CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The main objective of this chapter is to set the parameters within which the study is to

be conducted, specifically justifying the use of qualitative research, informed by theory.

It reviews the literature on quantitative and qualitative research approaches by

examining the respective strength and weaknesses that provide justification for the

research design selected for the present study. It then describes, discusses and justifies

the choice of the research paradigm. Further, it discusses the case study approach that is

employed as the methodology for this research. This will be based on the research

questions established in Chapter One. The use of a single case study to answer the main

research question of “How does the changing process of globalisation affect the

indigenous film production industry?” will be discussed and justified. Following the

discussion is the data collection method and the technique of analysing the data

gathered. Lastly, the conclusion is drawn. This chapter argues for the subjective nature

of the social world and that it can be assessed through the interpretive approach

provided by the people involved in the context of the study.

4.1 QUANTITATIVE VERSUS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

The terms ‘quantitative research’ and ‘qualitative research’ signify much more than

ways of gathering data. Some researchers (e.g. Lincoln, 1991; Guba and Lincoln, 1994;

Smith and Heshusius, 1986) distinguished between quantitative research and qualitative

research, not on the basis of the type of evidence but on the basis of wholly different

philosophical beliefs. Both quantitative and qualitative methods of research pose

101
common challenges to researchers in terms of their respective advantages and

disadvantages.

Quantitative research is often conceptualised as having a logical structure in which the

researcher applies a pre-ordained framework on the subject being investigated and

adopts the posture of an outsider looking in on the social world. The main defect of this

view of the research process is that it almost certainly overstates the centrality of theory

in much quantitative research (Bryman, 1988). The extent to which quantitative

research is explicitly guided by theory has been questioned and, instead, it has been

argued that theoretical reasoning often occurs towards the end of the research process

(Cicourel, 1982). Social surveys and experimental investigations are probably the main

vehicles of quantitative research but there are three others: first, the analysis of

previously collected data, like official statistics on crime, suicide, unemployment, and

health; second, structured observation, whereby the researcher records observations in

accordance with a pre-determined schedule and quantifies the resulting data; finally,

content analysis, for example, the quantitative analysis of the communication content of

media such as newspapers (Bryman, 1988). Survey research is structured in the sense

that sampling and questionnaire construction are conducted before the start of data

collection and are then imposed on the sample members. In other words, the issues to be

focused upon are decided at the outset.

In contrast, the aim of qualitative research is to gain an in-depth understanding of a

particular situation. Therefore, it tends to be more open, and there is a strong urge to

‘get close’ to the subject being investigated, that is, to be an insider. Denzin and Lincoln

(1994, p.2) define qualitative research as involving a multi-method approach to studying

things in their natural setting, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in

102
terms of the meaning people bring to them. Qualitative research tends to be associated

with participant observation and unstructured, in-depth interviews (Bryman, 1988).

Indeed, in-depth interviews are a data collection method that qualitative researchers

relied on quite extensively (Patton, 2002). The advantages of conducting interviews

arise from the quality of information obtained. Interviews are more flexible and permit a

lengthy number of questions that cannot be included in a questionnaire survey. Further,

researchers will be able to design the discussion to fit the understanding of the

respondents. However, data from interviews are descriptive and narrative in nature and

cannot be statistically analysed.

Since the qualitative approach is more flexible, it is a useful way of acquiring large

amounts of data from interviews, document analysis and observations. Some qualitative

research follows ethnographic methods and seeks to satisfy two conditions: (a) the use

of close-up, detailed observation of the natural world by the researcher; and (b) the

attempt to avoid prior commitment to any theoretical model (Jacob, 1987, 1989; Stake,

1983).

This discussion of these conflicting research methods does not intend to undermine

either approach but rather is done as a justification for selecting the most appropriate

method to achieve the objectives of the research.

4.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM

The four main research paradigms for conducting research will be examined. The term

paradigm is used in explanation of the philosophical assumptions about the nature of

knowledge and how that knowledge can be measured by researchers (Guba and Lincoln,

103
1994; Smircich, 1983; Morgan, 1983). Specifically, paradigm as defined by Guba and

Lincoln (1994, p. 105) is “the basic belief system or world view that guides the

investigator”. However, it should be noted that the term is widely used, with a variety of

meanings depending on when, where and by whom it is used (Guba and Lincoln, 1994;

Morgan, 1983a). According to Yin (2003), Perry (1994), Patton (1990) and Smircich

(1983), there is no universally accepted paradigm and there is still much discussion and

argument about which paradigm and, consequently, which methodology is best used to

conduct research. Further, Cunningham (1993) argues that there is no single paradigm

and/or methodology that meets the needs of all researchers and all research questions

when investigating diverse, complex and changing contemporary society. Therefore, it

is important for researchers to adopt the most appropriate paradigm and thereby the

most appropriate methodology to conduct research based on the established research

questions. What follows is a discussion of what constitutes a paradigm.

Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological

All paradigms share three common perspectives but each paradigm sees the world

differently and it is the choice of paradigm that affects which methodology will be used

to conduct research (Morgan, 1983). The three perspectives pertain to:

4.2.1 Ontological perspective

Ontology concerns the nature of the reality and poses questions such as:

 What is the nature of reality?

 What is already known about this reality?
 What is already known about the real world?
 Is this how things really work? (Perry, Reige and Brown, 1999)

This leads to the second perspective, i.e. the epistemological perspective.

104
4.2.2 Epistemological perspective

Epistemology refers to the relationship researchers have with the reality they have

created, their justified belief and the truth of their final research findings (Guba and

Lincoln, 1994). Epistemology poses social questions such as:

 What is the relationship between the researcher and the reality, as they perceive
it?
 Is the reality shared by others or only by the researcher?
 Have the perceptions of the researcher shaped the desired reality or is it a ‘true’
representation of the reality? (Guba and Lincoln, 1994)

This leads to the third perspective, i.e. the methodological perspective.

4.2.3 Methodological perspective

The choice of methodology depends largely on two factors. First, is the choice of

paradigm established by the researcher and, second, the nature of phenomena under

investigation. Thus the use of an appropriate methodology is crucial when establishing

the truth about a phenomenon, as an inappropriate methodology will yield unreliable

results (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Yin, 2003). The question is now:

 What technique can be used to measure the perceived reality?

4.3 THE COMPETING PARADIGMS

Understanding the differing paradigms is crucial before the selection of the most

appropriate paradigm for the study. In conducting a scientific research, there are four

main paradigms used by researchers to make sense of the world around us. These are

positivism, realism (also known as post-positivism), critical theory and constructivism

(Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Perry et al., 1999). A summary of the nature of the

relationship between the four paradigms is shown in Table 4.1, which also shows the

three levels of distinction between the ontology, epistemology and methodology. It is

105
important to note that the nature of the relationship between each of the paradigms and

the three levels is such that while there is a level of interconnectedness, in as much as

they are all tools designed to measure the truth, there are boundaries that exist between

them that cannot be easily breached, if at all (Moore, 2004; Guba and Lincoln, 1994). It

is also crucial to realise that the responses to questions raised in the discussion of the

three perspectives may well “constrain how the other may be answered” (Guba and

Lincoln, 1994: p.108). What follows is the description of the four major paradigms.

4.3.1 Positivism

Positivism is based on the assumption that the reality of the subject of the research is

both real and apprehensible and, thus, it is measurable (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). As the

reality is real, then when a researcher investigates it, causal relationship can be

consistently measured and categorised across both time and context (Perry et al., 1998).

Positivism is used to test hypotheses and from this the ‘truth’ about the hypotheses is

established using very structured verification methodologies such as laboratory

experiments and surveys (Perry et al., 1998). However, positivism as a paradigm for

conducting all research has been called into question as Cunningham (1993, p. 33)

argues that “there appears to be a growing recognition of the difficulties of applying

positivistic research paradigm for carrying out research and change in real-life settings.”

While Perry et al. (1999, p. 5) notes that using positivism as the only paradigm for

conducting research is “…inappropriate when examining social science phenomena”.

4.3.2 Critical Theory

The critical theory paradigm is based on the underlying assumption of “virtual or

historical reality” derived from social contexts (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Advocates of

the critical theory paradigm wish to transform the world around them by critiquing the

106
existing “social, political, economic, ethnic and gender values” (Perry et al., 1999, p. 6)

that have shaped the current reality, from the previous one (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).

To use the paradigm as a research tool would of necessity make the researcher, as

argued by Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p. 112) a “transformative intellectual”, one who

wishes to change the world in which the participants live (Brown, 1997; Perry et al.,

1996).

4.3.3 Constructivism

The underlying assumption of the constructivism paradigm is that there are multiple

versions of reality and as a result, there can be no single truth (Perry et al., 1998; Guba

and Lincoln, 1994). “Realities are apprehendable in the form of multiple, intangible

mental constructions, socially and experientially based, local and specific in

nature…and dependent for their form and content on the individual person or groups

holding the constructions” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p. 111). Moreover, as the

constructivist approach holds that each construction is based on the individual or

group’s own experiences, then the reality thereby constructed cannot be real or true in

an absolute sense (Perry et al., 1998). Thus, as Perry et al., (1999, p. 6) argue,

“perception is the most important reality” and, as a result, the level of certainty as to the

truth of the findings may not be constant. Also, the findings may well be a creation or a

synthesis of what the researcher has found, in which case the researcher is what Guba

and Lincoln (1994, p. 111) describe as a “passionate participant”.

4.3.4 Realism

According to Guba and Lincoln, (1994), the realism paradigm can be understood to

mean that the real world cannot be known with absolute certainty, one that can be

systematically and consistently measured, but rather it can be known only imperfectly

107
and, therefore, can only be imperfectly measured. Like positivists, realists believe that

there is only one ‘reality’ but argue that this single reality can be defined and measured

by triangulating the differing perceptions that people hold about it, rather than using a

single measure (Eisenhardt, 1989; Denzin, 1978). Thus, researchers who adopt the

realism paradigm focus on methodologies that allow them to explore, to develop new

insights and understanding about a phenomenon, seeking to add to the body of

knowledge rather than to test and prove (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Yin, 2003).

A summary of the relationship between the four research paradigms and the three levels

of distinction and interconnectedness is presented in Table 4.1.

108
 Table 4.1
Basic Belief System-Paradigms for Alternative Methods of Inquiry

Item Positivism Critical Constructivism Realism

Theory
Ontology ‘Naïve realism’: ‘Historical ‘Critical ‘Critical
(One’s view realism’: relativism’: realism’:
of reality) Reality is real
and Reality is There are Reality is ‘real’
apprehensible. ‘virtual’. Shaped multiple local but only
This is the by the political, and specific imperfectly so
reality where the ethnic, cultural, ‘constructed’ and is only
investigator and gender, realities. As such, improbably
the reality are economic and any reality that apprehensible
independent of social values that has been (due to the
each other. have crystallised observed is likely limitations of the
over time in to be a construct human mind and
‘society’. So of that person the complexity
findings can alone and there is of the world)
come from the no such thing as and so,
perceptions of a universal triangulation
participants and ‘truth’. They are from many
any other co- all relative to sources is
researchers. person, time, required, if one
situation and is to know it.
circumstances.
Epistemology Objectivist: Subjectivist: Subjectivist: Modified
(Nature of the Objectivist:
researcher)
Findings are true Values mediate The findings are Findings are
as the researcher the findings. The created as a result likely to be true
is an objective researcher and of the interactive but, as the
observer. the object of the nature of the researcher is
research are relationship participating, to
assumed to be between the some degree, in
interactively researcher and the events, then
linked, to some the object being the level of
greater or lesser researched. objectivity is
degree. reduced.
Methodology Experimental/ Dialogic/ Hermeneutical/ Case studies/
(Technique(s) manipulative/ Dialectical: Dialectical: Convergent
used) survey: Interviewing:

Verification of Researcher is a Researcher is a Triangulation

hypotheses ‘transformative’ ‘passionate interpretation of
chiefly by intellectual who participant’ research issues
quantitative changes the within the world by qualitative
means. world within being methods.
which the investigated.
participants live.
Source: Brown (1997) and Guba and Lincoln (1994).

109
4.4 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF THE REALISM APPROACH

The differences in research paradigm of scientific research have been discussed, and the

most appropriate paradigm is then chosen for this study. Given that the main research

question of the study is “how does the changing process of globalisation affect the

indigenous film production industry?” indicating the necessity for the study to

illuminate and gain greater understanding of the phenomena under study, the researcher

contends that the use of the realism research paradigm is the most appropriate to achieve

the research objective, as it offers a more flexible approach to investigating the research

question as opposed to other paradigms. The researcher contends that other paradigms

are not suitable for various reasons as follows: positivism – concerns the verification of

theory which is not the aim of the study; critical theory – the objective of the researcher

here is to transform the world in which participants live; constructivism – the researcher

is not in a position to assume that perception is itself a ‘reality’. On that basis, all three

competing paradigms were rejected for this study.

In realism, the nature of knowledge to which people have access is both explicit and

tacit. While it is possible to examine documents and other data that is explicit, the

knowledge that is in the mind of participants is tacit and more difficult to access in a

meaningful way. Furthermore, this tacit knowledge is often assumed to be known to

participants, yet they are often only vaguely aware of what they do know. Therefore, the

use of the realism paradigm offers a much more flexible approach. In addition, since the

knowledge held by participants may not yet be ‘fact’, it cannot be readily verified by

quantitative methods, and so the use of the realism paradigm is justified.

110
The selection of the research paradigm will lead to the appropriate methodology used

for the study. What follows next is a discussion of the methodology employed for the

study.

4.5 CASE STUDY RESEARCH

Following Yin (2003), the most appropriate methodology for undertaking research lies

in the nature of the research question. The research question for this study is a ‘how’

question, which is the type that Yin (2003) identifies as one best answered using a case-

based methodology. Moreover, the study focuses on a contemporary event over which

the researcher has little or no control. Table 4.2 summarises this.

Table 4.2
A Comparison of Different Research Methods for Different Situations

Strategy The Nature of the Required Control Focuses on

Research Question over Behavioural Contemporary
Events Events
Archival Analysis Who, what, where, No, as it is a Yes and no, as it may
how many and how search for ‘facts’ be either a recent or a
much past phenomenon
Historical Studies How and why No, as it is a No, as events are
search for ‘facts’ usually in the past
Experiments How and why Yes Yes, happening now
Surveys Who, what, where, No Yes, happening now
how many and how
much
Case Studies How and why No Yes, happening now
Source: Yin (2003).

Similarly, Rossman and Rallis (1989), Cooper (1991) and Miles and Evans (1987)

argue that the case study is best used to research practical problems, as it allows the

researcher to examine the phenomena more effectively and to a greater depth in its

contextual conditions than the use of other methodologies. Case study research could

engage a qualitative or quantitative approach or a combination of both (Bryman, 1999;

111
Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003). In distinguishing case studies from other research

strategies such as experiments, surveys or histories, Yin (2003: 13) defines a case study

as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-

life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly

evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used”.

Frequently, the case study is regarded to be ‘soft’ research. However, according to Yin

(2003), the ‘softer’ the research strategy, the harder it is to do. Indeed, the case study

methodology has been well established as a legitimate methodology in many disciplines

including management, education, marketing and international business (Carson et al.,

2000; Clarke, 1998; Denton, 1998; Marschan-Piekkari and Welch, 2004; Morgan 1983;

Yin, 1989). For example in the area of international business, the application of

qualitative methods has accelerated from the past decades (Marschan Piekkari and

Welch, 2004). According to Ghauri (2004), case studies are dominating qualitative

research in international business in which data is mainly collected from in-depth

interviews. Relative to the quantitative approach, the qualitative method offers a more

holistic approach to the research object and studies a phenomenon in its context and

seeks to understand the meaning and beliefs underlying the action (Buckley and

Chapman, 1996), which goes beyond merely measuring the observable behaviour. As a

result, there are many calls for qualitative international business research (Marschan-

Piekkari and Welch, 2004; Vernon, 1994; White, 2002; Yeung, 1995).

Case studies have been criticised as unscientific where generalisation cannot be made.

However, Yin (2003) argues that like experiments, case studies can be generalised

through analytical generalisation (expand and generalised theory) rather than statistical

generalisation to the whole population. Data received from a particular case provides

112
theoretical insights that are a sufficient level of generality or universality. In addition,

the choice of conducting a case study is a discreet choice, the main objective of which is

to advance our understanding on a specific focus area and an attempt to generate

theories to explain the reasons for observed phenomena rather than to produce

generalisations (Ghauri, 2004).

Like quantitative research, case studies are able to achieve validation, i.e. through

triangulation. The term ‘triangulation’ refers to the multiple points used to locate a

target’s position that was derived from navigation and military strategy (Jick, 1979).

Triangulation reduces the likelihood of misinterpretation as data is gained from multiple

sources (interviews, documents, observations) and/or multiple viewpoints (Appleton,

1995; Patton, 1999). Multi-method triangulation is a defining feature of case studies

where data is gained from multiple sources. Campbell and Fiske (1959 cited in Ghauri,

2004) argue that the use of more than one method ensures validation. To further

increase validation, Ghauri (2004) suggests the inclusion of multiple viewpoints from

the in-depth interviewing. Indeed, case studies enable the incorporation of a variety of

evidence such as interviews, documents and observation, which is their main unique

strength.

4.6 THE USE OF THEORY IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Theory in quantitative research is often used as a basis for the hypotheses and the

research questions that the researcher seeks to test. However, the use of theory in

qualitative research is different from that of quantitative research. The theoretical

framework in qualitative studies refers to theories used to guide the study. The

description of the theory used is meant to ‘frame’ the study, which is known as the

113
theoretical framework (relationship about theories and the research project), which

according to Morgan (1986, p. 12) provides “ways of thinking” and “ways of seeing”

that unveil understanding of the phenomena being studied in novel and interesting ways.

The theory allows the researcher to “enter the field with a theoretical language and

attitude” (Schwandt, 1993, pp. 11-12 cited in Anfara and Mertz, 2006). Qualitative

forms of enquiry demand that theory (i.e. theoretical frameworks) is used with

imagination and flexibility. Anfara and Mertz (2006) define theoretical frameworks as

any empirical or quasi-empirical theory of social and/or psychological processes, at a

variety of levels (e.g. grand, mid-range, and explanatory) that can be applied to the

understanding of phenomena (p. xxvii).

For the present study, the paradigm of the researcher focuses on an individual meaning

and on people’s perceptions of reality rather than any independent reality that might

exist external to human perception. As, according to Burell and Morgan (1979, p. 28),

the social world is perceived as an emergent social process, which is created by the

human individuals concerned. The qualitative approach is useful for this study as it

produces a rich and deep understanding of how research participants understand, think

about, interact with and respond to the forces of globalisation. It concerns the

understanding of the world as it is and to understand the fundamental nature of the

social world at the level of subjective human experience.

The present study uses the globalisation theory from the viewpoint of economic

development theories as a theoretical lens against the backdrop of developing countries

that are embracing globalisation. Using theory from an economic discipline allows

richness and diversity of theoretical frameworks that allow the researcher to see the film

industry as a phenomenon in new and different ways from other previous studies

114
(Anfara and Mertz, 2006). Theory is used in this study to assist in organising ideas and

identifying themes while remaining open to the possibility that new theories may

emerge from the data.

4.7 THE PRESENT STUDY

The main purpose of the study is to examine the effect of the changing process of

globalisation on the Malaysian film production industry. Subsequently, the effect of the

government’s role in the development of the industry will also be investigated. The

advantage of employing the qualitative approach is its ability to discover new

knowledge and new emerging themes (Wilkinson and Young, 2004). As Cooper and

Schindler (2006, p. 169) puts it “qualitative research is designed to tell how and why

things happen as they do and aims to achieve an in-depth understanding of a situation”.

To delve into the true meaning of a phenomenon, semi-structured interviews will be

conducted using a standard set of questions prepared in advance.

The qualitative approach provides a more dynamic and effective platform to undertake a

more comprehensive and in-depth study that permits a deeper understanding of

behaviour, inner thoughts and feelings and meanings of the phenomenon being

researched. According to Shin (2005), there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution in

responding to the challenges of globalisation as countries differ in terms of their

previous paths of development, stages of development, structures of the economy and

so on. This study aims to achieve a deeper understanding of how a particular industry in

a country is affected by the changing process of globalisation, therefore, a case study is

an appropriate method to better understand an individual country’s specific response to

globalisation.

115
According to Morgan and Smircich (1980) the choice of a philosophical or paradigm

stance for any research method embodies a variety of assumptions regarding the nature

of knowledge and the method through which the knowledge can be obtained, not merely

on the basis of which method is more powerful. Based on the earlier argument, a

qualitative approach case study is employed to achieve the objectives of the study.

4.7.1 Research Method Employed for the Case Study

Data was collected through secondary and primary data. The different methods of data

collection were used to increase the quality of the research by employing the

triangulation method during the data analysis stage. Secondary data was obtained from

written documents and observation.

The primary data collection was mostly through semi-structured interviews conducted

using interview question guidelines prepared in advance. Interviews were conducted

because they are acknowledged as a powerful method of data collection. A key feature

of the qualitative research interview method is the nature of the relationship between the

interviewer and the participant. Other sources of primary data included press statements

from mainstream local newspaper and governments’ official websites. Triangulation of

information was done during the data analysis process and, thus, data was gathered from

multiple viewpoints pertaining to the research issues that would enable data

triangulation at the later stage of analysing the data.

4.7.2 The Empirical Domain

The main objective of this study is to gain an understanding of the effect of the

changing process of globalisation on the indigenous film production industry. The

116
selection of a single case study aims to achieve the objectives mentioned earlier. This is

because the effects of economic globalisation differ between countries as countries are

different in the degree and speed of integration and, thus, the effect may differ. Further,

Shin (2006) argues that countries respond differently to the forces of globalisation.

Therefore, a single case study is appropriate in order to gain an in-depth understanding

of the chosen phenomena.

The empirical domain of the study is an industry within a single country. As stated

earlier, a single country case was selected due to different effects of the process of

globalisation, while, a single industry in a country, i.e. the film production industry, as

each industry or sector has its own unique characteristics and, thus, including a different

industry would be meaningless. According to Yin (2003) a single-case study design is

an appropriate design under several circumstances. First, when a case represents a

critical case. Second, when it represents an extreme or unique case and third, when it is

a revelatory case. Since the objective of the study is to gain deeper understanding, it is

an explanatory type of study and the employment of a single case study design will

provide greater access to new information that will eventually stimulate further research

and provide insightful policy actions.

4.7.3 Sampling Method

Scholars are divided with regard to sampling in qualitative research. The term

‘sampling’, which originates from the quantitative approach, is usually made with the

objective of making statistical generalisations. It involves generalising findings and

making inferences from a representative statistical sample from the population from

which the sample was drawn. On the one hand, qualitative researchers are said to be

pre-occupied with positivism in sampling and sample size consideration. On the other

117
hand, qualitative researchers argue that qualitative research does not intend to make

statistical generalisation, and thus, sampling is not an issue in qualitative research.

However, the researcher argues that providing information about sampling and sample

size considerations will provide more richness to the storytelling and help to ensure that

qualitative reports are public (Constas, 1992). According to Curtis, Gesler, Smith and

Washburn (2000), rather than leaving the decision on the sampling method hidden, it is

essential to be explicit about sampling consideration, as it will increase the credibility

and quality of research findings. Thus, sampling and sample size considerations should

be an integral part of the qualitative research process (Sandelowski, 1995).

The researcher is adopting the realism paradigm. Following the methodology or

technique used, the case study method with triangulation of information is a common

method employed in realism. Thus, the number of samples selected for the study must

reflect the need for the data to be triangulated later in the data analysis process. The

justification of a single case study has been discussed earlier. Although the present

study employs a single case study, a single case does not mean a single sample, as the

study of an industry involves embedded cases studies. Embedded cases are sub-units of

analysis the outcomes of which are influential to the main single case. The main unit of

analysis is the industry as a whole. In the case of an industry, it involves many different

players. The central figure to the film production industry is the producer.

Sampling in quantitative research uses systematic and complex mathematical formulae

and gives high regard to the use of random sampling. However, due to the nature of

many qualitative researches, sample size considerations are neither mathematical nor

systematic. It is a strategic choice of informants relevant to the study rather than

statistically drawn samples (Stenbacka, 2001, p. 553). Thus, purposive sampling is a

118
common method used in qualitative research. Although the sampling method employed

for the study is purposive, the study will justify the series of decisions made for the

study, particularly concerning the sample size and how the respondents were selected.

Concerning the appropriate number of samples, Guba and Lincoln (1985, p.204) argue

that sampling selection should be done ‘to the point of redundancy’ that is, until it is

obvious that no new data emerges as a result of an increase in the number of samples.

Patton (1990, p.185) suggests that the observational and analytical capabilities of the

researcher and the validity, meaningfulness and insights generated from qualitative

inquiry have more to do with the information richness than the sample size. Rather than

achieving representativeness (as in the positivism paradigm), the present study will

attempt to achieve credibility of the research by justifying the criteria of the samples.

According to data published by Sinema Malaysia, an agency under FINAS which

provides data of the Malaysian film industry, there were 241 production houses in

Malaysia as at November 2008.10 The decision on sampling method is as discussed

below. The purposive sampling of snowball or chain sampling was employed. This

chain sampling begins with identifying the most relevant respondent that is willing to

participate in the study as the purpose of the study is to gain a deeper understanding of

the phenomenon. The snowballing sampling works in a way that the initial interviews

help to define later interviews. The criteria for the first sample selected is a company

that is currently an active ‘hard-core player’ (the term used by industry people) in the

production of films for cinema exhibition as well as for television broadcast. The in-

depth interview and the information gained led to the identification of other

respondents. In this case, another production house was identified, which is currently

among the ‘hard-core players’ in the local film industry. The information gathered led
10
www.sinemamalaysia.com.my/ directory.

119
further to other players in the industry, which include government agencies and

television stations. The fieldwork then proceeded to enable information to be

triangulated at a later stage of analysis.

As mentioned earlier, following chain sampling, there is no appropriate number

determined for the sample. The decision to stop the fieldwork after interviewing is

reached when the initial analysis of responses during the data collection process yields

similarities of opinion. As such, the research then proceeded towards a detailed analysis

of the responses obtained.

Other primary information gathered is from:

(i) Local television stations – Television stations play a central role in the film

production industry. Their policies, particularly concerning television content,

affect the industry as programmes produced by indigenous producers are mostly

aimed for the domestic market and broadcast by local television stations.

(ii) National government – Government as a policy-maker influences the industry

through its policies. The level of government support in terms of subsidy, etc. as

well as its regulation can make or break the local film production industry.

Government is also responsible for regulating the behaviour of local television

stations.

In addition, their views are important as it provides a deeper understanding of how the

role of government and local television stations are affected by globalisation as their

response to the external forces could directly or indirectly affect the local industry. For

example, the government might be affected in its policy making as a result of global

120
forces (e.g. further liberalisation of media industries), and/or local television stations

might have to change their organisational strategies to keep abreast with global changes

in the television industry and their response might directly affect the development of the

local film and television production industry. Data collection from the industry players

is crucial as the outcome of their actions or policies influences the direction of the

industry. Understanding the role of each industry player is crucial in grasping the idea

of how these agencies are themselves affected by the changing process of globalisation.

Before the interviews, an interview question guideline was prepared. In most cases,

interview questions were given to the respondent before the interview session to enable

the respondents to be prepared for the interview session. Almost all interview sessions

were recorded using an audio tape recorder. On average, the interview session normally

lasted for 2-3 hours. The recorded sessions were then transcribed for later analysis.

A total of eleven production houses, two government agencies and two television

stations were interviewed. The interviews were conducted in December 2008 and April

2009. The production companies are diverse in terms of their relative size. Some are

larger than the others in terms of the number of employees and size of operation. They

also vary in terms of years of operation and track record. The list of production houses

and other agencies interviewed are included in Appendix 1.

4.8 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

The most critical part of doing case study research is during the analysis and

interpretation stage. This is because, according to Miles (1979), there are no well-

formulated methods to analyse qualitative data. However, according to Ghauri (2004)

121
since qualitative research, especially in IB is becoming popular, the analysis of

qualitative data is becoming systematic. Qualitative data analysis guidelines from

authors like Miles and Huberman (1994), Eisenhardt (1989), Newman (1997), Patton

(1990) and Yin (1994) are among the most useable guidelines for qualitative

researchers.

In analysing qualitative data in case study research, the best approach, according to

Miles and Huberman (1994), is to acknowledge the interconnectedness between data

collection process and data analysis. The advantages of interweaving data collection and

data analysis are (i) it reduces the risk of drowning in the increasing volume of data, (ii)

it leads to new questions and new data collection, (iii) it allows formulation or

reformulation of research questions and, (iv) it enables theory to develop alongside the

growing volume of data (Ghauri, 2004).

The systematic analysis guideline by Miles and Huberman (1994) is a general guideline

employed for analysing the data. The initial stage of data analysis involves transcription

of the data collected during the field interview (this was done immediately after the

interview session). The analysis consists of three concurrent flows of activity: data

reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing or verification. Data reduction is the

process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting and transforming raw data

collected during fieldwork. Data was reduced and grouped into different

categories/issues manually. This process makes the data more organised and enables the

emergence of patterns. This way, it helps the researcher to develop an understanding of

how globalisation is affecting the film industry from the point of view of the interview

participants.

122
The outcome of data reduction helps the development of data display. Data display

refers to an organised assembly of information that permits conclusion drawing and

action taking. In qualitative research, data displays could be in the form of matrices,

figures, charts or graphs. It is an organised way of presenting the information collected

during the data collection process. At this stage the data is arranged in a more precise

and assessable way to assist the researcher. It helps in analysing and concluding the

research at a latter stage. The third stage of conclusion drawing or verification is a

process of noting regularities, patterns, explanations, possible configurations, causal

flows and propositions. Conclusions were drawn based on the researcher’s

interpretation of the participants’ point of view and based on the theoretical lens of

globalisation theory set earlier. By emphasising and reiterating the issues discussed, the

researcher is able to receive feedback. Feedback is important as a source of assuring

conformability of statements (Miles and Huberman, 1994). It is vital that the conclusion

drawn is validated. The issue of validity is further discussed in detail.

There are many software packages developed to help qualitative researchers in their

process of handling and analysing data. Examples of the software programs are

CAQDAS, Nvivo and Nu*dist and Leximancer. It is advisable that the selection of

software program depends on the data collection techniques used by the researcher.

Although software packages are available to assist researchers in analysing the data, the

present researcher did not use any of the software for the reasons stated below:

(i) Generally, qualitative data collection results in a significant amount of data

collected. Software packages are useful in data handling as it helps to reduce the

clerical work of sorting words, concepts and passages contained in the

transcripts. However, the identification of significant themes, patterns and

123
 categories still has to be done by the researchers (Easternby-Smith et al., 1992;

Richard and Richards, 1991). Further, according to Easterby-Smith et al., (1993)

and Glaser (1978), the researcher’s judgement is still needed and there are no

software packages that can substitute for the interpretive skills of the researcher.

(ii) The selection of software package depends on the research approach employed.

Since the research employed the realism approach, the researcher does not need

to map all the details of an interview’s subjective reality. Thus, manual coding

of interview data is appropriate for this process (Perry et al., 1998). Furthermore,

Perry et al., (1999) further argue that constructivist tools like Nu*dist are not

essential for realism research.

(iii) According to Glaser (1998) the brain is much more flexible, therefore, doing it

manually is essentially a creative process and can facilitate conceptualisation.

Furthermore, the use of software is too structured and will eventually force itself

into data (Glaser, 1978).

(iv) In addition, case study research involves a small sample size and, thus, it is not

difficult to handle and manage the data manually. By managing the data

manually, the researcher is more comfortable with the accessibility of the data

and, also, it enables the researcher to be more familiar with the data.

4.9 ACHIEVING QUALITY

Reliability and validity are the terms used in quantitative research signifying the quality

of the research. Thus, any research paradigm would require and should demonstrate

124
reliability and validity (Golafshani 2003). The concept of ‘reliability’ and ‘validity’ are

the two important concepts used in quantitative studies to test and demonstrate a good

quality research. Although some researchers have argued that the terms are not

applicable to qualitative research, in responding to the claims over the credibility of the

research, qualitative researchers have developed their own concepts reflecting the

concept of reliability and validity in the positivism paradigm. Since the concepts of

reliability and validity have been argued as not being the appropriate concept for

measuring the credibility of qualitative research, the new developed terms are used. The

terms include rigour, quality and trustworthiness that signify the conceptualisation of

reliability and validity (Lincoln and Guba, 1995; Seale, 1999; Stenbacka, 2001). This

conceptualisation associated with the quantitative paradigm, developed by qualitative

researchers, is the way to eliminate bias and increase the researchers’ truthfulness about

some social phenomena in qualitative study (Denzin, 1978).

Hence, credibility is an important criterion for evaluating qualitative evidence.

Credibility refers to whether reported ‘soft data’ like perceptions match the researcher’s

portrayal. In order to strengthen research credibility, the researcher (i) collects data from

multiple sources and multiple viewpoints (ii) retain the evidence-the data is tape-

recorded (iii) and obtain feedbacks from the participants. In addition, the systematic

process of data analysis follows the guidelines suggested by previous researchers to

increase the quality of qualitative research (Ghauri, 2004). This is consistent with

Cutclifte and McKenna (1999) that maintain that quality research can be achieved by:

 Making explicit of the qualitative approach the researcher use.

 Returning to participants and attempt to gain verification.

 Triangulating.

125
For Guba and Lincoln (1981), they maintain that qualitative data are credible when the

audience can recognise experiences after having only read about them. In addition

One of the defining features of a case study is triangulation, mentioned earlier.

Triangulation is a commonly used strategy to test or achieve quality in qualitative case

study research. It is defined to be “a validity procedure where researchers search for

convergence among multiple and different sources of information to form themes or

categories in a study” (Creswell & Miller, 2000, p. 126). In addition, in the realism

paradigm, Healy and Perry (2000) explain validity and reliability, which relies on

multiple perceptions, i.e. the involvement of triangulation of several data sources about

a single reality. Patton (2002, p. 247) further argued that triangulation strengthens a

study by combining methods. Thus, the present study employs the triangulation of

method and triangulation of data as a means of achieving the quality of the research.

(i) Triangulation of method is where information from different methods of data

collection is employed. Data collection of the present study is through

interviews, written documents, and observation. The triangulation method

enables the researcher to check and validate information from various sources

and examine it from different angles. This method is also able to reduce the

likelihood of misinterpretation.

(ii) The triangulation of data refers to obtaining information from multiple

viewpoints. The present study employs the triangulation of data by interviewing

major players from local production houses as well as representatives from local

television stations and government representatives.

126
4.10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In conducting a qualitative research, frequently researchers are silent on the research

design employed. In this chapter, the researcher attempts to make the procedure of

conducting qualitative research explicit, in particular a case study-based research. The

chapter has reviewed, discussed and justified the choice of case study based research. It

should be emphasised that the aim of case study research is to understand a particular

case (Stake, 1995) and, hence, producing statistical generalisation is not the concern of

this study.

The use of theories in qualitative research is to frame the study and how data will be

collected and interpreted. This study used primary and secondary data from interviews,

documents, archives, government and company websites, newspaper documents and

other secondary data. The analysis is done through triangulation of people’s perceptions

of the phenomena under study. Both triangulation of method and data are used to

increase the quality of the research.

Both quantitative and qualitative research need to demonstrate credibility. Thus, the

terms reliability and validity as used by quantitative researchers usually refer to a

research that is credible. The terms are used separately in quantitative research.

Meanwhile, in qualitative research, terms like rigour, trustworthiness, quality of

research are used to connote both ‘reliability’ and ‘validity’ as commonly used in

quantitative research, thereby demonstrating how the research achieves the standard of

scientific inquiry.

127