In Chapter 3, the methodological framework for the research will be explained in order to fully understand the research design of the thesis and how the following implications of the research have been processes. Firstly, the structure of the research is presented with the different methodologies or approaches applied. The structure will hereafter be broken down into the individual parts of the process, and the chosen methodology or approach will be examined and described. Hereafter, it will be explained how these are used in the context of this research in order to answer the research question.
Each part of the process is chosen in consideration of the field of research.
This will define the whole process and structure of the research and will result in a conclusion of the thesis and provide a basis for answering the research question.
3.1 Structure of the Research
As presented in the introduction of the thesis in Chapter 1, the research started out with extensive research for relevant literature in the literature review. Hereafter a deductive approach (section 3.2) was chosen, as the examined literature was included in the case studies conducted. In order to collect relevant empirical data from the case studies, both a qualitative method (section 3.3) as well as a quantitative method (section 3.4) was chosen, which is defined as mixed methods (section 3.4). With the empirical data conducted from the chosen research methods, a hermeneutic methodology (section 3.5) was used to categorize the empirical data and hereby be able to analyse it according to the literature examined in the literature review. In the analysis in Chapter 5, social constructionism (section 3.6) as a methodology is applied to discuss and interpret the implications from the conducted analysis and, furthermore, to compile the implications into a discussion and conclusion of the research in Chapter 6.
3.2 Deductive versus Inductive Approach
The research is examining the existing literature on the field of organizational culture as well as innovation culture. These two fields are researched, not
26 only from an academic perspective but also from a practical perspective in the form of three different business cases. The research is designed to conduct a comprehensive study, resulting in valuable findings in order to answer the research question.
By structuring the research in such a way, it can be argued that a deductive method is used, as “deduction involves movement from the general to the particular…” However, it is added that it “… is inseparable from inductive reasoning “ (Gilgun, 2016, p. 9). In addition to this, it is argued that the basis for knowledge development is the ongoing movement between concepts and the empirical world (Thomas & Znaniecki, 1934). The difference between deduction and induction is that deduction is the process of testing hypotheses for the purpose of ‘confirming, refuting, and modifying’ them (Dewey, 1933, p. 82) whereas induction is for the researcher to attempt to be open-minded and set aside biases in order to see concrete instances in new ways (Gilgun, 2019, p. 9). As Gilgun formulates it, “Dewey acknowledged the impossibility of purging the self of presuppositions, but he recommended the attempt” (Gilgun, 2019, p. 9).
Another way of describing induction is used by explaining the term Generalization, provided by Maxwell and Chmiel (2014) and is explained by taking “the characteristics of a small selection of elements of a specific group to be representative of the characteristics of all elements of that group. The implication inherent in this manner of reasoning is that all the elements of a group have the same features” (Reichertz, 2014, p. 8).
Joining the aforementioned chorus of perceiving deduction and inductive reasoning as inseparable as argued by Gilgun and the ongoing movement between concepts and the empirical world, as argued by Znaniecki, is Schleiermacher (1998), who encourages to see inductive and deductive approaches as dependent and co-constitutive (Tomkins & Eatough, 2019).
As written at the start of this section, this research is concerned with the existing literature on the field of organizational culture in order to examine and research on the field of innovation culture. Moreover, existing knowledge and data from the business cases, used in this context as relevant
27 literature, is used as a basis for the analysis of the collected empirical qualitative and quantitative data. Therefore a deductive method can be identified, as there is a movement from the general, in the form of existing literature, to the particular, in the form of practised innovation culture in the studied SMEs. However, for again to refer to the aforementioned Gilgun, Znaniecki and Schleiermacher, deductive and inductive approaches are inseparable, dependent and co-constitutive, which is applicable for this study as well. The use of existing literature to analyse the empirical data must be defined as a deductive approach, but hereafter the empirical findings contribute to the creation of new knowledge on the field of study, based on the studied cases. A movement from the particular to the general can hereby be seen, and an inductive approach is therefore used in the study, as the empirical findings will be used as particular cases for generally creating a successful innovation culture in Danish SMEs.
3.3 Qualitative Methods
Qualitative methods are often used to get a deep insight into how phenomena are experienced, appeared or developed (Brinkmann &
Tanggaard, 2015). The American scientists Denzin and Lincoln provide a general definition of qualitative methods: “Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive‚ material practices that make the world visible. These practices can transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meaning people bring to them” (Denzin
& Lincoln, 2000, p. 3).
With the definition presented above, several aspects can be transferred to the overall ambition of this research. Firstly, by the use of qualitative research, it has been possible to conduct empirical data in the organizational settings of which the respondent in the interviews worked - with the words of Denzin and Lincoln - to study things in their natural settings. Secondly, as presented in the definition, choosing a qualitative method as an approach to collect data were done in order to interpret phenomena in terms of the
28 meaning people bring to them. Interpreting innovation and especially innovation culture has mainly been done by interpreting the meaning the respondents brought to them. Therefore the definition presented by Denzin and Lincoln is highly applicable in the reasoning of choosing a qualitative method as a research method.
3.3.1 Semi-structured Interviews
When choosing a qualitative research method for collecting empirical data, several forms of interviews could have been chosen. However, the qualitative research interview has been chosen for this research, as it gives the possibility to learn something about the world around us (Gubrium et al., 2012, p. 5).
The reasoning of choosing interviews as an empirical data collection method is that it allows one to complete a whole conversation with a specific purpose. The purpose in this matter is to understand the respondent’s understanding and perception of innovation culture with all implicit as well as explicit factors affecting it. In choosing the qualitative research interview, one must look at the strengths and weaknesses for conducting such interviews.
The strength of the qualitative research interview is that it provides access to personal knowledge and experience (Kristensen & Hussain, 2019, p. 97).
Knowledge, which is not else accessible by any other type of sources (Elklit &
Jensen, 2012, p. 133). The reason for choosing the semi-structured interview form for qualitative research interview is that it provides the possibility of adapting questions and to ask new, not prepared questions, depending on how the interview evolves (Berg, 2009, p. 105). As the main goal for conducting interviews in this research is to gain knowledge of innovation culture in SMEs, in order to compare with the existing literature on the field of study, the possibility of asking these unprepared questions are much welcomed as they might provide additional knowledge, which can be defined as valuable in search of answering the research question. The potential additional knowledge might not have been accessible if the structured or unstructured interview had been chosen as a framework for the interviews.
29
3.4 Quantitative Methods
Quantitative methods are in this research used for collecting primary data; as such data are not available. The primary data are collected as it investigates the research problem of how to create an innovation culture within SMEs.
The quantitative empirical data are in this research collected by the use of a survey, and there are different advantages and disadvantages with the use of a survey as a method for data collection.
An advantage of using a survey is the generally high level of representativeness and thereby increased generalizability compared to the use of the semi-structured interviews (Kristensen & Hussain, 2019, p. 212).
Moreover, does a high level of representativeness in the collected data make it easier to document significant statistical results than compared to other data collection methods (Kristensen & Hussain, 2019, p. 213). Having presented some of the strengths of using a survey as a research method, the weaknesses must be presented too, in order to provide an understanding of the usage of both qualitative and quantitative methods. A survey represents an inflexible research design, which cannot be changed during the data collection. Moreover, standardized questions tend to be irrelevant for some of the respondents (Kristensen & Hussain, 2019, p. 213).
In the construction of the survey, the use of a Likert-scale has been chosen, as this is recommended, as “surveys can collect data on the relevance of these capabilities for a firm's business operations, using a Likert scale…”
(OECD, 2018, p. 110). Moreover, does the Likert scale force the respondent to make a directional choice (Heiberger & Holland, 2015, p. 592). The survey in this research is, therefore constructed by the use of a Likert-scale and thereby includes statements that the respondent must respond to the extent to which they agree or disagree with the presented statement.
3.5 Mixed Methods
A combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods is a designation of a research design called mixed methods (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010) and can be defined “as a design for collecting, analysing and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a study to understand a research
30 problem” (Denzin, 2012, p. 81). The purpose of using this form of research is to create new knowledge that helps to create an understanding of the concerned problem (Wheeldon, 2010).
The emergence of mixed methods is in the literature on methodology referred to as a “third paradigm” (Giddings, 2006), where the two others paradigms are the scientific theory, who primarily uses quantitative methods and the paradigm that is based on constructivist ontology, which uses qualitative methods (Morgan, 2007). The “third paradigm” builds a bridge between the two formerly known paradigms (Giddings, 2006).
It is argued by Morgan that quantitative and qualitative methodologies should not be perceived as incompatible paradigms that cannot be used in the same research. Moreover, Morgan argues that it is not necessary to choose between theoretical or empirical driven research. When choosing a methodology for the research, it is argued that mixed methods are characterized by a given research question, which defines the best methodology to provide an answer to the research question (J. W. Creswell, 2008; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010, p. 8). This is called methodical eclecticism and means that the choice of methods is not controlled by an ontological starting point, but rather a valuation of suitability for the research (Kristensen
& Hussain, 2019, p. 331). Moreover, mixed methods are based on the rejection of an either-or choice between qualitative and quantitative methods (Kristensen and Hussein, 2019, p. 331).
As seen from the literature on mixed methods presented above, the use of mixed methods allows the researcher to focus on answering the research question by the use of the best-suited methodology. As argued by Morgan (2007), quantitative and qualitative methodologies should not be perceived as incompatible paradigms that cannot be used in the same research and both methodologies are therefore used in this research.
The methodologies can be used in a parallel process, in a sequential process or they can be embedded in each other (Creswell, 2014, p. 220; Creswell, 2008, p. 68). In this research, a parallel process is chosen as both a quantitative as well as a quantitative sub-study is conducted and analysed together.
31
3.6 Hermeneutic Methodology
Hermeneutic methodology is in this research used for the interpretation of the empirical data collected and hereafter the production of knowledge.
When dealing with hermeneutics, two main fields can be distinguished. One deals with the activities of interpretation and the other deals with the philosophy of thinking (Palmer, 1969).
When dealing with understanding and interpretation from a hermeneutical perspective, the hermeneutic circle can be applied as an idea of how to approach exactly understanding and interpretation. With the hermeneutic circle, the idea is to move away from linear thinking to a more iterative and productive one (Tomkins & Eatough, 2019). This hermeneutic circle as an idea of understanding and interpreting newly generated knowledge is highly replicable to the way knowledge is constructed in this research. As such, new knowledge is generated through the use of comparing existing literature on the field of innovation culture with new insights gathered by the empirical data collected. The process of doing so can be defined as an iterative one, as new knowledge does not necessarily lead to the next step in a final conclusion. Rather new knowledge must be compared with the existent and by that, this new knowledge can be defined as valuable or not valuable for generating a contribution to the existing knowledge on the field of study.
Several scholars have contributed to the development of hermeneutics and how hermeneutics can be used for interpretation and understanding of meaning. Schleiermacher, the so-called father of modern hermeneutics (Palmer, 1969), uses the hermeneutic circle to connect whole and parts. As explained with his own words: “the vocabulary and the history of the era of an author relate as the whole from which his writings must be understood as the part, and the whole must, in turn, be understood from the part. Complete knowledge is always in this apparent circle, that each particular can only be understood via the general, of which it is a part, and vice versa”
(Schleiermacher, 1998, p. 24). The use of this perception of generating knowledge is used in order to understand the subject of innovation culture, as innovation culture must be understood from organizational structure and
32 an innovation management perspective, as well as these two, must be understood from an innovation culture perspective. An example of this can be explained by the use of Figure 1 and Figure 2 in section 2.2, where Figure 1 exemplifies how innovation culture must be understood from organizational structure and innovation management, and Figure 2 illustrates how organizational structure and innovation management must be understood from innovation culture.
The argumentation presented by Schleiermacher is not limited to understanding the field of study in terms of understanding innovation culture via organization culture and vice versa, but are also used as a method for interpreting the qualitative empirical data. When analysing the qualitative data in the form of semi-structured interviews with respondents from selected SMEs and thereby spoken words, a hermeneutic method is used in the interpretation and categorization of the exact wording, as “when we find ourselves putting some sort of label on it, we should also reflect on how our appreciation of that category is brought about by our exposure to specific instances of it” (Tomkins & Eatough, 2019, p. 4).
The hermeneutic influence on organization and management studies is also of importance, as it deals with the interpretation of a text. Text in this context often refers to something linguistic. No matter if it is the written or the spoken word. However, something linguistic can also be different than ‘text’
as it can refer to non-linguistic phenomena, such as organisational practices (Tomkins and Eatough, 2019), as part of the empirical data in this research concerns. The study and the following analysis are based on interpretation of the linguistic character, but as the majority of the interviews were conducted face-to-face at the company, the notion of social constructionism must be taken into consideration, as the natural physical appearance in the organizational frame of the company and the physical appearance of the respondent have influence on the final results.
3.7 Social Constructionism
Social constructionism is chosen as a methodology for the analysis of the research. In order to study and research the field ‘innovation culture’, one must be able to understand the perception of the term and phenomenon as
33 culture is and how such a phenomenon can be constructed. In order to do so, a social constructionism approach has been chosen.
Social constructionism as perception intends to be critical in our understanding of the world and us. Moreover, does social constructionism cautions us to be suspicious about our assumptions of how the world appears to be (Burr, 2015). Such an approach, in the context of innovation culture, thereby pushes the researcher to be suspicious about, not only how, but also why culture has an effect on innovation in an organizational context. What lies in the approach of social constructionism is that we construct our own versions of reality between us (Burr, 2015, p. 9). As presented in the literature review, “shared values and beliefs” among individuals are used as a definition for organizational culture. Such values and beliefs only become a reality if several individuals concur to such a shared perception, as knowledge is not something a person has or does not have, but rather something that is created together by people (Burr, 2015, p. 12).
For creating a culture where innovation thrives, the decisive factors for creating such a culture is important. Whether it is the allowance of risk-taking, freedom for employees, acceptance of failure or any other factor, social learning theorists would argue that behaviour is acquired through the set of reinforcers present in the situation and are specific for that particular situation (Burr, 2015, p. 36). Adding to the behaviour of individuals in an organization, with a focus on culture, it is with social constructionism perceived that
“human beings take action based upon their perceptions of events” (Burr, 2015, p. 155).
The conclusion of social science research is by social constructionism challenged as it is argued that no researcher is able to step out of the perspective they might have. Therefore “the task of the researcher therefore becomes to acknowledge their own intrinsic involvement in the research process, reflecting on the part that this plays in the findings” (Burr, 215, p.
172).
The findings of this research must be acknowledged to be affected by the bias and existing perception of innovation culture obtained before the
34 collection of empirical data. With such a perception of social science research, objective results will be hard to provide. Nevertheless, an understanding of social science research in the light of social constructionism will provide the enlightenment of the researcher’s role in the study and therefore provide another and important perspective on the study.