RdlRAGTO GRdllLlOIO

A mixed methods approach was selected to gain a deep understanding of the experience at Woolworths of the research concepts through a qualitative research design and a quantitative study to various Cape Town organisations. In business and management research, according to Bryman and Bell (2011), increasingly more research articles are utilising the mixed methods approach.

Gaining access to organisations for research can be problematic, according to Shenton and Hayter (2004). They claim helpful tactics in gaining access are to express gratitude for the informants’ time and their contribution to the research, and providing an explanation of the importance of the research. Using contacts within the organisation is also helpful in gaining access to organisations (Shenton and Hayter, 2004).

The research occurred in three stages, and therefore the instruments of data collection are distinguished accordingly.

3.4.1 Qualitative study procedures

3.4.1.1 The Original Qualitative study (collected by the investigator)

One unit of observation, namely Woolworths, was used to gain an interpretive perspective of the participants’ experience with the research concepts. Woolworths is a large retail chain with its headquarters in Cape Town and its first store was opened in 1931. Another organisation was approached for participation in the qualitative study to

extend the number of units of observations, but the prinicipal investigator could not gain access as permission was not granted.

One unit of observation, as such, is not a threat to the qualitative study as it has been argued that a qualitative approach may rely on one unit of observation (Boddy, 2016).

According to Boddy (2016, p.428), “despite the apparent limitations of samples which involve a single case or single research participant” a single unit of observation in qualitative research can offer a trustworthy direction for future research and that

“individual cases can also provide a new, deep and nuanced understanding of previously unexplored phenomena”. Since the research is dealing with a relatively new concept which has not been sufficiently investigated, using a single case by conducting in-depth interviews with an expert group of senior managers in their field, does not require a large sample and it is thus justified.

The in-depth study from the qualitative fieldwork was also intended to provide the basis for designing the quantitative study questionnaire. A strength of a qualitative approach is it “provides flexibility to the investigator to explore new ideas and issues” with in-depth interviews (Carvalho and White, 1997, p.16). The qualitative approach has been associated with some weaknesses, hence the need to combine this with a quantatitive approach to form a mixed method approach. A weakness of the qualitative approach is its inability to generalise as the small sample is not random (Carvalho and White, 1997).

The participants selected were all key senior managers and executives, experts in their business unit at the organisation. This diverse group represented unique points of view on the research subject, which helped in establishing a model of collaboration, leveraging their expertise as stakeholders in the optimal use of big data in marketing strategies.

The categories of data collection were prioritised and a series of questions was considered for the in-depth interviews, guided by the literature reviewed. There was a focus on concepts of the research, like big data, the statistician, and collaboration, to determine the set of questions for the interview.

Informed consent was received from the respondents of this study through a signature on a consent form. As most of the interviews were recorded, prior permission to record was received, and thus all the rules were followed in this study in terms of anonymity, confidentiality, privacy, and the protection of data. Ethical considerations were taken into account before the collection of data from the selected companies.

The participants were encouraged to ‘bring out their own voice’ in the interviews, to answer questions freely and to comment on additional points of view. This allowed the participants to contribute fully to the interview process. Where deemed necessary, the investigator probed to gain even deeper insight that would benefit the research. Special care was taken not to lead the interviewees by ‘putting words into their mouths’.

In the transcripts of interviews in the results chapter, the interviewees’ names were changed to protect their anonymity.

3.4.1.2 Additional qualitative studies

In order to corroborate the insights through triangulation and to strengthen the research, additional qualitative studies were conducted to fill the gaps or deficits in the original qualitative and quantitative studies considered at the start of the research study. The triangulation methodology used in the research is a form of face validity, which allows for the veracity of all the different sources of data collected.

The data collected from the various qualitative studies were in the form of open-ended answers in terms of the respondents’ understanding of the questions asked. Various experts in big data and analytics were interviewed to gain insight into the impact of these areas in fostering collaboration among the stakeholders. The interviews were transcribed and the answers analysed, using summative content analysis.

In addition to the qualitative studies, to further strengthen the research, a secondary data analysis was conducted using survey results from a study by NewVantage Partners in the USA from the period 2012 to 2018.

3.4.1.3 Quantitative study procedures

Data was collected from an online survey conducted in the marketing departments of JSE-listed companies in Cape Town through online interviews. Only one senior person was surveyed to answer questions on behalf of his/her organisation. According to Bryman and Bell (2011), in business and management research, when only one person (especially a senior manager) is requested to complete a survey, it may be difficult to respond because of his/her workload. Also, by approaching only one person from the company, the views that person expresses in answering the survey are solely from a single point of view. A disadvantage of using a single respondent per organisation is that he or she may represent his/her role in a favourable way and it could be considered a limitation of the study (Bryman and Bell, 2011, p.190).

The data was collected from May 2017 to July 2017.

Firstly, the process started with securing email addresses of all the JSE-listed companies in Cape Town. The list of companies considered for the research was obtained from the JSE website. The telephone numbers of these companies were then checked on the

organisations’ individual websites. The principal researcher contacted each of the companies on the list to secure an email address for the key person within the marketing departments. This process was slow, because key persons were not always available and email addresses could not be provided without their permission. After a couple of weeks, and by applying a convenience sampling method (personal and colleague connections within certain organisations), the rest of the email addresses were secured.

Bryman and Bell (2011) suggest that in business research, gaining access to organisations sometimes requires the researcher to use friends or contacts for this purpose. There were also some organisations that did not want to be part of the research and indicated this in the initial contact via telephone. At the end of the process of obtaining email addresses, 33 email addresses were secured.

The data was collected via an online survey, create in Google forms, a survey tool. The questions were based on the insights from the qualitative enquiry. The survey was sent to the potential participants by email. The email outlined the reason for the research and university information, the intention of the study in the form of an information sheet, and the relevant consent form.

In the online survey, informed consent was received from the participants of this study through their response to the first statement on the survey. Only once consent had been given, did the other questions on the survey become accessible to the participants.

The instrument (or questions) was tested with the help of colleagues to determine whether the questions made sense and whether the possible responses would be able to be properly analysed, that is, whether the questions were clearly understood by the participants. This was done by a test survey to various people; the survey was then refined from the feedback.

The questionnaire was designed with structured, close-ended questions. Questions were asked on big data and collaborations based on the normative, as well as questions on the possible factors that might influence collaboration, like leadership, trust and knowledge sharing. The measurement scales used for the questions were mostly nominal and ordinal scales, which are common in business research (Cooper and Schindler, 2014). The data collected from the survey were in different formats like ordinal, interval and nominal data variables. These variables were captured in the data-analysis tool, SAS^® Enterprise Guide, for analysis.

Some of the questions in the survey used the Likert scale, which is ordinal, to give the respondents the opportunity to give the extent of agreement or disagreement to the question asked. Likert scales are popular as they are reliable and “provide a greater volume of data than many other scales” (Cooper and Schindler, 2014, p.278). They note that researchers should be careful when using Likert scales that they effectively test the distinction between “favorable and attitudes”. Internal content validity was achieved since the questions asked in the survey generated the intended results. External validity was not established as the results of the online survey were not able to be generalised owing to the non-response rate and small sample.