The Multi-Site Study is a qualitative research approach that we designed to gain an in-depth knowledge of an organizational phenomenon that had barely been researched: strategic scanning. It combines several approaches to case study research, borrowing from the positivist tradition, the interpretative approach and the qualitative research corpus. It involves the observation and analysis of several sites using namely cross-case comparisons and explanation building techniques to analyze data. The following report primarily explains the thought process that led to the research decision, a description of the process itself is then presented, followed by an illustration and discussion of the results obtained and finally, a note of reflection on the entire experience.
Qualitative research approaches have traditionally been favored when the main research objective is to improve our understanding of a phenomenon, especially when this phenomenon is complex and deeply embedded in its context. Its many methodologies and techniques have helped researchers get a better grasp of a variety of management situations. Qualitative research has now grown into a wide domain, having evolved much beyond its original scope of qualitative data collection. However, a consensus has yet to be reached to determine the exact qualitative research boundaries and the main components of a qualitative research design (Lee, 1999). There exists few roadmaps with detailed instructions to guide the researcher through this methodological maze. For some researchers, such ambiguity can constitute a source of anxiety. However, some others will view it as an opportunity for innovation, that is, an opportunity to "break the mold" and conceive a research strategy that will meet the researcher's specific needs and objectives.
Understanding a phenomenon that has barely been researched requires a qualitative approach that is both adaptive and innovative. Scanning behavior of small firms, the phenomenon that we had set out to study, was exactly the type of research object that required such an approach. More precisely, scanning activities performed in small and medium-sized enterprises ("SMEs") had not been systematically studied and this area of research was very much underexplored. Scanning is defined as the collection, dissemination and interpretation of information related to a firm's environment. Taking the road less traveled, the decision was thus made to create a unique research approach. This paper describes the Multi-Site Study, a qualitative research approach specifically designed to gain an in-depth knowledge of strategic scanning activities performed by SMEs. The report primarily explains the thought process that led to the research decision, a description of the process itself is then presented, followed by an illustration and discussion of the results obtained and finally, a note of reflection on the entire experience.
This research started the same way as most research projects: with only a vague idea of the topic to be investigated, the depths of the research still to be discovered. In this case, the topic of interest was the strategic scanning activities of SMEs. In his seminal work on scanning, Aguilar defines this concept as the gathering of information "about events and relationships in a company's outside environment, the knowledge of which would assist top management in its task of charting the company's future course of action" (1967, p. 1). Our definition of the concept was broader, as it also included the activities pertaining to the interpretation and dissemination of information. For example, going to a trade show to keep abreast of current developments in the industry is a scanning activity. In our perspective, sharing the information gathered at the show with other members of the organization and giving it meaning are also strategic scanning activities.
As literature on scanning activities progressed, the idea was further refined and a general research question was formulated to help focus the readings: "Which characteristics of strategic scanning activities are associated with the success of SMEs?" After reading extensively on scanning, a decision was made concerning the research strategy. The literature review revealed that few studies had been done among SMEs on the topic of scanning activities. Furthermore, most of these studies were of a descriptive nature. No grand theory had yet been uncovered to explain the relationship between scanning activities of SMEs and their performance. At best, associations had been found between various scanning dimensions and performance. Testing these developing theories would essentially contribute to knowledge on the strategic scanning activities of SMEs. However, it also became apparent that such knowledge could be further enhanced if a more open stance was adopted, that is, if we were to let findings emerge from the field. This realization triggered the decision to break new grounds.
Before designing a "road map", priorities for the research methodology were established. Primarily, the research design should allow concurrently for some theory testing and theory building, which implies that both a deductive and an inductive logic are to be followed at different phases of the research. The reason guiding this choice was such that the research would be based on the few previous findings while remaining open to the new information and understanding of the phenomenon that were likely to emerge from the field. Although qualitative research lends itself to both theory testing and generation (Lee, 1999), a design combining both is not a common occurrence. Little guidance could thus be found in the literature. Secondly, the desired design was one that would combine flexibilty and rigour, two qualities often irreconcilable. The realization was that it would be safer going into the field having translated thoughts into a theoretical framework and drafted a well structured research protocol. These fears of having a lack of direction and focus may well have been a vestige of our positivist upbringing. On the other hand, it was not necessary to unduly restrict the endeavour; flexibility was required to stay as close as possible to the phenomenon of interest.
After having carefully read the works of previous authors, especially those of Yin (1993, 1994) and Eisenhardt (1989), it was decided to combine several approaches of case study research and merge them into a research strategy that would be referred to as the Multi-Site Study. As will be further described and explained, this strategy borrows from the positivist tradition, the interpretative approach and the qualitative research corpus. It involves the observation and analysis of several sites using cross-case comparisons to analyze data.
Following a thorough literature review, a theoretical framework was
developed using the only three scanning dimensions that have been linked
to the performance of the firm by previous authors (see Figure 1). These dimensions are: 1) the
intensity of scanning, 2) the level of integration of the information
collected through scanning activities to the strategic decision process,
and 3) the level of fit between the intensity of scanning activities and
the level of strategic uncertainty in a firm's environment. Specific
research questions were formulated, together with research propositions
that were in fact similar to hypotheses.
The theoretical framework was essentially preliminary: it was to be
used as a starting point for investigation, as guidance for the first
steps in the field. It was never meant to preclude from investigating
other variables of interest that were brought into attention while
collecting data in the field. It was understood that such framework was to
be modified as needed, to fit with empirical findings that were likely to
emerge from the field. It is in that sense that our approach was inductive
and aimed at theory building. It can also be said that this study follows a deductive logic as it
refers specifically to the existing theoretical corpus and the initial
theoretical framework was to be confronted to an emerging framework as a
form of theoretical validation. On this level, the strategy very much
ressembles Yin's approach. In this author's view, "good use of theory will
help delimit a case study inquiry to its most effective design" (1993, p. 4). He also says that in case study
research "theory development as part of the design phase is essential,
whether the ensuing case study's purpose is to develop or to test theory"
(1994, p. 27). This contrasts sharply with
Eisenhardt's position that "research is begun as close as possible to the
ideal of no theory under consideration and no hypotheses to test" (1989, p. 536). Feeling constrained by the obvious limitations of the theoretical
framework, several other dimensions of strategic scanning activities that
were suspected to impact on the performance of the firm were identified.
They are: 1) the impetus for scanning, 2) the time horizon of scanning, 3)
the level of structure of scanning activities, 4) the value of scanning to
the organizational culture and 5) the information network of the small
business owner. These "exploratory" variables were added to the study
design to broaden the research perspective. Their choice was partly based
on previous studies, intuition and common sense. The variables from both
the theoretical framework and the exploratory variables were then defined
and operationalized. A research design was devised in a more traditional fashion, specifying
namely: A nonprobabilistic sampling method was favored as generalization in a
statistical sense was not one of the objectives. For this reason,
"probabilistic sampling is not necessary or even justifiable in
qualitative research" (Merriam, 1998, p.
61). Recommended however, is purposeful sampling, that is, selecting a
sample from which the maximum can be learned. According to Yin (1994), sample selection should be dictated by
a replication logic instead of a statistical one. More precisely, each
site (or case) should be considered as an experiment in itself, subsequent
sites being used either to confirm or refute previous findings. Sites
should therefore be selected if they are expected to yield similar results
(literal replication) or on the contrary, completely opposite
results (theoretical replication) according to theory. Eisenhardt
writes that "cases may be chosen to replicate previous cases or extend
emergent theory, or they may be chosen to fill theoretical categories and
provide examples of polar types." (1989, p. 537). In light of the above, it was decided to select cases that represented
polar types along two theoretical dimensions: the performance of the firm
and the level of uncertainty in the firm's environment. The choice of
performance is self-explanatory since it is the dependent variable in the
theoretical framework. The choice of the second dimension is based on
previous empirical findings linking the level of uncertainty in the
environment to certain aspects of strategic scanning. By selecting extreme
cases, the aim is to amplify differences that may exist between types of
cases, thereby making these differences easier to observe. When comparing
findings across homogeneous cases (e.g., pairs of high performing firms or
pairs of firms evolving in a highly uncertain environment) similar results
are expected (literal replication). On the other hand, when comparing
findings across different types of cases (e.g., high performing firms
versus low performing firms), it can be expected to find opposite results
(theoretical replication). For obvious reasons, the sample size in a multiple-site study cannot be
large. Any sample exceeding ten cases would indeed make it virtually
impossible for the researcher to analyze adequately the staggering amount
of data to be collected. This is even more so in this particular project
where the context dictated the use of only one investigator (study done in
partial completion of a Ph.D. degree). Eisenhardt (1989) recommends a sample size of four to
ten organizations (or sites). It was decided to initially limit the sample
size to eight SMEs. Selecting extreme cases along the performance dimension proved to be a
daunting task. The investigator tried to obtain financial information from
external sources (consultants and business magazines) before contacting
potential respondents, but such information was tentative at best. Indeed,
small business owners tend to be very secretive about the financial
performance of their firm, especially if they are not doing as well as
they wish they would. Furthermore, as SMEs are largely privately-held
firms, no public financial information is available. It was thus very
difficult to know with certainty whether a firm's level of performance
fitted with the sampling criteria before interviewing the owner of the
firm. Selecting sites along the other dimension was much easier. It was
assumed that high technology firms engaging in international activities
evolved in a highly uncertain environment, as opposed to local firms
operating in traditional industries. The resulting sample of SMEs was as follows: Cases were not selected all at once. A group of potential SMEs were
first identified. Firms were picked one at a time, starting with those
that seemed to best meet the selection criteria. Initial contact was made
over the phone with the SME owner. If s/he agreed to participate, a
meeting was set. As the data collection progressed, it became increasingly
difficult to select suitable cases as the holes in the sample grid were
being filled. Luckily, the firms a priori selected proved to respond to
the set criteria. As it turned out, half of the firms selected had below
average performance whereas the other half had above average financial
results. The firms selected were maybe not extreme cases in terms of
performance but there were still noticeable differences among them. Prior to entering the field, scales were developed for the selected
indicators to operationalize the variables. There are two reasons behind
the use of such quantitative measures. First of all, they are likely to
facilitate cross-case comparisons that are to follow. As will be explained
in section 3.4, comparison between scores is easily done and outliers
immediately attract the investigator's attention. Secondly, multiple
indicators with scales provide the investigator with more confidence in
the validity of the measure. This is especially important since only one
investigator performed data collection and analysis, which heightens the
risk of bias in the interpretation of data. It is generally preferable to
use multiple investigators as convergence of observations enhance
confidence in the findings (Eisenhardt, 1989). However, as previously mentioned
academic requirements precluded the use of multiple investigators. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with the owner of
the firm and one or two employees that are involved in scanning
activities. Interviews lasted from one to four hours. An interview guide
was used to avoid losing focus and to ensure that all relevant questions
were asked. Questions were both closed and open-ended. Indeed, while some
indicators required a brief and precise answer, it is also desirable to
let information emerge from the field. Respondents were thus given the
opportunity to express their thoughts on the topic of interest as freely
as possible. Finally, a point was made to verify with the respondents the
relevance of the questions in relation to their scanning activities. This
was done in order to refine the operationalization of the variables
observed in the field, should further studies be done on the same topic.
The following questions from the interview guide will illustrate the
point: Variable: intensity of scanning Indicator: frequency of attendance to business/social
meetings The first set of questions stems from a deductive logic: the purpose is
to measure one dimension of a variable from the theoretical framework
(intensity of scanning activities). The other set of questions follows an
inductive logic with the objective of allowing any relevant information on
the topic to surface. More precisely, it was wanted to explore in more
depth the nature of scanning activities that took place during
business/social meetings and the type of information that was so
collected. In addition, verification was also needed as to whether this
indicator was a proper measure of the intensity of scanning in a small
firm. Initially, the interview guide was sent ahead of time to the
respondent. It was felt that by reading the questions before the
interview, the respondent would have time to think about his answers and
to generally reflect on the scanning activities performed in his firm.
However, this strategy was quickly adjusted as the length of the interview
guide had nearly scared away the first potential respondent! In most cases, respondents allowed the tape recording of the interview.
When such recording was not possible, the investigator managed to take
notes while listening to the respondent. Notes were reviewed the same day
or the day after the interview and the within-case analysis (see next
section for description) was performed as soon as possible, while the
information concerning the case was still fresh in the mind of the
researcher. Even when the interviews were taped, the investigator tried to
do the individual case analysis shortly after meeting with the
respondents. The taped interviews were not retranscribed since it would
have been much too time consuming and expensive. Instead, tapes were
carefully listened to over and over again, notes being taken along,
together with citations from the respondents. As a framework in which to
place and categorize data already existed, the task was made much easier
(as will be explained in the following section). Eisenhardt (1989) recommends
starting data analysis with an in-depth study of each individual site,
this first step being called "within-case analysis". This entails sifting
through all the data, discarding whatever was irrelevant and bringing
together what seemed most important. The idea was to allow the most
significant observations to emerge from all data gathered in the field,
while reducing the volume of data. To facilitate the cross-case analyses
that were to follow, all eight individual cases were written following the
same format: a brief introduction describing the organization and its
business environment; a detailed description of the strategic scanning
activities of the firm followed, each variable and each indicator at a
time, starting with the three variables from the theoretical framework;
then the exploratory variables were presented and finally, the variables
that had emerged from the field. At the end of the report was a summary
presenting the scores obtained on all variables. This proved to be the
easiest way to put order in the vast amount of data gathered during the
interviews. The individual cases varied in length from 20 to 45 pages. As
Eisenhardt (1989) suggests, such a
preliminary analysis is helpful to develop an in-depth understanding of
each case before moving on to the next level of analysis. The second step of the analysis consists of a cross-site search for
patterns. Using Eisenhardt (1989) as a
base, a unique methodology was developed to structure this type of
analysis. The cross-case search for patterns was first executed along the
performance dimension. To begin with, firms of similar performance levels
were grouped together. Essentially, the result was a sample divided in one
group of four (4) high performing firms and another group of four (4) low
performing firms. The organizations were then paired within their group
and iteratively compared to each other in order to identify similarities
and differences among them. Similarities were retained to form what was
termed a "configuration" of the pair having been compared. Configurations
were then paired and compared using the same logic, leading to a final set
of two configurations (see Figure 3 for
an illustration of the cross-case analysis logic). This search for patterns was facilitated by the fact that most
variables had multiple indicators measured on quasi-interval scales: the
differences and similarities in scores were really apparent. Such
comparison between scores was likely to reveal the existence of underlying
phenomena, which were then investigated in more depth with the qualitative
data in hand. In other words, quantitative measures were useful to attract
the researcher's attention to underlying phenomena, while qualitative data
coloured and enriched the interpretation of such phenomena. The idea behind all these comparisons is to identify strategic scanning
characteristics or practices shared by all high performing firms and some
others shared by all low performing firms. These bundles of scanning
dimensions were to form a configuration of variables and relationships
exposing the scanning activities of the said group of firms. A final
comparison is to be made between these two configurations that would thus
result in those characteristics of strategic scanning activities that are
truly unique to high performing firms to emerge. In order to be unique to
high performing firms, a characteristic has to be shared by all high
performing firms and be found in none of the low performing firms. These
scanning practices that are unique to the high performing firms are
presumed to be positively associated with the success of the organization.
As a form of validation of the initial theoretical framework, these
scanning dimensions or practices unique to the high performing firms are
to be compared to the initial framework. If need be, the framework is to
be adjusted to take into account findings that emerged from the
analyses. This first set of cross-case analyses along the performance dimension
did not yield the expected results: no strategic scanning dimension proved
to be unique to the four high performing firms of the sample. Not only was
the initial theoretical framework rejected but there was no emerging
framework either! The most plausible explanation is that the level of
uncertainty in the firms' environment had a far too profound impact on
their scanning practices for any scanning dimension to stand out among all
high performing firms (those two that were high technology firms and the
other two that were from traditional sectors of the economy). This
explanation was verified by performing another cross-case search for
patterns but this time, along the environment uncertainty dimension. As
expected, two very distinct configurations of scanning dimensions were
identified, one characterizing the scanning practices of U+ SMEs (high
technology) and one of U- SMEs (low technology). This suggests that
strategic scanning practices are indeed more closely associated with the
level of uncertainty in a firm's environment than with the performance of
the firm. In light of these results, the decision was made to pursue a cross-case
analysis along the performance dimension but with a split sample. More
precisely, two separate sets of analyses were performed, one for high
technology firms and a second for SMEs from the traditional sectors of the
economy. The new sets of cross-case analyses led to very interesting
results, as several scanning dimensions revealed to be unique to the high
performing firms of each group. To illustrate the findings, the emerging
configuration of the scanning characteristics of the better performing
high technology firms is reproduced in Figure
4 (see the emerging configuration of scanning practices of low tech
high performing SMEs in the Appendix).
It is worthy to mention that the variables included in the emerging
framework depicted in Figure 4 stemmed
mostly from inductive logic, that is, they were not part of the initial
framework. Some were exploratory variables while others were only brought
to the researcher's attention during the field investigation. To obtain even more meaning from the data, a third level of analysis
was put in place: an "explanation building" analysis was performed. This
mode of analysis consists of explaining a phenomenon by stipulating a set
of possible causal links about it (Yin, 1994). Yin suggests to begin such an analysis
by taking the data collected from a first case to build a logical sequence
of events explaining the case outcomes. The hypothesized set of events is
then verified in a second case. If it is confirmed, the researcher
proceeds with a third case, and so on and so forth. If at any point in the
process the hypothesized explanation does not hold, an alternative
explanation has to be developed and verified again until one holds with
all the cases. The procedure was slightly different since those variables that were
unique to the high performing firms of each subgroup (high tech and low
tech SMEs) had already been identified. In other words, there was no need
for replication at this point since the emerging frameworks were the
result of prior replications. A tentative explanation of how scanning
practices may have contributed to SMEs' success was developed based on: 1)
the understanding of the phenomenon as observed in the field and expressed
in the emerging framework and, 2) theory and empirical results pertaining
to scanning. The idea behind such an analysis is to elaborate an
explanation that will be both congruent with reality and theoretically
sound. Being able to build such explanation, that holds true across all
cases is a form of validation of the plausibility of such explanation.
An explanation building analysis was performed for both groups. To
illustrate the nature of this type of analysis, the results pertaining to
high technology SMEs are reproduced in Figure
4, following the emerging framework. The top management teams of the high performing firms are formed of
individuals who share the same vision: to innovate and lead in the field.
As far back as the early days of the firm, they showed penetrating
insight, the ability to identify trends and windows of opportunity before
anyone else in the industry. Strategic scanning activities are thus
motivated by a strong desire to precede trends and rapidly identify
opportunities. In fact, this "controlled boldness" lead them to embark on
ambitious and technically challenging projects on several occasions. The
time horizon of their scanning is rather long, as would be expected for
the type of information required for such strategic actions. Indeed,
scanning is directed towards the distant future. On another level, it can
be said that members of the top management team strategically manage their
information networks. That is, specific stakeholders or players in the
industry have been targeted by virtue of the information they can provide
to the firm. Responsibilities for building a personal network and
gathering information is divided between top management team members,
taking into consideration factors such as prior ties with the milieu,
affinities and personal interests. Each member is expected to report back
to the group any relevant piece of information gathered. Developing such
networks is of prime importance as the information they provide allows
these high performing SMEs to innovate and lead their field. After having performed the cross-case analyses for both groups, it
became evident that many scanning characteristics that were shared by high
performing firms had not been selected to form the emerging framework.
Indeed, the replication logic required that all scanning dimensions that
were not unique to the high performing firms to be discarded. The fear was
that the rigour of this logic might have somehow truncated reality.
Indeed, it is quite possible that some of the characteristics that were
not included in the emerging framework contributed to the firm's success,
even though they were not a guarantee of high performance on their own.
The belief is that the amalgamation of all scanning characteristics shared
by high performing firms, unique or not, leads to their success. The
scanning dimensions that are found in the emerging frameworks may have
been the most significant, but to be truly effective they had to be
supported by all these other scanning practices shared by high performing
firms but that were also found in some lower performing firms.
Consequently, two additional frameworks of strategic scanning activities
(high tech and low tech SMEs) were developed, taking into consideration
all scanning dimensions that were shared by high performing firms (whether
they were unique or not). This resulted in a rich and detailed picture of
scanning activities performed by high performing SMEs (see Figure 5 for an illustration of the extended
framework of high tech SMEs). This last framework proved to be an
extremely valuable tool for the development of recommendations on best
strategic scanning practices for SMEs. As pointed out by Patton, "it need not be antithetical to the creative
aspects of qualitative analysis to address issues of validity and
reliability" (1999, p.1190). To enhance
the quality of our research design, we used several of the tactics
recommended by Yin (1997) for case studies
(see Figure 6 below). We were able to collect data from more than one member of each
respondent firms, giving us greater confidence in the measures of the
constructs. We also obtained information about the firms from consultants,
business magazines and promotional material. We thus achieved
triangulation of sources and methods triangulation (Patton, 1999). We used the pattern matching mode of analysis after having
performed the cross-case search for patterns (see Figure 3). Indeed, as a form of theoretical
validation the emerging framework (empirically based pattern) was
confronted to the initial theoretical framework (predicted pattern). As
previously mentioned, we also made extensive use of the explanation
building mode of analysis. We iteratively compared and contrasted pairs of firms that were either
predicted to be similar (literal replication) or different (theoretical
replication), depending on their performance level. Following such a
replication logic both strengthens and broadens analytical
generalizations. Before entering the field, we had developed a thorough case study
protocol. Included in this protocol were all the questions to be asked
and the constructs these questions were meant to measure or document.
Furthermore, when writing individual cases for each firm studied (what we
refer to as "within-case analysis"), we in fact created a case study
database. Indeed, we took great care to organize and present the data
in a logical and meaningful way. At the onslaught of this project, two objectives were identified: 1) to
be able to test a theory on strategic scanning activities by building on
prior research endeavours and, 2) to generate new theory on the same
phenomenon based on findings emerging from the field. The first objective
has been achieved as all of the initial hypotheses were rejected. Indeed,
results clearly showed that the nature of the scanning activities that
could be associated to success depended on the level of uncertainty in the
firm's environment. In other words, there is no universal set of scanning
practices that will consistently lead to higher performance, regardless of
the level of uncertainty that prevails in a firm's environment. This
supports previous findings that highlighted the influence of uncertainty
on scanning activities, but contradicts others where no such relationship
was found. In addition, new theories or explanations on the relationship
existing between scanning and the performance of the firm were generated.
For example, further reflection on the data collected from high technology
SMEs led to the proposition that scanning practices, organizational
learning and performance may be interrelated: scanning practices would
enhance learning, which in turn would contribute to the success of the
firm. Granted, the results are tentative as the samples from which they
were based on are too small for any sort of generalization but
nevertheless, they provide valid directions for future inquiry. Furthermore, the desire was to base this research on a solid structure,
but one that would not hinder the exploration in the field. This was
achieved with success. Indeed, the guidance provided by the detailed
research design proved to be of great value to the investigation.
Furthermore, there was ample flexibility in the design to allow for
surreptitious findings to emerge from the field. The fact that all
variables forming the emerging frameworks were not part of the initial
theoretical framework is a good proof of that. The research experience allowed for identification of certain
limitations in the methodology used, given the nature of the phenomenon
studied. The methodology appears to be better suited for the study of a
phenomenon where few moderating or intervening variables are expected to
have an impact on the relationship between the dependent and independent
variables, or simply on the independent variable. This was not the case
here as there are indeed countless organizational or even contextual
factors that can influence the performance of the firm. As a result, it is
possible for a firm to have "superior" scanning practices but still show a
low performance because of these other factors. Furthermore, the
relationship between strategic scanning and performance is not a direct
one. Scanning is expected to provide information that may or may not be
used; if it is used, this information may lead to a good or bad decision,
which may or may not be fully implemented before ultimately having or not
an impact on the performance of the firm. In fact, there may be a
considerable time lag between the adoption of "superior" scanning
practices and their impact on the performance of the firm. In a study done
using the same research strategy (Thibodeau, 1999), the relationship investigated was
that of the exporting behaviors of SMEs and their export performance. As
the relationship between the two variables was more direct, there was much
less "noise" in the results. It is also acknowledged that with this type of research sample
selection is the most crucial decision the investigator will have to make.
One objective should be to minimize the influence of external variables.
Choosing to incorporate such an external variable to the design (such as
the uncertainty of the environment) led to unexpected results. In
retrospect, it may have been a better idea to select more homogeneous SMEs
with only noticeable differences in their level of performance. Otherwise,
the research can end up leading into unanticipated directions and it may
become difficult to find a common thread between the sites. In light of all of the above, it is strongly recommended to fellow
researchers to experiment with the strategy depicted here. This research
strategy has allowed for the observation of the phenomenon of interest and
the analyzation of the data collected from a variety of perspectives. This
has truly enhanced the understanding of strategic scanning activities of
SMEs. Furthermore, there was enough structure in the methodology to
provide guidance and ensure that there was focus at all times. Finally,
this endeavour has resulted in new insights and possible directions for
future research. Aguilar, F. J. (1967). Scanning
the business environment. New York: MacMillan Company. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building
theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 532-550. Lee, T. W. (1999). Using
qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative
research and case study applications in education. San Fransisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers. Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the
quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services
Research, 34(5), 1189-1208. Thibodeau, J. (1994). Les facteurs
de succès àl'exportation chez les PME manufacturières du Québec: une étude
de cas multiples. Unpublished master thesis, Université Laval, Québec.
Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of
case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study
research: design and methods (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. Yin, R. K. (1997).The abridged
version of case study research, design and methods. In L. Bickman & D. G.
Rog (Eds), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp.
229-259). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. +Dr. Josée Audet is
assistant professor at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, teaching
management, strategy and entrepreneurship to business students. Her main
research interests are related to small business management and
entrepreneurship. Correspondence regarding this article can be addressed
to Département des sciences de la gestion et de l'économie, Université du
Québec à Trois-Rivières CP 500, Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada G9A 5H7;
josee_audet@uqtr.uquebec.ca. +After earning a Ph.D. in
business at UCLA, Gérald d'Amboise devoted his entire academic
career to the study of small and medium-sized enterprise managerial
practices. His teaching of research methodologies in business led him
often to question some of the traditional approaches to the study of
business practices. Now retired from teaching, he works regularly with
doctoral and master students at Laval University in Quebec City and
participates in a number of ongoing research and publication projects.
Correspondence regarding this article can sent to Faculté des Sciences de
l'Administration, Université Laval, Québec, Canada, G1K 7P4; gerald.damboise@mng.ulaval.ca. Audet, J., & d'Amboise, G. (2001,
June). The multi-site study: An innovative research methodology [50
paragraphs].
The Qualitative Report [On-line serial], 6(2).
Available:
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-2/audet.html Josée Audet and Gérald d'Amboise Return to the top of the
paper. Return to the Table of
Contents.
3.0 Research Design
3.1 Sample

3.2 Measures
3.3 Data Collection
3.4 Data Analysis And Results


Explanation building analysis of the above
framework

3.5 Quality of Research Design

3.5.1 Construct Validity
3.5.2 Internal Validity
3.5.3 External Validity
3.5.4 Reliability
A Look Back
References
Appendix
Author Note
Article Citation
2001 copyright