the role of being a social actor

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Methodology and Method

In this chapter we are going to discuss different methodologies and present what type that will be used in the research. Then the specific method will be determined and described in detail. The method that will be chosen is based on what suits best to be able to reach the purpose and answer our research questions.
Research is a practice where several methods and procedures are used to obtain scientific knowledge (Welman, Kruger & Mitchell, 2005). It is something people deduct in a systematic way to gain a deeper understanding and increase their knowledge of a matter (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2007). Methodology concerns the philosophical and logical principles as well as the underlying assumptions within research (Svenning, 2003). The choice of methodology affects the research approach and research strategy. Further, the approach that has been chosen as a base of the study has effect on the success and quality of the study.
Within research there are two main philosophies used as research paradigms within methodology, namely, (1) interpretivism and (2) positivism (Saunders et al., 2007). Interpretivism sees an importance of understanding dissimilarities between humans in the role of being a social actor. Interpretivism’s focus is to conduct the studies among people rather than objects (Saunders et al., 2007; Bryman & Bell, 2011). Positivism is a philosophical method, which usually involves a quantitative research. Research within the approach is limited to only consist what can be measured objectively and observed, that exists independently from individuals’ feelings or opinions (Welman et al., 2005). Another important part of research made under the positivist philosophy, is that the research is conducted in a neutral and value-free way (Saunders et al., 2007). The strive of positivism is to come up with a universal law that can be applied on population, that will describe or explain the causes of why the human is behaving the way it does in the context investigated (Starrin & Svensson, 2009).
Within our thesis we are aiming to gain knowledge of consumers views and opinions regarding CSR. Since the concept we have examined is not well investigated from the consumer’s perspective it was difficult for us as researchers to know beforehand what we were looking for. Therefore an interpretivistic approach has been used as a base for this study, which helped us to gain in-depth understanding through developing qualitative data. It has also been beneficial to use since this approach has been helpful for our study to explain, describe and discover the data (Starrin & Svensson, 2009). This was suitable in this thesis since we needed to find out how the participants evaluate and discuss the concept of CSR. However, we were also interested in conducting an analysis that could be applicable to a greater population. Hence, a positivistic methodology has been used as a compliment and to strengthen our results from the interpretivistic approach.
CSR as a concept is hard to define and there are as many views of it as there are stakeholders. Therefore it was more suitable to use a flexible study with the interpretivistic approach as a base, in order to gain deeper insights and more understanding of how the consumer actually felt about and evaluated the concept. Consequently, since we wanted to illustrate CSR from the consumers’ perspective and furthermore their views and opinions, it was difficult to measure results and to be objective. But after examining and analyzing the findings it was beneficial to strengthen them by investigate them further with a quantitative analysis to be able to make a more general conclusion.

Research Approach

When conducting a research, there are two ways to draw conclusions; on the one hand induction is constructed on empirical evidence and on the other hand deduction is based on logic (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010; Saunders et al., 2007; Bryman& Bell, 2011).
According to Ghauri and Grønhaug (2010) and Saunders et al. (2007) the induction method is often used in interpretivism (qualitative) studies where you go from assumptions to conclusions. The induction approach gives the researcher a possibility to draw general conclusions from the observations. What is important to be aware of is that the researcher can never be totally sure when making these conclusions. Within this thesis induction will be a good way of conducting the first study, the qualitative (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
The deductive way of conducting a research is more often used within positivism (quantitative) researches. Through logical reasoning the researcher can draw conclusions, and this method are often associated with scientific research (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010; Saunders et al., 2007). We could then, by existing knowledge, use our findings to empirically investigate these, and then present them in operational terms. This type of building theory was suitable for the second part of this thesis, the quantitative, since in this part we wanted to find if the findings from the qualitative study were relevant for a greater population as well (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
The process when using induction is that observations/findings are used to make theory, while the deduction is reversed since the theory is used to make observations/findings (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The thesis is primarily inductive, but to strengthen the findings the thesis also uses deduction.
Saunders et al. (2007) states that a combination of induction and deduction could lead to a great possibility of a successful research, and this is why we have chosen to use this in our thesis. Peirce presented a third approach in which the other two approaches are combined. This approach is called abduction, which he describes as following; “the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis. It is the only logical operation which introduces any new ideas.” (The Peirce Edition Project, 1998, p.216). Suddaby (2006) further describes it as a type of analytic induction where the researcher moves between induction and deduction. This gives the researchers flexibility to design a unique research approach. In this thesis this has been preferable since there are limited numbers of previous studies about the consumer’s perspective of CSR. In order to come up with relevant observations that can be generalized, observations from the qualitative study were needed to be taken into account before conducting the quantitative study. If we had chosen only one approach we would have excluded relevant information, findings and results that were needed to make our study significant in relation to our purpose.

Research Strategy

There are several different research strategies to use when performing a research study. The one to choose is based on the research objectives and how to meet the research questions of the study (Saunders et al., 2007). In this thesis we have chosen to use a mixed method approach where we combine a focus group with a questionnaire. Why will be discussed and explained in the following sections.

Mixed Methods

This thesis has been developed through a mixed method approach, which means combining quantitative and qualitative research within a single project. Lately there has been an increase of the usage of mixed methods (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Bryman and Bell (2011) states that this increase has acquired credibility in the field of business studies. The increase may be described with the fact that researchers have found a way of how to make unique and complementing studies (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
According to Hammersley (1996) there are three approaches to mixed methods research.
(1) Facilitation, where one research strategy is used in order to support research using the other research strategy. (2) Complementarily which is used when two research strategies are used to gain different aspects. (3) Triangulation, when the researchers use qualitative research to validate quantitative findings or vice versa. Since this thesis will conduct focus groups and then a questionnaire based on the findings from the focus groups, a triangulation approach has been chosen. Svenning (2003) also present theories about how beneficial triangulation can be since the researchers have the ability to use different studies to complement each other. The quantitative data can answer the question « how many? » since it is more generalizing while the qualitative study can answer « why? » since it is more exemplifying.
According to Barbour (2007) and Morgan (1997) focus groups can be useful when developing a questionnaire, which in our case is a reason for using a mixed method approach within our study. The focus groups can help to capture parts that needs to be measured in the survey, determine the dimensions of these parts but also to provide formulations that express the researchers’ intention to the survey respondent (Morgan, 1997). Bryman and Bell (2011) mentions that a qualitative research often includes an open-ended approach to data collection, but the data and findings can be tested in a quantitative research with more participants. In our case the focus groups will be used to investigate how consumers view and value CSR, and then our findings or analysis received from the focus groups will be measured with the help of a questionnaire to strengthen our analysis and conclusions.

Focus Groups

”Any group discussion may be called a focus group as long as the researcher is actively encouraging of, and attentive to, the group interaction”
(Kitzinger & Barbour, 1999, p. 20)
One of the most significant features with focus groups is that it relies on generating and analyzing interaction between participants rather than asking the same questions to every participant in turn. By these interactions you can generate information that you first did not plan (Barbour, 2007; Morgan, 1997).
It can be hard to decide whether to use one-to-one interviews or focus groups. Thus, in our case one-to-one interviews where you gain in-depth information about every participant is not needed (Morgan, 1997). Focus groups require people who are comfortable to speak in a group of people. It is also important to have participants who want to actively participate and contribute. Focus groups should not be used to produce narratives and should not be developed from the interest of the moderators (Morgan, 1997). With this in mind we have designed open-ended questions primarily. By using these types of questions we were able to ask “Why not?” questions, which is mentioned as a benefit of this method. This gives us the ability to get the explanation and understand our participants’ answers but also their reasoning behind it (Barbour, 2007).
The purpose of qualitative sampling is to reflect the variety within a group rather than collect one representative sample (Kuzel, 1992). This means that analyzing the group discussion is crucial since this is where you can find the differences between the participants. When using focus groups as a research strategy you actually have the ability to receive direct evidence about group members’ similarities and differences (Morgan, 1997).
We believe that focus groups have been a very suitable method for our purpose. The interactions have given us valuable information and by analyzing the reasoning we could find guidance for corporations when it comes to authentic CSR.

Questionnaire

Based on our analysis and findings from the focus groups we have developed a questionnaire to use as a compliment of our study. As mentioned before, we could gain dimensions, parts and formulations from the focus groups that can be measured with the help of a questionnaire (Morgan, 1997). In our case we wanted to measure if the views and evaluations of CSR from the participants within our focus groups could be applicable to a wider population by investigate it with the help of a questionnaire. According to Saunders et al. (2007) a questionnaire collect primary data through asking respondents to answer exactly the same set of questions and is usually analyzed with the help of a computer
Before starting to design a questionnaire it is needed to have knowledge about exactly what is needed in order to gain the results that was aimed for, which in our case meant that it was designed after the analysis of the focus groups (Saunders et al., 2007). The questionnaire has been helpful in order to strengthen the findings investigated, if the respondents of the questionnaire answered in a similar way of what we prior had found. According to Saunders et al. (2007) the benefits of using a questionnaire is that the results gained are easy to evaluate and measured, which also have made it easier for us to analyze the findings correctly.

Research Design

Since CSR from the consumers’ perspective is not well researched, it has been hard for us to decide the target group with age, occupation and gender in consideration. When researching an undeveloped subject where differences between target groups are not known, it may according to us be preferable to aim for a wider target. We have therefore decided to construct focus groups as mixed as much as possible. These opinions have also been applied when conducting the questionnaire.

Focus Groups

There have been conducted three focus groups in this research, the first on Tuesday 12th of March, the second on Monday 18th of March and the third on Tuesday 19th of March. Each focus group contained five persons with a mix of age, gender and occupation. The focus groups were held at one of the researcher’s home and lasted between one and a half and two hours.
Where to hold a focus group will influence the empirical result and by choosing a homelike environment the participants will feel more safe and comfortable. This can be beneficial when the research questions concerns private life attitude; if the participants are going to discuss private attitudes it can be good to welcome them to your private home (Halkier, 2008). Of what the researchers understood, the homelike environment was stimulating for this type of research. The participants did not show any sign about being uncomfortable.
Edmunds (1999) indicates that at least two or more focus groups should be conducted, but further Halkier (2008) means that this can differ from project to project. When conducting a research where the focus groups will be used in combination with another type of research within the empirical data, fewer groups will be enough (Halkier, 2008). Thus, if the research would not include a complementary research, in this case a questionnaire, a larger number of focus groups may have been to prefer. After three focus groups we believed that we had enough data for our purpose.
There are many different views about how many participants there should be in a focus group, thus there are indications of that this number has crucial effect. By using large focus groups there is a risk since the participants may be divided into sub-groups during the discussion (Halkier, 2008). To avoid this division and to make a good balance the number of five participants was chosen. One argument for choosing quite small groups is that it gives the researchers the ability to receive in-depth information. Since the focus groups lasted between one and a half and two hours, this also was a factor to gain in-depth information.
To make the research reliable and trustworthy all the focus groups were audio-recorded, which all participants gave approval to. Saunders et al. (2007) states that it may be hard to manage and note key points at the same time, and it is good if there are two interviewers. This is why the researchers decided to have two moderators and one secretary. The secretary was then able to focus on all non-verbal communication. There have been discussions about whether to video-record it or not. As Barbour (2007) mention this may affect the participants in a negative way where they may feel uncomfortable, which is the main reason to why the focus groups were not video recorded. We believe that the secretary was able to capture the non-verbal communication instead. The focus groups have also been transcribed, which is preferred when making a systematic analysis. The transcription made it easier for the researchers to review the data, since it was written down and in some extent also reduced from data that is not needed to be included in the research area (Halkier, 2008; Edmunds, 1999). The fact that we decided to transcribe afterwards ensured us to be involved and totally focused about the discussion within the focus groups. We were also able to listen to interesting parts multiple times, which may benefit the analysis. All our specific questions within the focus groups can be found in the appendices (Appendix 1), but the complete transcription will be available upon request.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed from analysis and findings from the focus groups and was developed to strengthen these findings. The answer alternatives were developed out of the discussion from the focus groups, which gave us the ability to analyze the subject out of differences and similarities among consumers.
It is highly important to make sure that the questions that you are asking are understood by the respondents in the way you as an investigator is aiming for, but also that the answers given are understood correctly by the researcher (Saunders et al., 2007). We indicate that we had enough of information to design the questionnaire since we had done a lot of literature research and also analyzed the results from the focus groups before developing it. In the focus groups it was shown different opinions and views, which have been the base for the design of the questionnaire.
The respondents could be anyone in the Jönköping region who was at least 18 years old. One of the most important parts when conducting a survey is to obtain an adequate sample since it is impossible to ask all members of a large population. If the sample is chosen properly, it is possible to draw strong conclusions (Graziano & Raulin, 2010). In total there were 120 respondents in a broad variety of ages as shown in Figure 3.1. In addition to this there was an equal amount of men and women, where 49,2 percent were women and 50,2 percent were men. Since we did not know about any differences between gender and age when we conducted the focus groups, we chose a high degree of variety in the questionnaire as well to be able to connect the studies and to make conclusions. The variety of similar amount of participants also contributed to minimize the risk of biased answers because of age/gender. Graziano and Raulin (2010) mean that the size of an sample needs to be determined for each project. Since the questionnaire is a compliment to the focus groups we believe the amount of respondents, 120, is enough for this thesis.
The delivery and collection questionnaire gave us the ability to receive quick answers. We believe that the personal contact with the respondents gave us a high respond rate as well. The results from the questionnaire were later on analyzed with help from SPSS. With SPSS cross tabulations could be made to analyze relationships between answers.
The design of the questionnaire can be found in the appendices (Appendix 2), but the complete data analysis in SPSS will be available upon request.

Analysis of Data

Since we have decided to use the abduction approach for our research, we have gained both qualitative and quantitative data. As important it is to collect data it is to present them in a structured way, to be able to analyze them and achieve the purpose. First we presented our findings and analysis from our qualitative study, secondly we presented our findings and analysis from the quantitative study and thirdly we summarized the two studies’ analysis and findings in relation to each other that was used in the development of the conclusion.
Our data for the qualitative study were collected from our focus groups and as mentioned before were transcribed after the focus groups were conducted. When analyzing our data from our focus groups we have used the qualitative analyzing method stated by Miles and Huberman (1994) which consists of 3 major analysis activities when analyzing your collected data; (1) data reduction (2) data display and (3) conclusions: drawing/verifying (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Data reduction – The data reduction occurs continuously and refers to the process of simplifying, selecting and transforming your data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In our case this meant to look over our collected data, reduce it and decide what patterns that best summarized our findings. Our transcriptions were made in Swedish so we then translated them to English when presenting summaries and paraphrasing what participants said to show our findings in a clear way.
Data display – This refers to the compressed information assembling that will be used to draw conclusions (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In our case this is referred to when we assembled our data to extended text and also categorized them.
Conclusions: drawing/verifying – Here is where the qualitative analyst is starting to decide what the data means through stating explanations, regularities, patterns etcetera (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This is were we decided our relevant findings that would further be investigated in our quantitative study.
In our quantitative study the data was collected from our 120 respondents of the questionnaire. The data was inserted in the program SPSS were we conducted frequency tables and cross tabulations. These were translated into tables and diagrams that were analyzed by us to logically draw conclusions from our findings.
In the last section we have looked at our analysis and findings from both studies to summarize our results. This is done since we wanted to use these results and interpretive them into our conclusion were we present guidance for corporations of how to achieve authentic CSR.

Table of Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Problem Discussion
1.3 Purpose
1.4 Perspective and Delimitations
1.5 Definitions
2 Frame of reference
2.1 Literature Review
2.2 Theoretical Framework
2.3 Summary of Theoretical Framework
3 Methodology and Method
3.1 Research Approach
3.2 Research Strategy
3.3 Research Design
3.4 Research Quality
3.5 Critics of Chosen Method
4 Results and Analysis
4.1 Qualitative Study
4.2 Quantitative Study
4.3 Summarizing Statements of Results and Analysis
5 Conclusion
6 Discussion
6.1 Contribution
6.2 Limitations
6.3 Suggestions for Further Research
7 References
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT