31
32 Chapter 5: Qualitative case-study research
There are many ways to gather primary data in qualitative research, that is, data to be collected for the purpose of this research. Secondary data comprise data collected for another purpose, independent of the specific research being conducted (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012). In qualitative research, people may be interviewed or researchers may participate as observers, for example in meetings of organizations (Miles & Huberman, 1994). However, there are many other, more specific approaches, such as shadowing (Czarniawska, 2007; Gherardi, 2012) or the interview to the double (Nicolini, 2009). Triangulation in qualitative and case-study research is another important aspect of data collection (Pettigrew, 1990; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009).
It refers to the review of consistency, for example by checking findings of different data sources or different data-collection methods (Patton, 2015; Saunders et al., 2012). Thus, it “reflects an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 5). It is therefore an alternative to validation and not to be treated as a tool or strategy thereof (Flick, 1998).
Case-study research
In case-study research the researcher collects “extremely rich, detailed, and in-depth information”
about one, or more, case(s) (Berg, 2007, p. 283). The term “case” originates from the Latin word casus, which means occurrence (Easton, 1992). Definitions of case studies are troublesome, as
“some are useful, others not” (Flyvbjerg, 2011, p. 301). Gerring (2007) stated that a case
“connotes a spatially delimited phenomenon (a unit) observed at a single point in time or over some period” (p. 19). In a similar vein, Miles and Huberman (1994) wrote that a case is the unit of analysis, and that it is, generally speaking, a phenomenon occurring in a bounded context. One of the simplest definitions is from Hagan (2006): case-study research relates to “in-depth, qualitative studies of one or a few illustrative cases” (p. 240). Within social science this type of study is used to describe an intense study, consisting of a description and analysis of a person, group or organization, that either tests a theory or that proposes a new theory based on the study’s findings (Easton, 1992). A case study investigates one or a smaller number of cases in depth, but in contrast to experiments, the cases are constructed as they appear in their natural social situations (Hammersley & Gomm, 2009; see also page 4 in Hammersley & Gomm, 2009, for a comparison of case studies, experiments and surveys). In this fashion, Gerring (2007) argued that it is also the fuzziness of case studies that gives them an advantage for exploratory research compared with larger sample studies with more pre-determined variables and outcomes.
Chapter 5: Qualitative case-study research 33
Case studies are conducted “not just to swell the archives, but to help persons toward further understandings” (Stake, 2009, p. 19). They enable the researcher to find answers to “how” and
“why” types of questions, while considering “how a phenomenon is influenced by the context within which it is situated” (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 556). Context, as described by Patton (2015), relates to what is happening around and occurring to the people, groups, or organizations of interest. Further, without context, “qualitative findings are like a fine painting without a frame”
as it “envelops and completes the whole” (Patton, 2015, p. 69). Thus, paying attention to the interaction between the phenomenon and its context is critical and can be done by conducting in-depth case studies (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). Berg (2007) argued that this method of inquiry is “an extremely useful technique for researching relationships, behaviors, attitudes, motivations, and stressors in organizational settings” (p. 296). Similarly, Woodside and Wilson (2003) proposed that the key objective of the case researcher should be to create a “deep understanding of the actors, interactions, sentiments, and behaviors occurring for a specific process” (p. 497). A detailed overview, borrowed from Flyvbjerg (2011), about the strengths and weaknesses of case studies, is shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Strengths and weaknesses of case studies; adapted from Flyvbjerg (2011)
Strengths Weaknesses
Depth Selection bias may overstate or understate relationships
High conceptual validity Weak understanding of occurrence in population of phenomena under study
Understanding of context and process Statistical significance often unknown or unclear Understanding of what causes a phenomenon
Linking causes and outcomes
Fostering new hypotheses and new research questions
There are several dimensions to case research. Some of its main advocates are Eisenhardt, Yin, Ragin/Bhaskar and Stake, with each having their own perspective on case-study research (see Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2011). The latter author’s view on case studies may be labeled interpretive sensemaking (Welch, et al., 2011). Stake (1995) took a clear position by explaining that some case studies have a goal of identifying cause-and-effect relationships (e.g., Yin, 2009) and that others seek to understand human experience. Stake (1995) is a clear promoter of the latter approach. This view on case studies allows for information-rich
34 Chapter 5: Qualitative case-study research
contextual descriptions that are required to develop an understanding of the phenomenon (Lincoln
& Guba, 1985). While Yin (2009) advocated generalization, Stake (1995) believed that particularization is the aim of case studies, and that the “purpose of a case report is not to represent the world, but to represent the case” (Stake, 2000, p. 448). It is about recognizing the uniqueness of the case(s) (Welch et al., 2011). It becomes clear, then, that contextual descriptions and an understanding of the subjective experiences of the studied actors are inevitable (Stake, 2000;
Welch et al., 2011). A search for meaning is required, and thick description therefore also implies an “appreciation of how the social context imbues human action with meaning” (Welch et al., 2011, p. 745).
Notion of thick description
Thick description refers to the task of the researcher to describe and interpret the observed social action and behavior within its context (Ponterotto, 2006). The notion of thick description was also taken up by Nicolini (2012), who stated that social science is about making thicker, not thinner descriptions. Instead of making the world simpler, good research makes the world appear more complex. This also means that complex questions will potentially also lead to complex, rather than simplified, answers (Nicolini, 2012). Qualitative case-study research has great potential for identifying and unfolding complexity, as its data provide “thick descriptions that are vivid, nested in a real context and have a ring of truth that has strong impact on the reader” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 10). The goal of social science is to work towards and to establish richer and more nuanced understandings (Nicolini, 2012). Here, a referral is made to Stengers (1997), stating that
“scientific” means making “us more articulate, that is, more capable of appreciating differences that matter” (Nicolini, 2012, p. 216). Being more articulate about a certain phenomenon leads to new ways of acting or not acting in a more informed way. Woodside and Wilson (2003) argued that thick description is in itself not enough, depending on the level of depth and detail. They saw a risk that the researcher might only describe the surface level, and therefore argued that deep understanding is required. This can be achieved through triangulation, as the researcher can then better learn about the “subjective significance of persons and events occurring in a case study”
(Woodside & Wilson, 2003, p. 497).
Chapter 5: Qualitative case-study research 35
Sampling
The studies in this dissertation employ all strategies for selecting the cases that fall within the category of purposive sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2015). For analyzing the data, sampling is crucial (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The choices researchers make about “whom to look at or talk with, where, when, about what, and why – all place limits on the conclusions” they can draw (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 27). The authors added that sampling cases typically involves two actions. The first pertains to setting boundaries, that is, defining the elements of the case that can be studied in the time the researcher available has and that are connected to the research question. The second action is the creation of a frame helping the research to “uncover, confirm, or qualify the basic processes or constructs that undergird” the study (Miles &
Huberman, 1994, p. 27). For sampling in case-study research, various strategies exist. The likely most extensive overview, with more than 40 different sampling strategies, is found in the newest edition of Patton’s book Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. As explained by Patton (2015), the logic and power of sampling based on purpose is the focus on an in-depth understanding of specific cases, that is, information-rich cases. Such cases are those “from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research”
(Patton, 2015, p. 53).
Applicability of qualitative case-study research
Having read and been inspired by many other published case studies, I was curious to learn more about this inquiry and its suitability for my research dissertation. My employment and specific role as an industrial PhD student with very good access to “example[s] of a larger phenomenon”
(Gerring, 2007, p. 42) further fostered my interest and intuition that this might be the right approach. Learning more about case-study research in this review and then bringing this together with the previously described purpose and research questions of my research dissertation convinced me. The advocates of case-study research, such as Stake (1995) and Yin (2009), convinced me that case-study research is very suitable for examining the rather unexplored phenomenon of organizing for pricing. Investigating how firms organize for pricing in practice through a qualitative approach would allow me to examine more deeply the inherent processes and challenges, and how the actors involved in pricing bring meaning to it. It is a promising attempt to “inject ‘realism’” (Carricano et al., 2010, p. 469) into pricing processes, and I therefore decided to “use the case study approach as a guide” (Berg, 2007, p. 284) to my research. For more
36 Chapter 5: Qualitative case-study research
detailed descriptions of the methods used, see the respective sections of the individual studies in chapters 6, 7, and 8. Here, the sampling strategies and criteria for purposefully selecting the cases are more thoroughly outlined, and insights are provided on how data was collected and analyzed.
Table 5.2 provides a quick overview.
Table 5.2: Overview of studies
Study I II III
Titles A practice-based approach to
collective decision-making in pricing
Developing a price discount
model: a process perspective Value discovery and learning:
capabilities for value-based pricing and selling of industrial services and solutions
Number of case firms • 2 firms • 1 firm • 2 firms
Sampling strategy • Purposive sampling (Patton,
2015) • Purposive sampling (Patton,
2015)
• Exemplar of the phenomenon of interest (Patton, 2015)
• Illustrative case (Stake, 2000)
• Purposive sampling (Patton, 2015)
• Emergent theory sampling (Patton, 2015)
Primary data types • 21 interviews
• 4 meetings
• 1 shadowing
• 24.7 hours participant observations
• 19 interviews
• 7.4 hours shadowing
• Field notes
• 69 interviews
• Field notes
Secondary data types • 22 documents and
presentations • 91 MS files (Excel, Word, PowerPoint)
• 261 emails
• Documents and presentations
37