Data were collected using the semi-structured interview and participant observation methods under the case study approach, for the final phase research. Qualitative data requires a very diverse way of analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 2008). Moreover, analysing data collected using the case study approach was not an easy task, as the data collected via a case study research method may differ from the data collected using any other form of qualitative research. Multiple sources of data can be used for a case study, and further, as there were multiple cases (six for this study) there were multiple data for each case, which has brought further complication into the analysis process. Furthermore, in a multiple case study approach, the outcome of each case must be compared and contrasted with the other cases, capturing the essence of the case study research method (Yin, 2003).
The two research questions for the final phase study, which are the outcomes for the two theoretical perspectives of Resource Based View and Transaction Cost Economics, needed to go hand in hand during analysis of the data for the final phase study. Due to the immature subject area, the final phase research did not used the deductive way of analysing the data, even though the research questions are based on theoretical foundations. However, even if the theory seems fitting with the research questions, due to the topic being relatively under-researched, an inductive approach on its own also did not fit. This means the main aim of this analysis is not to come up with a brand-new theory; however, the further understanding, development or the modification of the existing theory, as per the RL situation in the MB context, is not denied. Hence, an abductive reasoning which uses the inductive and deductive reasoning back and forth was deemed appropriate.
Case analysis followed by the cross-case analysis is the fundamental part of case study analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989). Data collected using semi-structured interviews and participant observation
116
(Yin, 2014) for each case needs to be analysed before making the cross-case comparison. Hence, careful consideration is required to make the within-case analysis, which could be further used for the cross-case analysis.
Various ways of qualitative data analysis method have been prescribed by a number of authors, such as Cassell and Symon (2004), Srivastava and Hopwood (2009), Miles, Huberman and Saldana (2013) and Silverman (2016). The within-case analysis for this study was made using six comprehensive stages of thematic analysis prescribed by Braun and Clarke (2006), which was an appropriate way of analysing the data at this stage. The outcomes of the themes (presented in Appendix H) for each case were then used for the cross-case comparison.
Figure 5.5 Data Analysis Process for Final Phase Research
To gain thorough familiarisation with the data, the data collected from both the interview and daily observation journal for each case were carefully read and re-read several times. Notes were taken, and ideas were marked, which could again be used for the coding process. Accordingly, the thematic analysis as prescribed by Braun and Clarke (2006), as explained in Section 5.9.1 of this chapter, was used to come up with the themes (see Appendix H) for each case. As shown in Appendix H, the codes for this research are presented as ‘words or short phrases that
symbolically assign a summative, salient, essence-capturing and/or evocative attribute’ for each
117
of codes for the present study, although this can be attributed to the significant effort made by the researcher which enabled the codes to emerge. This has allowed the researcher to capture all excerpts that could be of importance at the analysis stage as in the final stage of the thematic analysis, which is considered as the findings section, data from each case were analysed as within-case analysis for each case separately (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Figure 5.5 presents the data analysis stages for the final phase study. Reporting may be the last stage of the thematic analysis, however, as per case study reporting, there was the need for two different stages of reporting: separate and initial reporting for each individual case as within-case analysis reporting, consequently leading to comparative reporting for all the cases, as cross-case reporting. The themes (presented in Appendix H) analysed through the thematic analysis method were reported using the ‘chain of evidence’ (Yin, 1981), i.e., using the relevant quotes and data, retrieved from the data collection. The presentation of data, in terms of analyses and reporting, have an important role to play in ensuring the validity and reliability of the research. This has been maintained by expressing the research in an effective manner (Seuring and Müller, 2008) with the use of appendices, self-explanatory tables and figures for both within-case and cross-case analysis, which will be illustrated and explained in Chapter 7.
5.10 Summary
This chapter has explained the key aims and objectives for both the first and the final phase research, with the postulation of research questions including the research methods and data analysis methods. Given the under-researched and complex nature of the research, a pragmatic paradigm which fits with the mixed methods approach was deemed to be the most appropriate philosophical and methodological foundation for this research. Given the nature of the study, a multi-phase mixed method approach was utilised, which is an advanced way of conducting research in order to answer the research question in the best possible way.
The initial phase study’s interview and survey has assisted in guiding the final phase, ensuring the content validity for the final phase study. The interviewees for both the first and the final phase study were provided with the opportunity to ‘confirm’ or ‘challenge’ their content, as well as to provide explanation when required. This process was used to ensure ‘interpretative validity’ (Sampaio et al., 2012). Nevertheless, ‘the qualitative, yet strong, content validity’ (Dowlatshahi, 2005, p.3465) was established by grounding the final phase study questions on the literature
118
review; the current state of theory in RL, and the first phase study results. Academics and practitioners were asked to check the survey questions and the interview and observation guidelines for content validity for both phases of the study. Overall, to ensure validity and reliability, a continual comparative method was used (Barnes, 1996), where the actions and responses of participants were compared against each other (Davies and Crane, 2010). Ethical consideration was made by informing the participants about the research purpose and informing them about the confidential use of the information for both phases of the study (Sampaio et al., 2012). An ethical approval form was secured from the faculty office, which was presented to the participants. All the interviews and the site visits were conducted between September 2015 and February 2016.The results for the first phase study are presented in Chapter 6, and the results for the final phase study are presented in Chapter 7 of this thesis.
119