Evaluation of the Research Method

Before presenting our results, we will briefly evaluate the chosen research method.

4.7.1 Validity

In a broad sense, validity refers to how fitting and well the data set is able to answer the research question (Grønnmo, 2016, p. 241). Semi-structured interviews can have a high level of validity (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 394). Validity can be categorized as internal and

external.

Internal validity

Internal validity in qualitative studies is concerned with whether the study is credible; which implies that what we present as the social construction of the informants reality, is actually aligned with what the informants intended to say (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 203). We as researchers were the data collection instrument, and we took several measures to achieve a high internal validity. We tried to phrase the questions similarly to the different informants, and avoided asking leading questions. We decided to explore the meanings the informant had that we were not entirely sure about, by asking probing questions. In doing this, we made sure that we did not misinterpret the data. This was particularly important due to the fact that we were interviewing informants from other parts of the world, and misunderstandings could occur both because of differences in culture and language. Another measure we took to increase the internal validity of the research, is that once we had transcribed the interview we sent it back to the informant to confirm that the data was correct. This way, we managed to decrease the chance of analyzing data that was incorrect.

By interviewing people with a high rank in the companies’ hierarchy we aimed to increase the validity of our research as these people might be more professional (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 400). This way we hoped that they would leave most of their personal meanings at the door and answer our questions as professionally as possible, as we were asking purely about the business, and not personal meanings. However, it is important to keep in mind that it is likely that they would like to portray their company in a positive light.

38 External validity

In a qualitative study, external validity of the research is concerned with whether the results of the study can be generalised to other relevant settings or groups. In other words, its transferability (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 400). Even though the results of this research may not be generalized to a population, we think that the results can be applied to other industries that traditionally have used retail in their business models. Business models using

crowdfunding can be used by companies that produce a variety of different products to consumers, thus also by companies in other industries than the fashion industry. In this section of the master thesis, we have tried to provide a transparent and thorough explanation of the methodological choices we have made, hopefully making it easier for others to

evaluate whether or not the research can be applied to a certain setting or group.In order to increase the quality of our data and strengthen the external validity, we kept having

interviews until extended saturation was reached. This means that we interviewed companies until we experienced that there was no new information to gain.

4.7.2 Reliability

Reliability refers to replication and consistency (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 202). In other words, to what degree it is possible for another scientist to replicate our study and get the same result. When it comes to qualitative studies, reliability is more related to researchers reading through the research and agreeing on the conclusion. One of the ways we tried to increase the reliability of our research paper was to work in a fully transparent way, which allows other researchers to judge for themselves. Several biases could affect the reliability of our research. How we have chosen to minimize these will be addressed next.

The interviewer bias is if we as researchers affected the answers through our tone, body language or comments, or if we demonstrated a bias in the way we interpreted answers (Saunders et al. 2016, p. 397). It is true that we are interested in, and have worked in, fashion.

This could induce a bias on us as researchers. A fact that can reduce this bias is that we are two researchers. We are a man and a woman with different taste in fashion, and this helped us as a duo, to not be too biased. As researchers we could control each other's work, and make sure we asked all the necessary questions. Furthermore, it allowed us to get two different views when analyzing the interviews. We are both new to crowdfunding, and thus new to crowdfunding in the fashion industry. We think this was beneficial, as we did not have a strong predetermined opinion on the subject.

39 In order to minimize the participation bias, we made sure that our informants were sitting in a closed room while the interviews were conducted (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 397). This was to make sure that the informant gave us their true opinion on the matter instead of saying something that people around him/her would want to hear. Given that our questions were more of the objective type, rather than personal, the chances of having participant error were relatively small. However, it is possible that the informants might not have been comfortable with sharing certain information with us, and therefore left it out.

Another aspect of the participant bias is that the informants might want to show themselves in a good light, and overemphasize the importance of some aspects of the business model due to the fact that the informant might have been in charge of this part. If we saw that a participant had been working with customer relations, and they emphasized the customer relationship as one of the most important aspects of the business model, we would ask follow-up questions to make sure that this was not only due to the informant’s bias, but a true fact. We did find that some of the informants were trying to promote their brand, and used words such as

“luxury brand” to describe clothes that are casual, and mention percentages instead of a certain modest amount of money that the funding exceeded. Therefore, we decided to stick with data that could be verified with actual facts in the analysis.

4.7.3 Ethical Considerations

There were multiple ethical issues that we needed to consider. First of all, there were several considerations that had to be taken in regards to the informants. We wanted to make sure that we had an informed consent from the informants. Therefore, we informed them about the purpose of our research and what part they would play in it, already in the recruitment of these informants. Furthermore, we asked for their consent to record the interview in beforehand, which all of them agreed to. We also felt it important to inform them that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time. In taking these measures, we made sure that the participants shared information out of free will, and not because they felt pressured to do so.

Another ethical issue that was important was to process the data the right way. In order to achieve this, we decided to save our interviews on our computers and two different memory sticks stored in our lockers at school. This meant that we always had access to the

information, while most importantly; not having to worry about exposing our informants. All of the informants were given an opportunity to be anonymous, but they all wanted to use their

40 real name. Given that our research did not include any sensitive information about

individuals, we did not have to go to greater lengths to keep the informants anonymous.

It is important for us that the results of our research reflect the true situation when it comes to the new business models that have emerged through crowdfunding. Therefore, fabrication of data was an ethical concern that we found crucial. We tried to overcome this issue by sending the transcripts to our informants for confirmation. As some of our interviews were conducted over Skype, technical issues occurred occasionally, which made it hard to hear the exact word that the informant used. However, this was solved by sending the transcripts to the

respondents, which ensured that the word we thought they said was identical to the one they actually said.

41