Data collection and methods of analysis

One research problem in and of itself is determining the best technique, i.e. the data collection method, for answering the research question. In case studies, this is characterized as combining multiple methods of data collection. In case studies, data collection may come from a variety of sources, e.g. documents, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant observation, and physical artefacts (Yin, 2003). For this study, personal interviews, one of the most important sources of case study information, was selected as the main method of data collection. Yin (2003) identifies three forms of interviews that can be conducted in gathering qualitative research data. An open interview is one in which the researcher asks the respondent for facts as well as opinions about certain events. A focused interview is used to corroborate certain facts that the researcher already thinks have been

established. A structured interview applies rigor to the questioning of the respondent and entails more structured questions along the lines of a formal survey.

The definition of the research questions helps to determine what kinds and volumes of data must be gathered. The research question this study answers is: ‘How do families use ownership in family businesses?’ As mentioned earlier, the pilot case data was collected in unstructured mode; at the time, there was no clear vision of the research methodology or knowledge of a suitable approach. The main objectives in the pilot case were refining theoretical understanding of ownership in family businesses and utilizing this refined conceptualization of ownership for finalizing an appropriate research design. The goals for the pilot case were reciprocal; when ownership was reconceptualized, a better understanding of the data collection techniques was gained. The results from the pilot case determined the data collection and research methodologies used in the second case. This research was conducted through a narrative approach, and the data was collected through four personal thematic in-depth interviews. This approach emphasizes the use of description, conceptualization, knowledge sharing, and interpretation. It connects the subject and the researcher, allowing the latter to better understand the actual practice of business ownership, while also extending the study to the novice and general reader alike. Owners were interviewed to get a better understanding of their experience of ownership behaviour. Each interview lasted approximately 2 to 4 hours and was recorded via Dictaphone; the interviews were also transcribed. In keeping with the case study method, multiple sources of data collection, such as documents, websites, and archival records were also used to overcome the limitations of any individual source as much as possible. As in all retrospective studies, the interviewee’s ability to remember the facts is questionable, so other sources, such as archival records, were also tapped to allow the framing of real event descriptions within their relevant context. In addition to interviews, historical written material was also widely used in this study. The cases were longitudinal, and verbal information about precise past events was not available.

At this point, the researcher had to rely on second-hand information.

Researchers using qualitative data can apply several different kinds of analysis. Patton (1980) suggests the following:

“The cardinal principle of qualitative analysis is that causal relationships and theoretical statements be clearly emergent from and grounded in the phenomena studied. The theory emerges from the data; it is not imposed on the data.”

General indications of what was done with such data in this study will be presented next. The research started off with observation that took place during the pilot case. The information from the pilot case was gathered with spontaneous, unstructured participant interviews. The case approach was longitudinal, so the historical information was gathered and studied from written company histories and other second-hand information. Afterwards, this information was analyzed together with the interviews in order to bring out more relevant elements of the phenomenon being studied. The story was formed during the analysis, and it was interpreted according the evidence from the case. There was a need to be careful when interpreting the evidence from the case study, as there is the danger that very general conclusions might be drawn on the basis of a single individual. For this reason, there was a need for supporting evidence from other sources (histories, other information) before drawing any conclusions. As a result of the pilot case, a research method was formed, which was then used to study the main case. This method contained the essential elements required to reveal ownership actions and portfolio development.

The next phase was to test this research method in the main case. The research began by observing the case, which, as in the pilot case, involved a longitudinal point of view. The interviews were structured, thematic, in-depth interviews built based on the pilot case results.

Information was gathered and analyzed together through the interviews and company histories as well as other second-hand material. Based on interviews and other materials, the story was drawn and then analyzed by arranging the items of information (e.g. levels of change in ownership) into various groups in a preliminary way.

Yin (2003) suggests that instead of using a single technique in a case study, the data collection should involve a broad variety of techniques, such as archival analyses, documentary searches, and direct field observations. In fact, the more techniques are used in the same study, the stronger the case study evidence will be. In using multiple sources of evidence, the goal during the data collection process is to amass converging evidence and to triangulate given facts. Table 10 enumerates the main types of evidence and their strengths and weaknesses as defined by Yin (2003). These types of evidence have been compared against the data collection used in this study.

Table 10. Sources of evidence: strengths and weaknesses (adapted from Yin, 2003)

Source of evidence

Strengths Weaknesses This study

Documentation stable - can be reviewed repeatedly

unobtrusive - not created as a result of the case study exact - contains exact names, references, and details of an event

broad coverage - long span of time, many events, and many settings

retrievability - can be low biased selectivity, if changed; in the main case, documentation is exact containing exact names and details of events documentation covers a long time span and has many events and settings

Interviews targeted - focuses directly on case study topic

the data was collected by interviewing the CEOs, board members and main owners of two case firms

Direct observations

reality - covers events in real time

contextual - covers context of event

not relevant in this study

Participant observation

same as above for direct observations

insightful into interpersonal behaviour and motives

same as above for direct observations

bias due to investigator's manipulation of events

not relevant in this study

Physical

not relevant in this study

Like any businesses, family businesses are always developing across time, and so it is necessary to supplement an understanding of the family business system. These changes take place in ownership, management, and family. There will be continual changes in the lives of individuals, families, ownership groupings, and businesses, as well as the structures (organizational, legal, financial and family) that hold the family business system together. In this study, a pluralist analysis, in which different versions of reality are revealed by the range of actors who operate with a variety of interests and perceptions, has thus been obtained and presented.