Validity and reliability, though only discussed in this chapter, have been central issues throughout the whole research process (Kvale 2007).
3.5.1 Validity
Validity referrers to “the appropriateness of a measure” (Ragin 1994 p. 193). Does the study actually measure what it intends to measure? Overall validity of the research revolves around creating coherence throughout the study between what one intends to study and the
instruments deployed to collect data and analyse the phenomena. Further, validity of data referrers to the extent the collected data actually measure what the study intends to measure (Punch 2005). Lastly, there are the aspects of internal and external validity. The former referrers to whether the study is representative of the reality, and the latter referrers to whether it is generalizable (Punch 2005).
9 I used transcription software ‘Transcriptions’ to assist the transcription.
I will argue that the quantitative means employed in this thesis satisfies the criterions of validity. In relation to innovation expenditure in Telenor Group, there are other standardized methods of measuring innovation at firm level. The definitions applied by Telenor Group in collecting quantitative data deviates from these standards. This thesis has attempted to be transparent in the principles of which the quantitative data has been collected. As the definitions of innovation in Telenor Group deviates from established standards (such as the OECD 2005), the results may not satisfy the criterions of external validity. On the other hand this thesis has measured innovation in Telenor Group based on principles that are argued to more accurately capture the innovative activity at Telenor Group (Hildrum and Hallingsby 2012). This may be argued to ensure validity of data within the context of this case.
Regarding the validity of my qualitative research, I was aware of potential threats to validity.
Although I chose the approach of semi-structured interviews, I had certain key questions that every respondent was asked, to ensure that information I had obtained through formal
interviews, informal conversations and information from Telenor Group was correct
(Bradshaw and Standford 2010). Telenor Group did not commission the thesis. However, my supervisory is an employee of Telenor RFS, and has done research on R&D and innovation in the Telenor Group. I have done my best not be biased towards his viewpoint about innovation in Telenor Group, through balancing the information I have obtained whilst at the same time staying reflective and conscious of my own action and choices (Dowling 2010).
The mixed method approach is also intended to address the overall research validity, as it was deemed appropriate to have different types of data input and analytical tools to study such a heterogeneous and complex issue as innovation. This ensured that the study was not ‘trapped’
by one method’s strict analytical regime and enables me to study the complex issue of innovation from different perspectives.
3.5.2 Generalizability
“Generalization should not necessarily be the objective of all research…”
Keith F. Punch 2005 p. 145
Whether a case study may generalize its findings depends on both the purpose and the context of the case (Punch 2005). There are some instances were generalization is not objectively possible, for instance if the case is unique in central aspects. The uniqueness of the Telenor
Group case has first and foremost materialized in how innovation and R&D expenditure are defined in Telenor Group, and local innovation processes at subsidiary level. In unique cases the intention is to understand the complexity in the case, rather than to generalize (Punch 2005), which has been the aim of this thesis.
The findings are not generalizable in the sense that one will observe the exact same findings in other MNCs; however, there may be a form of theoretical ‘transferability’. Knowledge about the characteristics of innovation, and heterogeneity of innovative activity, and the implications for Telenor Group, may to some extent be transferred. This form of ‘analytical generalization’ in which this thesis contributes, may point towards potential implications of this structure of innovative activities in similar high technology companies (Kvale 2007 p.
127).
In evaluating the validity of qualitative research, Kvale (2007 p. 123) maintains that continually ‘checking, questioning and theorizing’ ensure validity. To ensure validity the findings were shared with the respondents and asked for critical remarks and/or rival
explanations. By the dualistic methodical approach, in which the qualitative approach further enquires the quantitative findings, the findings gain credibility - subsequently increasing the overall validity of the research (Punch 2005).
3.5.3 Reliability
Reliability of a study concerns the “consistency and repeatability of the research
procedures…” (Yin 2014 p. 240). This chapter has sought to offer a transparent presentation of the data collection, analysis and interpretation. In this regard, the findings are repeatable, given the same data access as I have gained, where at least the quantitative results are subject for replication. Reliability is a slightly more complicated issue in relation to the qualitative results, as they mainly consist of experiences and opinions – factors that may change over time. Furthermore, Telenor Pakistan is in a transitional phase, meaning that they are evolving from a greenfield operation to a mature company. Telenor Bulgaria is in the middle of a major transformation phase being acquired by Telenor Group less than a year ago. Therefore, the respondent opinions and the innovation processes themselves may change over time, as the companies stabilizes in a mature market. Nevertheless, this chapter has outlined how the interviews were conducted, transcribed and the subsidiaries in which the interviews were
conducted. Furthermore, through the processes of citation check and discussion with the respondents in terms of key findings, I have strived towards ensuring reliability of the results.