to understand the context or setting of the participants through visiting this context and gathering information personally (Creswell, 2003). Thus, Leedy and Ormond (2005) indicate that the qualitative researcher seeks an in-depth understanding of phenomena as they occur naturally and that no attempt is made to manipulate the situation.