Research Method: Supplier-Buyer Identification Introduction

2012

This essay will critically evaluate the research method used in an empirical study by Corsten, Gruen and Peyinghaus (2011) which investigated the impact of supplier-to-buyer identification on operational performance in automotive industry. This essay will first provide a definition of supplier-to-buyer identification and the restatement of research propositions. Consequently, it will briefly describe and evaluate the research approach, strategy and methods used in the study. Further evaluations will exclusively focus on a number of selected areas within the research that are perceived to be deserving more consideration, which are issues relating to the use of expert interviews, questionnaire surveys, research time horizon and ethical consideration.

Corsten et al. (2011) defined supplier-to-buyer identification as the perceived oneness of a supplier organization with a buying organisation and the experience of the buyers successes and failures as the suppliers own. The authors hypothesized that supplier-to-buyer identification stimulates superior operational performance by cultivating trust, supplier relation-specific investments and information exchange. At the time of study, the impacts of supplier-buyer identification on performance have not been empirically examined. Their study aimed to develop and to test a conceptual framework of supplier-to-buyer identifications impact on performance, particularly, information exchange, supplier relationspecific investments, and trust.

Critical Review Corsten et al. (2011) presented a conceptual framework developed through systematic exploration of supplier-to-buyer identification and its impact on operational performance. Initial concept was generated from examinations of anecdotal phenomena in the automotive industry. Additionally, Corsten et al. reviewed the supplier-to-buyer identification and organisational performance literatures to provide research foundation and facilitate subsequent hypotheses development. Subsequently, expert interviews were conducted to further understand contextual phenomenon to facilitate the operationalisation of quantitative measures, and consequently framework validation phase by using questionnaire surveys. Although the research strategy used was not explicitly defined, the study characterised the use of logico-deductive method (LDM) to theory building to address their research aims. It involves a predominantly deductive approach to examining data to test whether it supports their conceptual pre-existing supplier-buyer identification. LDM is a deductive approach to theory building, initiated by an abstract pre-existing theory, analysis of implications, formulation of hypotheses, and subsequently hypotheses verification (Ezzy, 2002; pp.7-8). Such characteristics are evident in the structure of Corsten et al.s (2011) study. Although this approach can be regarded as appropriate to Corsten et al.s research objective, Ezzy (2002, p.9) asserted that this approach only examines whether Atiqah Ismail 1

Research Method: Supplier-Buyer Identification

2012

empirical data supports their conceptual propositions, it does not produce new understandings and new theoretical explanations that may contradict the initial theory. Future research to investigate supplier-buyer identification should consider using Grounded Theory Method (GTM) to theory building. GTM iteratively develops theory from data generated by observation which often involves systematically using inductive and deductive approaches to research (Suddaby, 2006). The adoption of GTM is appropriate when investigating a topic that has not been empirically examined (Suddaby, 2006; Goulding, 2002; p.55). Moreover, Binder and Edwards (2010), who used GTM in their study of interfirm supply relationships, argue that GTM provides a practical and meticulous approach in forming substantive theories that are grounded in data. Additionally, it is suitable for analysing relationships between actors and their environment such as Corsten et al.s study (Suddaby, 2006). Furthermore, advocates of GTM in OM research claim the need for a more systematic observation and less hypotheses testing to account for todays complex and dynamic industrial environment to better account intersubjective phenomenon (Suddaby, 2006; Hayes, 2000; Binder and Edwards, 2010). Hence, the future possibility and appropriateness of GTM in this study is justified.

Mixed-method To address their research propositions, Corsten et al. (2011) used a mixed-method research design, employing both qualitative and quantitative methods to collect empirical data (Saunders, 2012; p.165); in-depth qualitative expert interviews and quantitative questionnaire surveys. The choice of mixed-method strategy is considered relevant to the research purpose is mainly attributed to two main reasons. First, no empirical research had been done on the impact of supplier-buyer identification on operational performance, where inexistence of prior literature to draw leads from and the use of anecdotal evidences (e.g. Toyota and Honda) used by Corsten et al. were insufficient to provide a valid foundation for a standalone quantitative research (Bryman and Bell, 2011; p.35). Thus, a preliminary exploratory stance from qualitative approaches was appropriate to provide relevant contextual foundation and basis for developing quantitative measurement (Bryman and Bell, 2011; p.35). Second, quantitative validation was needed to test and generalise their research propositions. Essentially, the researchers cannot rely on either qualitative or quantitative methods alone to achieve their research objectives. Hence, this supports the practical justification for mixed-method strategy whereby the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods simultaneously provides a better understanding of research problems, research rigour and practitioner-relevance than either approach alone (Creswell and Clark, 2007; Bhme et al., 2012). Moreover, mixed-method approach has been emphasised in operations management (OM) literature to respond to limitations associated with the over-reliance on traditional singlemethod quantitative research designs within the literature, which oversimplifies complex real-world phenomenon (Bhme et al., 2012; Golicic and Davis, 2012). Thus, academics in Atiqah Ismail 2

Research Method: Supplier-Buyer Identification

2012

OM research (e.g. Bhme et al., 2012; Ellram, 1996; Naslund, 2002) call for a more balanced approach to research using mixed-methods approaches that are more appropriate for theory generation and investigation of dynamic, complex phenomena. Moreover, the empiricism of this study required knowledge to be sought from different research approaches to strengthen its empirical rigour (Bryman and Bell, 2011; p.10; Golicic and Davis, 2012).

Expert Interviews The study first conducted 21 exploratory expert interviews with car manufacturers and suppliers to explore the supplier-buyer identification context. Expert interviews provide insightful contextual clarifications of the supplier-buyer relationship, minimising researchers subjectivity of the phenomenon and elimination of potential researcher-bias (Binder and Edwards, 2010). Probing questions used in their study benefits from the ability to elicit contextual insights whilst ensuring focus on the specific area of interest (Saunders, 2012; p.377). Although the type of qualitative interview was unspecified, the exploratory objective of the interview to focus and address specific contextual areas of inter-organisational identifications indicates that the interview was semi-structured (Bryman and Bell, 2011; p.472). Semi-structured, expert interviews can provide credibility and validity of the research (Saunders, 2012; pp.384-92; Goulding, 2002; p.59). Moreover, expert discussions into aspects which may not have been considered prior to the interview help reduce potential nonresponse relating to terminological obscurity and irrelevance (Goulding, 2002; p.59). However, the lack of standardisation and structure associated with exploratory qualitative interviews may lead to data quality issues regarding replicability, reliability and generalisability (Saunders, 2012; pp.380-81). Nonetheless, the objective of their qualitative research was to gain contextual understanding and meaning rather than to provide generalisation (Bryman and Bell, 2011; p.466). Furthermore, qualitative interview data were used to inform quantitative research instruments. Credible and relevant qualitative elements from expert insights may contribute to a more robust input to operationalising quantitative constructs, which will consequently provide empirical rigour when operationalising survey research (Goulding, 2002; p.59). Corsten et al.s objective for expert interviews was rather illustrative rather than definitive (Bryman and Bell, 2011; p.17). Hence, this adds on to the justification of the appropriateness of conducting expert interviews. Nonetheless, it is important to note that interviewers skills, knowledge of the phenomenon and ability to minimise influence also impact on generating quality and unbiased data (Proctor, 2005; in Ruto et al.,2009).

Questionnaire survey Subsequently, Corsten et al. administered a quantitative questionnaire survey to test their research propositions. The aim of the survey was to test research hypotheses to generate Atiqah Ismail 3

Research Method: Supplier-Buyer Identification

2012

generalisable supplier-buyer identification framework. Questionnaires were conducted via email or mail to a sampling frame of German automotive industry suppliers, with a final sample size of 346 valid responses. The main advantage of using of quantitative survey is that it provides a large scope for theoretical generalisation. Nonetheless, this advantage depends largely on research samples from which data is collected. A major limitation of Corsten et al.s quantitative study relates to sampling. First, unspecified and unclear sampling technique used raises questions on how have the authors obtained and accessed their sample. Especially with the existence of differences in organisational characteristics (e.g. size) in the sample frame, specificity of sampling technique is important because it allows the assessment of justification of technique enabling the identification of potential sources of errors (e.g. random sampling or non-sampling error) and the magnitude of its influence on findings (Saunders, 2012; p.276; Ruto et al., 2009; pp.97-9). Choosing an appropriate sampling technique is important as it has implications on generalisability of findings and potential of replicability for future research (Saunders, 2012; p.262). For example, using stratified random sampling could have provided a higher scope for representativeness and generalisability than simple random sampling to all firm sizes. Therefore, it is difficult to further assess any issues relating to sample bias and quantitative data quality. Other limitations acknowledged by the authors relates to generalisability of findings and low response rate. The choice of sample frame may only generate data that are representative to the German automotive industry, but not to the European automotive industry (chosen research setting), or the automotive industry in other countries. The authors had acknowledged this limitation and suggested similar research be done in a different settings. The low response rate (20%) was largely due to outdated sample frame. To avoid potential issues relating to invalid or duplicate contact details as seen in Corsten et al.s study, presurvey contact could have been conducted to assess the quality of sample frame before proceeding with data collection (Saunders, 2012; p.219). Cross-sectional Study The researchers have acknowledged the suitability of longitudinal study over their present cross-sectional study due to dynamic nature of relationships. Longitudinal study involves research over an extended period of time, while a cross-sectional study is conducted at a particular time (Saunders, 2012; p.190). Along with other researchers of inter-organisational relationships (e.g. Fynes and Voss, 2002; Knoben et al., 2006), it is agreed that longitudinal study could have provided more rigorous and definitive contributions to theoretical conceptualisations of inter-organisational relationships as it has the capacity to account for the dynamism and complexities of such relationships and its evolution over time (Fynes and Voss, 2002; Saunders, 2012; p.190). However, time constraints associated with longitudinal studies could have contributed to the choice of cross-sectional approach. According to Bryman and Bell (2011, p.63), analysis of archival information and secondary data could be an alternative method to compensate time constraint. However, no empirical study prior to this had been done, hence this was unfeasible. Nonetheless, as acknowledged by the authors, future research should consider a longitudinal approach to account for the non-static nature of Atiqah Ismail 4

Research Method: Supplier-Buyer Identification

2012

inter-organisational relationships, using comparative designs or periodic studies using fixed samples (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Saunders et al., 2012).

Ethical considerations Corsten et al. (2011) did not reflect any evidence of ethical consideration in their study. Hence, the ethical stance and commitment of this research is unclear. Ethical considerations represent the integrity of a piece of research and are essential to research involving human participants (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Furthermore, it is the responsibility and obligation of the researcher to comply with ethical and legal requirements associated with research conduct (Ruto et al., 2009; pp.27-9). Possible ethical issues related to Corsten et al.s research could associate with issues such as confidentiality and anonymity of research participants. Academy of Management (in Bryman and Bell, 2011; p.129) advised that issues relating to confidentiality and anonymity should be negotiated and agreed with potential research participants. Ethical clarification provides research credibility (Saunders, 2012; p.224), assuming the aforementioned issues were not clarified to potential respondents, apprehensions regarding their confidentiality, anonymity, perceptions of professional harm to respondents and information use may have some contribution to the low response rate from unwillingness to respond.

Conclusion This essay has evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of the research method used in Corsten et al.s (2011) study. Corsten et al. adopted a deductive approach to theory development and verification using primarily quantitative survey strategy. Generally, the research design and approach choices were substantiated by the nature of the research problem and objectives. However, some weaknesses were found, particularly concerning sampling techniques which had raised generalisability issues. Longitudinal study has been proposed for future research, in response to limitations of cross-sectional research in accounting for the evolving nature of inter-organisational relationships. Additionally, no ethical considerations were identified in Corsten et al.s study. The main strength was in the choice of mixed-method approach of qualitative methods contributing to a reliable supplierbuyer identification framework. Thus, future researchers aspiring to advance this study or conduct similar research need to select research designs which can accommodate the nature of inter-organisational relationships, expand sample frame to allow wider generalisability across the automotive industry and to clearly address ethical issues in research.

Atiqah Ismail