Of the five qualitative approaches to scientific enquiry proposed by Creswell and Poth (2018), namely narrative, phenomenological, grounded theory, ethnographic and case study research, I adopted a case study approach to address the research questions of this study.
Although Schwandt (2015) concedes that the term case ‘refers to a wide range of different things’ (p.25),multiple definitions of case study indicate that its key features are an in-depth, multi-faceted investigation (Feagin, Orum & Sjoberg 1991; Stake 1995),of a single,
contemporary, bounded social phenomenon (Gerring 2004;Schwandt 2015;Stake 1995;Yin 2014),through multiple data collection (Creswell & Poth 2018). Most importantly, a case study is a system, or its parts are interdependent (Orssatto & Clegg 1999; Stake 1995).
Keeping in mind the term system helped me to keep this research project on course. Mentally, I held on tight to the word system, as it assisted me in recognising the parts and seeking their interdependencies. I found particularly useful the view of case study proposed by Stake (1995), as a choice of what is to be studied, where a case is a system, bounded by time and place. A case study approach also seemed appropriate, as I was interested in exploring how institutional investors affect director engagement with purpose (the single, contemporary phenomenon), through an in-depth investigation of directors operating in a certain context.
These factors represented the case boundaries. Case studies are the preferred choice when
‘how’ and ‘why’ questions are being asked, and when the phenomenon is novel, under- studied and complex, cannot be investigated outside its natural setting (Antila 2006; Yin 2014), and is not ‘amenable to quantification’ (Bonoma 1985, p. 202). I viewed director engagement as meeting these conditions, given that my research questions are exploratory in nature, require an in-depth investigation, and the phenomenon of director engagement is quite new. However, I realised that potentially one could measure this engagement, as studies have
done for employee (Saks 2006), brand (Sprott, Czellar & Spangenberg 2009), student
(Skinner & Belmont 1993) and board engagement (Jiang et al. 2008). Nonetheless, I was not concerned with measuring director engagement, rather with understanding its elements and dynamics.
Qualitative research and the case study approach remain the object of critique. Miles (1979) points to ‘serious weaknesses and problems’ (p. 590) in qualitative studies and argues that their ‘methods of analysis are not well formulated’, that within-case analysis is ‘essentially intuitive, primitive and unmanageable’ (p. 597), and that ‘respondents object much more frequently to case study results that to survey results’ (p. 597). Nonetheless, a view has emerged in defence of the reliability of the case study. While the majority of empirical studies move from theory to data, knowledge generation involves a constant iteration between theory and data, and scholars are invited to embrace this approach (Einsenhardt 1989b; McNulty 1990). Ultimately, throughout this journey, I always kept in mind that a case study can only be defended if it possesses methodological rigour, transparency, relevance, well-documented evidence, and a traceable research process situated in a comprehensive literature review, all of which I strived to deliver. I set out to design a multiple-case study (Creswell & Poth 2018; Stake 1995; Yin 2014), to investigate the phenomenon of director engagement. The main unit of analysis of this case is individual directors, as I explore director enagegement as an individual-level process. However the institutional investor stewardship of interest to this case is that exercised through engagement with investee companies, potentially raising the question as to whether a firm-level unit of analysis would also be required and, in case, an explanation as to how the two would ‘fit’ in the study.
Although case studies can have multiple units of analysis (Einsenhardt 1989b; Yin 1984), I
designed this study with one unit of analysis, namely individual directors (as their engagement with purpose is the core concern of this thesis) and in the chapter entitled Literature Review I have offered several justifications for this choice, for instance that
‘collectives do not act, only people do’ (Rousseau 1985, cited in Bridoux & Stoelhorst 2016, p. 231), that some directors can have ‘far more influence than others’ (Hambrick, Werder &
Zajac 2008, p. 382), and that ‘certain directors can sway the entire board’ (Judge &
Talaulicar 2017, p.136) in one or the other direction. Furthermore, boards tend to formally structure their communicaton with investors, typically around individual directors, often chairs (Knudsen, Geisler & Ege 2013; Semenova & Hassel 2019; Stiles & Taylor 2001) to ensure, among others communication is coordinated and duties towards shareholders honoured (for instance equal treatement or non disclosure of insider information). Thus, in this case I adopted individual directors as unit of analysis and explored how institutional investor stewardship, exercised through engagement via dialogue with investee companies, and unfolding through individual directors, might affect director engagement with purpose. I identified in advance the repertoire or umbrella for this case study, the quintain, to use the terminology proposed by Stake (2006). The quintain of this study is director engagement with corporate purpose, which I set out to study across a number of cases. As recommended by Yin (2014) I made this choice because from the outset my aim has been to develop SC theory in the realm of directors. This choice has guided all my decisions in this thesis. As for challenges, I have faced a few: from choosing the topic, to difficult-to-access qualitative sources (Welch et al. 2002), deciding when I was reaching closure, and worries about my own ability, the logistics of the case, the budget I had set aside for it, among others. I will elaborate on these challenges in the sections entitled Data Collection and Data Analysis.