Writing the cases and within case analysis

Within case analysis involves, according to Eisenhardt (1989b), detailed case study write-ups and there is no standard format for such analysis. Each of our three cases represents one system, and we have identified the waste management company as the focal company in each system. In this respect, our case descriptions start with a presentation of the waste management company/ies and we have developed the case in accordance with the waste management responsibility range. Our interest has been to describe the physical flow and the commercial interests, and we have described these flows in two time periods. Indescribing the physical flows, we have followed the path of the products being collected, tracking the activities from collection and transport to reprocessing. In describing the commercial interests, we have followed the fmancial, title and negotiation flows. Each case describes coordinated action within the system in question. This includes the intermediary and dependent variables, as well as an overview of the collected volume as reported to the authorities by each of the waste management companies. The collection rates represent the degree to which the system goal is achieved.

The case descriptions have been developed alongside the data collection. Our cases have been developed from our primary data (the interviews) and the secondary data. The interviewees were asked to explain both how the system was supposed to work and how it was actually

working. Our interviews were conducted with different types of actors, who represented different roles in the systems. This has helped us to gain an understanding of the reverse distribution system inquestion, as well as insight into the other systems in the study. We have not utilized a particular coding technique but the data have been manually systemized. The cases have been written in conjunction with working through the interviews. This has been an ongoing process during the study period. The process has been one of data reduction (Miles and Huberman 1994), where analysis helps to "sharpen, sort, focus, discard and organize data in order to draw and verify "final" conclusions"(p.ll). The data have been documented and displayed (Miles and Huberman 1994) by using statements" from the interviews, together with various tables and figures both in the cases and in this methodology chapter. The result of the process is that the case write-ups are not just data reduction, documentation or data display; they actually form part of the analysis (Miles and Huberman 1994). Thus, even though the cases are divided between a descriptive part and an analytical part, the description constitutes a part of the analysis. The description is a utilization of the analytical framework (cf. chapter 4).

In the within case analysis part, we have analyzed the coordination mechanisms of the physical flows and commercial interests by utilizing the theoretical framework (cf. chapter 4).

That is, the theoretical concepts have been used to evaluate the physical flows through collection, transport and reprocessing, and to evaluate the commercial interests through the negotiation, financing and transference of title. The analysis contributes to an understanding of coordinated action. The comparison between the two time periods gives insight into the dependencies between the physical flows and commercial interests. The change in each flow gives insight into the change in the other flow.

5.3.2

The cross case analysis enhances generalizability and deepens understanding and explanation (Miles and Huberman 1994). Inour cross case analysis, we have compared the three cases (systems) with respect to physical flows and commercial interests and we have identified that there is variation between the cases. The comparison is more directly achieved between the systems within the industry agreement (the El-retur system and the RENAS system) but the independent systems contribute to understanding the nuances.

36 The statements are not a word-by-word citation from the interview, but reflect the statements of the 102

In the cross case analysis it is important not to be mislead. Eisenhardt (l 989b) points out that researchers are "notoriously poor processors of information" (p. 540). To mitigate this challenge, Eisenhardt suggests a number of tactics, including various analyzing patterns. The goal is to get investigators to go beyond their initial impressions and secure theory development that has as close a fit to the data as possible. The methodology of the evolving framework, which is promoted by systematic combining, is utilized in our study (Dubois and Gadde 2002). Itis suggested that the theoretical framework is an important ingredient in the research process and that the point of departure needs to be "tight and evolving" (p. 558). The tightness is suggested in order to avoid a "multitude of meanings" but the evolvement is a component because the "empirical observations inspire changes of the view oftheory and vice versa" (Dubois and Gadde 2002:558).

Working with the context of collection of EE-waste and setting out to understand the coordination of the systems, we have developed a framework that explains coordinated action.

In the analysis we develop this theoretical framework further and analysis of the cases result in the shaping of propositions (Eisenhardt 1989b). The analysis is structured according to the framework, in the sense that we explore the coordination of physical flows and commercial interests separately, and then combine these aspects in order to understand how the processes in our cases contribute to coordinated action.

5.4 ResearchQuality

In evaluating the research quality of the study, we draw on the three concepts of validity, reliability and objectivity. There are many types of validity, which are separated into two main groups: internal and external validity (Ghauri and Grønhaug 2002). Internal validity is an evaluation of the extent to which the results of the study are 'true', while external validity is an evaluation ofwhether the results of the study may be generalized. Reliability is a second criterion used to evaluate research quality. The term refers to the stability of the concepts in the research (Ghauri and Grønhaug 2002). Validity refers to the extent to which the study has been able to measure what it was supposed to measure. Reliability deals with whether the results are trustworthy. The third dimension in evaluating research quality is theobjectivity of

interviewee.

the researchers, as they are highly integrated in the research process. Our evaluation starts with this latter dimension.

5.4.1 Objectivity

An issue in qualitative research is whether the researcher is able to stay objective in the process. Maxwell (1996) identifies two main threats to be researcher bias and reactivity in qualitative research. Researcher bias is the extent to which the qualitative conclusions are a selection of the researcher' s existing theories or preconceptions, and the selection of data that stand out to the researcher (Miles and Huberman 1994). However, since it is difficult to isolate the researcher from him or herself, it is necessary to explain the possible biases.

Reactivity is the extent to which the setting or the individuals studied is influenced by the researcher. Again, it is impossible not to have any influence on the interviewee when doing interviews but it is important toavoid leading questions and to understand howthe researcher influences (Maxwell l 996). Eisenhardt (1989b) notes that "the flexibility of the case study is controlled opportunism in which researchers take advantage of the uniqueness of a specific case and the emergence of new themes to improve resultant theory" (p. 539). In other words, at some point it is necessary to trust that the researcher actually has interpreted the data in the best possible way.

During the interviews we tried to encourage the interviewees to speak as freely as possible.

The interview guide (see appendix D) was used as a checklist for the researcher and was presented to the interviewee. Also, even though the interviewees spoke in depth about what they were particularly occupied with (ref. political stakes in the case discussed in the validity section), they were not interrupted, as this was viewed as important insight into the case. The interviewees received the researchers in a welcoming manner for all the visits. As a result, we believe that they were not overly influenced by the research agenda.

A challenge is also the research process itself. We believe that our attention was more focused towards the end of the process because we were more aware of our framework and had an overall understanding of the cases. This can be attributed to the nature of systematic combining, where one moves back and forth between the case and theoretical framework, which gives increased understanding and a greater focus as the research progresses.

104

5.4.2 Validity

Validity denotes research quality and is represented in terms of several dimensions. Maxwell (1996) argues that there is no "gold standard" for valid research and, as such, the key concept is the validity threat: touncover in which ways you might be wrong.

Quantitative and qualitative research deals with validity threats in different ways (Maxwell 1996). Quantitative researchers attempt to design controls in advance that can deal with anticipated and unanticipated threats to validity, e.g. control groups, statistical control and randomization. Qualitative researchers rarely have the luxury of a priori control. Instead they have to try ''to rule out most of the threats after the research has begun" (Maxwell 1996:88).

Validity in qualitative research is taken care of in terms ofdescription validity, interpretation validity andtheoretical validity(Maxwell 1996).

Description validity refers to (in)accuracy or (in)completeness of the data. Inour case, this type of validity was taken care of by ensuring that all the interviews were worked through immediately after the meetings. Some of the interviews were taped and then written out word-fer-word, The other interviews were based on notes. Itwas also easier to work with the data structuring after having viewed the operations (site visits) that the interviews covered. In addition, the data were strengthened with repeated discussion with the waste management companies, which were focal to the cases. Also, extensive use of secondary data helped towards this demand. Another issue is the extent to which the interviewees gave correct data.

On this account, it should be mentioned that there was a political dimension to this topic. The interviewees viewed the researchers in some instances as "a way to influence". Their stakes and position therefore colored the input to the research. However, we tried to mitigate this by explaining the stakes for the parties in the cases.

The structure for the within case analysis was developed over time, growing as the case evolved.Inparallel with this work, one of the cases (RENAS) was developed as a NETLOG37

case (see appendix G). The write-up ofthis parallel case was helpful in facilitating the cases, especially with respect to understanding the significance of the two contract periods. This

37NETLOG was a four-year research project at the Institute for Strategy and Logistics at the Norwegian School of Management. The project set out to analyze resources in logistics based on the industrial network approach (Gadde et. al. 2002).

work was a part of the NETLOG research project, and the case was presented and discussed at several research meetings and contributed to the understanding ofthis study.

Interpretation validity refers to the extent to which the researcher imposes his or her own framework or meaning on a situation, rather than trying to understand the perspective of the people being studied. One way to circumvent this issue is to ask the interviewees to read and comment on the finished cases. A challenge in our study was the different roles the interviewed actors had within our cases (systems). Due to this situation, it was difficult to get the actors to comment on the cases as they had quite separate views. Gaining and incorporating the opinions of so many actors was not seen to be fruitful and time constraints placed such a solution out of reach. However, since we used a number of statements from the interviews, we asked the managers to permit usage of the statements. The position of the managers and companies are included in appendix E.

Theoretical validity refers to the extent one pays attention to discrepant data, or considers alternative explanations or understandings. Maxwell (1992) argues that theoretical validity involves the two concepts ofconstruct validity and internal validity. Construct validity refers to the extent to which an operationalization represents the concept that it purports to measure (Ghauri and Grønhaug 2002). Construct validity is often difficult to achieve in case study research (Yin 1994). Itmay be difficult to develop adequate measures and that subjective opinions may be represented in the data. A way to strengthen the construct validity in case studies is to use several sources of data (i.e. triangulation). We used this technique in our study when we conducted interviews, undertook site visits and utilized secondary materials.

Internal validity refers to the relationship between constructs or the cause-effect relationship (Gharui and Grønhaug 2002). This relationship is a challenge in qualitative research because it is basically impossible for others to repeat the research (Sykes 1990). By documenting the research process, the data material and the data analysis in a thorough way, we mitigated the internal validity demand.

Beyond these validity types that refer to the quality of the study, it is appropriate to discuss external validity. Generalizability in qualitative research and case studies is a question of generalizing back to theory (Yin 2003): To what extent is our study valid in order to detail the understanding of our framework? We have developed propositions that expand the understanding of our theoretical framework and have therefore contributed to generalizability.

106

A second aspect is that the broad scope of our study within one context is valuable for this type of research. This generates an important outset for further research within the area. We believe that the study in itself has a value, as the systems we study are the first of their kind in the world.

5.4.3 Reliability

Reliability is about the stability of the research process (Miles and Huberman 1994). A challenge in our study with respect to reliability was the explorative approach to the data collection. Inseeking to understand the systems, we carried out fairly open interviews, encouraging the interviewees to speak freely on our research interests (e.g. how does the physical flow work in the system, how are the commercial interests taken care of in the system). Based on the open questions, the interviews were guided with supplementary questions. At the same time, interviewing actors with different roles makes it difficult to claim that reliability is high. However, the strength of the study is that the approach promoted the nuances of the study, which were difficult to predict. Plus it is important to remember that these systems were the fust of their kind in the world and our research interest was in looking for system effects. Therefore, it was necessary to take an open ended exploratory approach in the study.

We have documented the way we have done the study and explained how we have arrived at the results. The same researcher collected all the data, worked through the interviews, studied the secondary data and wrote the analyses.Inthis way, the researcher has been involved in the entire process, which gives added strength to the study. However, a potential weakness is that the results are limited by the researcher's cognitive capacity and understanding. On the other hand, the study and results have been discussed with supervisors, in seminars and with the case companies during the period of the study. Miles and Huberman (1994) point out that if severalobservers have the same understanding of a study, reliability is increased.

5.5 Summary

Inthis chapter we have tried to detail the methodology of the research process. Based on the characteristics of the study, we have arrived at an exploratory design, a case study research

design and qualitative data. The design is suitable for theory development, which is central to this study.

A main strength of our study is that it has been an iterative process that has provided a thorough understanding of the cases. We believe we have a deep understanding of the empirical part of the study. In particular, the adjustments in the process have led to the understanding of the two contracts periods, which has been important for the study.

Itis also of strength that the study has a limited context and that the cases almost cover the entire population within the context. This has strengthened the understanding of the work. In addition, having an overview of the systems advances this research area.

108

Case1:The EI-retur system