3.1.1 Research Design
Research design can be defined as a framework for the collection and analysis of data used to answer the research question (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Easterby-Smith et al. (2015) explain a research design as the organization of research activity, including the collection of data, which are most likely to answer the stated research problem. Thus, the research design can be explained as the overall plan for relating the conceptual research problem to relevant and practicable empirical research (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
Since our research aims to gain insight into organizational realities through the tender evaluation processes among selected Norwegian municipalities, a case study was found appropriate. According to Ellram (1996), there are excellent opportunities for using a case study in several areas of logistics and purchasing, which support our choice of design. A case study looks in depth at one, or a small number of, organizations, events or individuals, generally over time (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). Furthermore, a case study research is optimal when the concept and variables under study are difficult to quantify, and when best results are achieved through studying the phenomenon in its social context (Gauri &
Grønhaug, 2010; Ellram, 1996). Consequently, a case study will provide us with the possibility to analyze Norwegian municipalities and achieve a comprehensive picture of the supplier selection process.
24
One of the fundamental issues in case study analysis is to determine whether a single case study or multiple case studies should be performed (Saunders et al., 2016). As the study utilizes a comparison of more than one case by investigating the tender evaluation process in several municipalities, a multiple case study appears (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Since the tender evaluation process seems to be characterized by several similarities, a comparison of multiple municipalities will provide a deeper insight in the usage of supplier selection criteria and the outcome of such decisions.
A multiple case study empowers our research to compare (replicate) the
phenomenon studied in different cases in a systematic way (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). By comparing and find contrasting factors, an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon is established through a comparative case study approach
(Bryman & Bell, 2015). Ellram (1996) argues that comparative case design should be used to either predict similar results among replications, or to show contrasting results, but for predictable, explainable reasons. Hence, the comparative case design enables us to investigate and find both similarities and dissimilarities between Norwegian municipalities and provides an insight in the managers' way to use specifications when evaluating and selecting suppliers.
The research design is further influenced by the epistemology used for the research. Easterby-Smith et al. (2015) define epistemology as “views about the most appropriate ways of enquiring into the nature of the world” (p. 334). Since our research combining multiple cases, a hybrid approach combining positivist and constructionist epistemology appears (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). A pioneer in the field of a hybrid epistemology is Eisenhardt, which is concerned with building theory from case-based research. The design is somewhat flexible, and adaption to theory throughout the research process is a crucial factor to achieve a successful result (Eisenhardt 1989, 2007). By collecting the data set through interviews with managers and decision-makers within the selected municipalities and then compare the findings both cross-case and within cases, a case-based and hybrid research were conducted.
The relationship between theory and research will further affect the study in several manners. Bryman & Bell (2015) distinguish between an inductive and deductive approach, based on whether a theory is generated out of research, or the
25
opposite. A deductive approach is typically characterized by the usage of
hypotheses derived from existing theory, while an inductive method is described by allowing theory to emerge from data and specific observations (O’Reilly, 2012). Since the thesis is based on a flexible approach that have been adapted and evolved to data found in the process, the approach used is somewhat in between the mentioned methods. Dubois & Gadde (2002) argues for a third approach, namely systematic combining or an abductive approach, which they explain as a process where theoretical framework, empirical fieldwork, and case analysis evolve simultaneously. A similar approach is discussed by O’ Reilly (2012), which describes the term interactive- inductive. He argues that data collection, analysis, and writing are not discrete phases but inextricably linked, which suits the method used in this research.
3.1.2 Research Strategy
A research strategy can be defined as “a plan of how a researcher will go about answering his or her research question” (Saunders et al., 2016, p.173). The strategy involves which method that is used to collected data, and how it is analyzed. Bryman & Bell (2015) distinguish between a qualitative and quantitative research strategy, which serves as two extremes. A qualitative research strategy usually emphasizes words and non- numerical data, whereas a quantitative research strategy uses numbers and quantification in the collection and analysis of data.
A qualitative method was found appropriate for this research, as it enables the researchers to focus on local perceptions and experiences of an event (Bartunek, 2012). Ghauri & Grønhaug (2010) defines a qualitative strategy as a mixture of the rational, explorative and intuitive, where the skills and experience of the researcher play an important role. Due to the nature of the research question, a qualitative research strategy will emphasize understanding and more profound knowledge of the dynamics associated with tender evaluation processes and the consequences for the buyer-supplier relationship. A mixed method combining both extremes were inappropriate due to the interest of the qualitative aspects rather than quantitative and numerical data.
26
A typical characteristic of a qualitative study is that data must be developed by the researcher himself (Easterby- Smith et al., 2015). Thus, qualitative research tends to be of a more explorative nature, using a verbal data set found through open-ended questions to answer the research question. Qualitative data exploited in this study was collected using an interactive and interpretative process, as we
performed in-depth interviews with open-ended questions. Further elaboration regarding the data collection process will be provided in the upcoming chapter.