Cross-case synthesis is a common method for analyzing evidence, where findings from at least two cases are analyzed against each other (Yin, 2003). As our case study consists of a single case with embedded units, we have chosen to analyze these units internally, between each other and also to combine these findings and apply them to the case study as a whole. We have therefore constructed our Primary Data Analysis (See 3.7 Method of Analysis of Primary Data) by using this structure.
Cross-case synthesis requires the use of a uniform framework from which the researchers display the data from the individual cases (Yin, 2003), analyze similarities and differences between them and construct interpretations and a chain of reasoning concerning the relations between them (Miles & Huberman, 1984 in Cruzes, Dybå, Runeson & Höst, 2014). Miles and Huberman’s (1984) process of cross-case synthesis consists of three steps: data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing.
We will in this chapter explain how we have applied these three steps when conducting our case study.
3.7.1. Data Reduction: Selecting the Relevant Information
In order to explore the impact that national culture has on the implementation of Intrum Justitia’s corporate brand, we must investigate the corporate brand identity behind the corporate brand. As identity in itself is not a fixed concept, the corporate brand identity may not be either, even though upper management sets the corporate brand itself. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, we formulated an Interview Guide from which we conducted our semi-structured interviews, where the questions and topics to a large extent were formulated around the Corporate Brand Identity Matrix (Urde, 2013), a framework that can be used to identify a corporation’s corporate brand identity and analyze its coherency throughout the organization. However, as the interviews were of a semi-structured nature, and that the concepts of identity, culture and perceptions are highly subjective, we were not able to strictly follow the variables presented to us in the CBIM. The results of our interviews were 75 pages of transcribed material on Intrum Justitia’s corporate brand and the interview subjects feelings and perceptions pertaining to it, which is why we applied the method of data reduction in order to produce a clear analysis.
As the analysis in itself was to be focused around the corporate brand identity, and how national culture may have an impact on it between different countries in Intrum Justitia, we chose to use the CBIM as our tool to reduce the data by. According to Miles and Huberman (1984), the data reduction process is the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting and transforming the results from the study. In correspondence to the structuring of our Primary Data Analysis this process was done
on the level of each embedded unit in the case study, in other words each on of Intrum Justitia’s country offices.
However, on this level of analysis, within the embedded units of the case study, we saw to the limitation of not having conducted multiple interview subjects within every office that we contacted. Even though the opinions of those interview subjects who were the only people interviewed from their office could be representative of the office in its entirety, there was no way of controlling this. We therefore deemed it more valuable to exclude these interviews from the analysis, as they did not meet the criteria of being analyzed on the embedded unit level, and not representative enough to be analyzed between embedded units.
In accordance to this process we selected information from our transcribed material that pertained to the corporate identity, the corporate brand and general opinions regarding the core of Intrum Justitia. We then focused this material to the corporate brand identity and simplified it by discussing the core meanings of the chosen statements, and how these were applicable within the CBIM. From our discussions, we abstracted the key information that could be used in the CBIM. This process lastly resulted in transcribed interview material having been transformed into multiple CBIMs filled out from each country office’s perspective.
3.7.2. Data Display: Applying the Corporate Brand Identity Matrix
The analysis within the embedded units of the case study resulted in four different Corporate Brand Identity Matrices (CBIMs), one for each country office where we conducted interviews. These CBIMs display our data in a way that is consistent to the focus of our study, the corporate brand identity, and is a clear way of demonstrating the similarities and dissimilarities between nationalities. Analyzing the CBIMs
between themselves would provide us with an analysis on the offices’ views on Intrum Justitia’s corporate brand identity, but would not efficiently integrate the alleged problem regarding impact of diverse national cultures. It would not either provide us with the relationship that the four subsidiaries’ corporate brand identities have to that of the Intrum Justitia Group. We have therefore chosen to display the national cultural patterns of Sweden, Finland, Germany and Hungary according to Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov’s (1991) six cultural dimensions, as well as the CBIM produced for the pilot study.
3.7.3. Drawing Conclusions: Comparing the CBIM to Cultural Dimensions
The CBIMs were compared against each other with the aim of identifying similarities and dissimilarities between the corporate brand identities of the different subsidiaries.
These identifications were then benchmarked against the CBIM of the Intrum Justitia Group to analyze whether the differences occurring between the subsidiaries were not all in fact differences from the corporate brand identity of the Intrum Justitia Group, providing us with an indication of which subsidiaries had aligned their corporate brand identity to the one of the Group more successfully than others.
When having identified the level of corporate brand identity alignment between the subsidiaries and Intrum Justitia Group, we could analyze the national cultural patterns against their perception of the corporate brand. Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov’s (2010) six cultural dimensions were analyzed separately, and used to compare behavioral patterns between the four Intrum Justitia subsidiaries. In order to not draw preconstructed conclusions, this process was made in the method of attempting to prove these conclusions false rather than true, for us to remain unbiased and heighten the credibility of our study.