No tenemos nada en mente ahora mismo, pero nos gustaría Nosotros no buscamos los lugares

Theory-building can be difficult in qualitative research as data collection is not always linear and can be ‘messy’ and iterative in nature (Sinkovics & Alfoldi, 2012). From a credibility-orientated perspective, Sinkovics et al. (2008) warn of the need to try to ensure the trustworthiness of the data. Utilisation of secondary data sources was made where possible e.g. websites to triangulate the data to provide ‘detailed and holistic knowledge’ (Erikkson & Kovalainen, 2008, p. 117). This was in addition to triangulation with participant observation. Iteration meant that ‘progressive focusing’ was undertaken in line with the work by Stake (1995), i.e. requiring a degree of iteration between theory and the data9. Blaikie’s (2011) approach was utilised whereby a process in which frequent referrals were made between each stage of the methodology was

9

Progressive focusing is defined as ‘a systematic narrowing and refinement of the research focus during fieldwork in order to accommodate highly unique and specific issues’ (Sinkovics & Alfoldi, 2012, pp. 818 - 819).

40

adopted to boost the quality of the empirical findings (Appendix 12). For example, after the observation, comparisons were made with the interview data.

Case study research has largely been developed by three key writers: Eisenhardt, Stake and Yin (Welch et al, 2011). The key factors across these and other influential authors outlining the main facets of case study research have been presented in Appendix 13. Eisenhardt’s approach favours ‘building theory’ from case studies through different research strategies namely, deductive and inductive investigations (Eisenhardt, 1989). Yin’s approach leans towards positivism whereby there is a need to create generalisability across cases via a cross-case comparison (Yin, 2014). Stake’s (1995) approach developed ‘progressive focusing’ whereby case study researchers have the responsibility to sift through the large quantities of material and focus on the most useful and contributory elements to the case study’s objectives through iteration (Singh, 2014).

This study has primarily used Stake’s approach and argued why such considerations have been employed. The investigation does draw to a limited extent on the work of Eisenhardt as a complementary theme for the case study research design and the final chapter will outline the way in which this study builds on earlier work through a contribution to knowledge. Case studies can be derived from positivist styles of research (Beverland & Lindgreen, 2010); the interpretivist positioning of this study makes objective-thinking somewhat contrary to the nature of the objectives and thus, unhelpful to theory underpinning this thesis. Hence, the work of Yin (2014) was disregarded. There is debate about whether the term ‘sample’ is appropriate for qualitative as opposed to quantitative work and if an alternative word should be utilised; it was considered appropriate in the context of the 14 firms within the single case study the Wairarapa wine cluster). By this it is meant that the sample was able to uncover new information but was not too large to spread the study too thinly i.e. the concern of Stake (1995). It was accepted that interviews may not be ‘fully’ generalisable as the sample was not intended to be large enough to make such an inference as large sample quantitative methods (Styles & Hersch, 2005). It was anticipated that a point of theoretical saturation of ‘salient’ issues was reached (Bryman, 2012); data was analysed on an on-going basis to gauge if theoretical saturation had been reached i.e. data was analysed from the first interview after it had taken place and continuously from

41

thereafter (Eisenhardt, 1989)10. This point will be expanded upon in the data analysis section later. The firms accessed for this study were presented using pseudonyms (Firm 1, 2, 3…) (Flint & Golicic, 2009). This involved presenting the wineries used for this study in a table-like format with key demographics; these are presented in Appendix 14. This was a strategy to boost credibility by building upon prior studies in which various scholars have used such frameworks to present their empirical findings (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The study simplified the findings to show critical information about the respondents without the reader sifting through pages of text unnecessarily (MacLean

et al., 2002). Two key strategies were implemented to boost the rigour of the research

making it relevant to academic and practitioner audiences. (1) Bracketing was used as much as possible (within the word limit); this notion involves maximising the voice of the ‘participant’ more than the voice of the ‘interviewer’ (Tufford & Newman, 2012) so that the interviewer did not accidently misconstrue what the participant was saying. This was put into practice by boosting the amount of quotes compared to paraphrasing (Morrow, 2005). (2) Notes about each interviewee were made during and after every interview alongside supporting observational methods (Blazevic & Lievens, 2008). This strategy was designed to ensure that key events were not missed out of the investigation; this assisted in the thematic content analysis as well as judging if theoretical saturation had been reached. After 9 Wairarapa firms, it was deemed that the saturation point had been reached; yet, an additional 5 firms were studied to boost the study’s confidence that theoretical saturation had truly been reached11.

The decision was made to stop collecting data after 14 firms (in the case study cluster) on the basis of there being 4 additional pilot firms (18 in total) showing a broad spectrum of data for the investigation; this led to a required sample size for a study of this calibre. Perry (1998) recommends that an honours thesis should sample 4 cases

10

Analysing 14 vineyards in detail would have exceeded the thesis’ word limit as work that analyses firms in-depth provides an excess of the words that were available. Buchanan & Bryman (2007) states that a case study should be as in-depth as it needs to be; as this study sets the boundary of the case as the cluster itself, multiple actors (firms) were required to investigate this phenomenon.

11

This was in addition to there being several wineries in the cluster that did not wish to be interviewed.

42

with one interview per case (if that term is used instead of firms as this study has already discussed what constitutes a ‘case study’), while a doctoral-level study should have 35 to 50 interviews across the different hierarchies of the particular study’s investigation and a Master’s thesis should sample anywhere in-between these figures. As this study has sampled 14 core firms (with multiple methods used per firm) excluding the pilot study, the sample size is considered respectable. This is in addition to the core issue of theoretical saturation being reached suggesting an acceptable level of primary (interview and observational data) findings for a Master’s thesis.