Researchers usually use two types of investigation processes in their research. First is a quantitative research, which employs numerical indicators to ascertain the relative size of a particular communication phenomenon. The second type of investigation process is a qualitative research, which employs symbols and words to indicate the presence or absence of a phenomenon or categorize them into different types of phenomena (Matveev, 2002). Quantitative research involves counting and measuring of events and performing the statistical analysis of a body of numerical data (Mary & Smith, 1988). The assumption behind the positivist paradigm is that there is an objective truth existing in the world that can be measured and explained scientifically. The main concerns of the quantitative paradigm are that measurement is reliable, valid and generalizable in its clear prediction of cause and effect (Cassell & Symon, 1994).
Both quantitative and qualitative methodology has been utilized in this research. This choice has been preferred because of the nature of this research; also for the novelty of the research topic in supply chain management and the consequent lack of study constructs (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Autry & Bobbitt, 2008). Hence, the method followed consists of three main phases: a literature review, data collection and analysis of empirical data.
To theorize in an inductive direction, the researcher begins with observing the empirical world and then reflecting on what is taking place by thinking in increasingly more abstract ways. The researcher then move towards theoretical concepts and propositions. The researcher begins with a general topic and a few vague ideas. Later it was refined and elaborated into more precise concepts when operating inductively. This research builds from empirical observations towards a more abstract thinking. In Duneier’s (1999) study of street vendors in New York City he used inductive theorizing. Duneier developed a theoretical understanding only during and after collected the empirical data. Duneier (1999) described the process as being like the method used by a medical professional who sees patients with many diverse symptoms. Only after analyzing the symptoms does the professional make a diagnosis or coherent story that explains the underlying reason for the many symptoms visible on the surface. Many researchers’ uses a specific type of inductive theorizing indentified as grounded theory. It involves formulating new theoretical ideas from the ground up instead of testing existing theoretical theory. Grounded theory is a widely used approach in qualitative research. It is not the only approach and it is not used by all qualitative researchers. Grounded theory is a qualitative research method that used a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived theory about a phenomenon (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Strauss and Corbin (1998) have suggested that grounded theory allows the researcher to be scientific and creative at the same time, as long as the researcher follows the guidelines. If a research is carried out without referring to a theory, then the situation may be adrift as he attempts to design a study. Time may be wasted collecting unsuitable data, lack of precise ideas and fall into the trap of hazy and vague thinking. Organizing arguments, converging on research issues or generating a lucid account of the study for other people will be difficult. The reason for all these difficulties is simple. Theory frames how to investigate and think about a topic. It gives us a concept, provides basic assumptions, directs to us the important questions and suggests ways to make sense of the data. Theory helps to make connections and sees the broader significant of the findings.
Social scientists, criminologists and criminal justice researchers assume that the subject matter they study is probabilistic. It is believed that effects will most often occur when certain causes are present, but not in every single case. In predicting general patterns, trends and relationships among groups, social scientists do not expect these patterns to hold in each individual case or do not expect absolute determinism (Hagan, 2003). Researchers do attempt to estimate the probability of the predictions being accurate.
There are times that one style of approach is probably the only appropriate manner to study the proposed ideas. For example, a research focusing on the differences of the number of sales of a particular product within a time range will generally adopt quantitative technique. While a research focusing on the reasons behind those differences in sales within the time range will probably use a qualitative technique. When faced with the problem of generalizing and understanding ideas, it will be better to incorporate both approaches whenever possible. In this research, quantitative approach was first applied to gather appropriate facts to gain general understanding on cargo security in Malaysia. Following that, a qualitative approach is carried out so that there will be an in-depth understanding over the generalized facts. For research relating to new ideas, it is sometimes appropriate to use a qualitative approach first such as a case study or an observation in order to narrow down the focus of the research. The results from the qualitative research can then be the basis for the questionnaire’s development that leads to the quantitative research. In this research, the understanding of both paradigms helps to identify the ways these divergent approaches complement each other. There are lots of benefits gained by the application of both research worlds through the combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques. Another area where qualitative research can combine well with quantification is in running qualitative methods alongside quantification (Grosvenor, 1997). When respondents are completing questionnaires, either self-completed or interviewer-administered, there is an option to consider following these interviews directly with a more open-ended qualitative interview, to focus on some of the responses provided and to ascertain the frames of reference within which the questions were being answered.
There are many types of quantitative and qualitative techniques available. Both approaches have their own strengths and weaknesses. One of the advantages of quantitative methods is that they can provide a wide coverage of the range of situations. In addition, quantitative approach is fast and economical as a whole. This method is suitable when time and resources are limited. It is also better to use quantitative approach when statistics results are being stressed. However, among the disadvantages of this approach is that it is somewhat inflexible and artificial. It provides very little understanding towards the actions demonstrated by people and as a result, make it difficult to predict any changes in the future. To illustrate further, a quantitative research may be able to give a general idea on the relationship of job performance and managerial competencies but, it may fail in providing the details on how the relationship differs for every individuals and the reasons. Thus, it might not be very helpful in generating theories or understanding the issues thoroughly.
The weaknesses that arise from quantitative approach are most of the times the strengths of the qualitative approach. The latter has the ability to look at the change processes over time. By interviewing and observing people, the method provides a better understanding on people’s thought or ideas. With a good amount of valuable information, the data, ideas and issues can be adjusted as they emerge. Due to this, it is a better instrument used by researchers to generate theories at the end of the research. Moreover, by talking to and observing people, the process seems to happen naturally in its own environment rather than in an artificially created surrounding. However, qualitative method is by no means without its disadvantages. Because the process most of the time involves in-depth interviews and observations, data collection can take up a great deal of time and resources. It is then not suitable for research that requires limited time. The data compiled by this type of approach may also look very untidy because of the researcher’s lack of control on them. For instance, it is impossible for researcher to maintain the same discussion when interviewing various individuals. This is due to the fact that humans are often encouraged to talk about unrelated things from time to time. As a result, the analysis and interpretation of the data will be very difficult. In this research the questions have been prepared before conducting the interview to ensure consistency but during the interview sessions, sometimes respondent tends to divert from the discussion topics. It was a good technique that the same set of questions has being used during the interview sessions.
In this stage the research limitation and the research questions that need to be addressed in the research is generated into questionnaire. It is important to decide whether the survey should; 1) test a hypothesis, 2) estimate the proportion of people or firms involved, or 3) study specific topics over time to see if changes occur. In this phase it is also important to make decisions about the population of interest. Profiling the respondents is also important to make trade-offs in the analysis and balance the answers between the groups of respondents. Another issue to be discussed is how well the sampling frame represents the population eligible for the analysis. It must be clear how the sample is framed, according to which factors the selection is made and finally what percentage of the population is missing and how it will bias the final results. Survey instruments often produce discrepancies or measurement errors between what they are measuring and the actual value of the variables to be measured. A way to keep the measurement errors at a minimum level is to enhance the validity and reliability of the survey instrument. Validity is the degree to which a measurement accurately represents what it is supposed to analyze (Hair, 2009).