Hirsjärvi et al. (2004) state qualitative research’s main intention is to understand the research subject. The main difference between qualitative and quantitative research methods is their nature: qualitative concentrates on words whereas quantitative research main focus is on numerical data (Eisenhardt, 1989). The methods can be utilized also in surprising connections: Sutton & Callahan (1987) relied solely on qualitative data while studying bankruptcy in Silicon Valley, and Eisenhardt & Bourgeois (1988) gathered quantitative data from earlier studies, which were qualitative by nature. Yin (1981) theorized although case study is often integrated with qualitative research, as well it can involve only quantitative data, or both. Additionally, case study approach can be utilized in surprising connections. Lukka & Kasanen (1995) noted case study methodology has been increasingly used in management accounting studies. Although, interviews can disclose both qualitative and quantitative data (Eisenhardt, 1989), this research is qualitative by nature. Häkkinen & Hilmola (2005) stated case study research has become a widely used research strategy in logistics. They concluded logistics case studies mainly concentrate on descriptive research objectives (Häkkinen &
Hilmola, 2005). Because this study is logistical by nature and it attempts to give proposals for improvement as well as to describe the current situation, research is mainly descriptive analytical but it embodies also normative methods (Routio, 2007).
Kathleen M. Eisenhardt (1989) argues case study method is especially feasible when studying new topic areas. In addition, because case study approach does not rely only on previous literature or prior empirical evidence, theory building from case study research is especially appropriate (Eisenhardt, 1989). This explains why case study method was chosen as a research method in this particular research. Due to lack of earlier first-hand empirical data, by interviewing experts from several companies author was able to gather genuine information at actor level. In compliance with Eisenhardt (1989), close interaction with the topic produces theory which closely reflects reality. Although, case study is often imagined to concentrate on only one case company, according to Eisenhardt (1989) this approach might create problems; amount between four and ten cases usually works well. If sampling has less than four cases, it is difficult to generate a theory and empirical working knowledge is likely to be
unconvincing. However, with more than ten cases, the amount and complexity of data might be hard to handle. (Eisenhardt, 1989) This study consists of 16 cases, including two infrastructure managers and one company which did not belong to research’s main target group. Therefore, the actual case amount is 13. Because the quantity of data is extensive, this research needs to pay special attention on delimitation. However, when contemplating the gathered data on country basis, the amount of cases is numbered down to six (Sweden) and seven (Poland). As mentioned earlier, these figures reckon among the adequate number stated by Eisenhardt (1989).
Häkkinen & Hilmola (2005), building insights of Vafidis (2002), stated commonly is assumed case studies use an inductive approach. Brown & Eisenhardt (1997) and Hilmola (2003) ratified the contention and noted inductive approach is used more frequently in case studies. In deductive approach research work starts from current theory to data; logical thinking is used as generic tool in the creation process of a proper construction (Hilmola, 2003). Inductive approach is mainly used to generate new findings for current theories; however, researchers often cannot state which approach they are using (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Hilmola, 2003). According to Hilmola (2003), generally case study researches are not purely inductive or deductive by nature. This research uses inductive approach:
research’s intention is to generate new findings and confirm the existing ones.
Generally, qualitative research method does not utilize hypotheses. The main intention in this type of research is to proceed in material with as few presuppositions as possible. However, some presuppositions always exist;
therefore they can be used as pre-propositions. In addition, working hypotheses are acceptable in research, meaning researcher attempts to predict the research results. One of the qualitative research’s main functions is to help generate new hypotheses for following quantitative research. (Eskola & Suoranta, 2003, 19 – 20; Hirsjärvi et al., 2004, 150; Puustinen, 2008) Because this research is qualitative by nature, working hypotheses (WH) are constructed. Behind the hypotheses are theories and results from previous researches.
According to previous studies (see for example Brewer, 1996; Ludvigsen &
Osland, 2009; Mäkitalo, 2007; Mortimer et al., 2009; Steer Davies Gleave, 2003) the main barriers to entry are acquiring the rolling stock and bureaucracy. Results
have unfolded in several researches studying various countries, and this research is expected to conclude the same outcome. Therefore the first working hypothesis is
WH1. The main barriers to entry are acquisition of rolling stock and bureaucracy
Already existing companies can use various strategies to enter the markets.
Vertical integration, strategic alliances and subsidiaries are the mostly used forms (Blomstermo et al., 2006; Kotler, 1988; Kotler, 2000; Lee et al., 2000; Mäkitalo, 2007). Naturally, if company is only starting the operations, the mainly used form is start-up. The goods transported by rail are mainly heavy industrial products like ore, coal, steel or timber. Due to large transported quantities, mines or factories might think about establishing an own transport company. Therefore, the second working hypothesis is
WH2. The main market entry strategy utilized by railway operators is vertical integration
Railway freight markets confronted alteration when infrastructure and operations were separated according to the European Directive 91/440 (European Union, 2009). Depending on the progress of countries’ liberalization process, Directive was mobilized during different years. Swedish Rail Administration (Banverket) was established in 1988 and Polish Rail Administration (PKP PLK) in 2001.
Actually, the Finnish Rail Administration (Ratahallintokeskus) was established already in 1995, due to the fact the Finnish State Railways was incorporated. The Infrastructure Managers’ main responsibilities cover maintaining and developing the network. In addition, Infrastructure Managers assist potential operators with needed information, documents etc. (Banverket, 2009; PKP PLK, 2009; RHK, 2009) Therefore the third working hypothesis is
WH3. The Infrastructure Manager can affect on new entrants’ entry process
Chapter 8.2 discusses whether the placed working hypotheses are accepted or rejected, and explains the outcomes.