Qualitative Case Study Review: IT-Enabled Services Research

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods

This review evaluates the structure of research upon which scientific conclusions are drawn. Specifically, it analyzes a qualitative research investigation in which the researchers sought to determine how "capability development strategies differ between first-movers and late-entrants in IT-enabled services" (Mahnke, Zcan, & Overby, 2006, p. 189).

Qualitative research, unlike quantitative research, is an investigative activity that studies societal and cultural events, psychological, educational, or sociological phenomena, and historical and philosophical trends. These phenomena are described not on the basis of numerical data, but rather by seeking to uncover and give meaning to events as interpreted from the participants' perspective. As such, qualitative research attempts to determine the tenor and characteristics of a particular group of people. In most qualitative research endeavors, the investigator attempts to build a theory of acceptance from the ground up — thus the expression grounded theory.

The various methods of grounded theory include the following:

• Participant-Observation
• Ethnography
• Ethnomethodology
• Dramaturgical Interviewing
• Sociometry
• Natural Experiment
• Case Study
• Unobtrusive Measures
• Content Analysis
• Historiography
• Secondary Analysis of Data

Most often, the approach to a qualitative research activity is phenomenological in design, wherein the research investigator attempts to determine the significance of the phenomenon being investigated through an examination of the structure and essence of the experiences of a group of individuals. However, the research investigators whose work is evaluated here chose the case study method upon which to draw their conclusions.

The Case Study Approach and Research Question

The remainder of this report focuses on how well the research investigators followed best-fit qualitative case study research practices with respect to their stated research question: "How do capability development strategies differ between first-movers and late-entrants in IT-enabled services?" (Mahnke, Zcan, & Overby, 2006, p. 189).

Whether the question being presented is broad enough is strictly dependent upon the timeliness and topic relevance of the two case studies being reviewed and evaluated. Upon review of the case studies concerning online IT brokerage market entry services — specifically Charles Schwab and Merrill Lynch — the authors chose two appropriate, visible, secure, and formidable entities upon which to base their investigation.

However, evaluating two companies and basing conclusions on corporate data that is, in many instances, nearly ten years old does not make for best-fit managerial decision-making. At one point, the authors referenced a situation wherein Charles Schwab exceeded Merrill Lynch with respect to IT development in the brokerage business. Unfortunately, that reference was based on 1998 information (see p. 195). In addition, much of the other case-related data — such as the rise and fall of Schwab versus Merrill Lynch in online brokerage activity — had little to do with either firm being a first-entrant or a late-entrant. Note must also be made of the authors' continued references to the fall of dot-com discount brokerage firms; however, their relevance to the Schwab versus Merrill Lynch scenario is poorly refined and inadequately applied.

Conclusion and Study Limitations

Extreme caution must be exercised in terms of accepting the conclusions drawn and inferences made by Mahnke, Zcan, and Overby (2006), as there are serious limitations to the study. The most significant limitation, as stated throughout this review, is the absence of any primary research data with respect to the early versus late use of IT systems at each respective brokerage house.

Another limitation is the lack of information about how the dot-com collapse affected each brokerage house and its use of improved IT systems. Still another limitation concerns the outsourcing of IT services and the relationship this has to both Schwab and Merrill Lynch. A great deal of time was spent discussing the impact of IT outsourcing, but little of that information was applied directly to Schwab or Merrill Lynch specifically.

Finally, Mahnke, Zcan, and Overby might well have reinforced their qualitative research through a more rigorous content analysis and historiography gained through fieldwork activities — namely, reviewing textual material directly from Charles Schwab and Merrill Lynch and gathering historical evidence applicable to both brokerage houses. Such an approach would have substantially strengthened the study's claims and brought its conclusions into closer alignment with the standards expected of best-fit qualitative case study research.