RES 728 Week 3 Case Study Protocol Example

The Same Study Three Times: A Case Study Protocol for Three Employee-Owned Firms

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

RES/728: Qualitative Case Study

Week 3 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The learner, the companies and the planned study are composites written for a model paper.

Week 2 bounded three cases for the composite Cincinnati HR vice president's study: a Toledo distributor, a machining firm near Lancaster and a Columbus engineering firm, all employee-owned through an ESOP. Studying three firms in different towns, industries and sizes raises a practical risk: collecting different kinds of data in different ways at each site, which would make comparison unreliable. A written protocol addresses that risk directly and visibly.

Why a Protocol

Yin (2018) describes the protocol as a major way of increasing the reliability of case study research, especially in multiple case studies, and recommends four sections: an overview of the study, data collection procedures, protocol questions and a tentative outline for the case study report. The protocol is addressed to the investigator, not to participants, and reminds the researcher what the study is about at every site.

Gibbert et al. (2008) reviewed case studies published in leading management journals and found that many reported little about how they addressed reliability and validity; the more rigorous studies described a protocol, a database and procedures in enough detail for others to follow. Their review gives the protocol a further purpose: making the study's rigor visible to reviewers.

Section 1: Overview

The overview states the purpose, to learn how ESOP conversions in Ohio turn into an ownership culture and why the results vary; the three research questions; the three propositions about information, control and differences among employee groups; and the case selection logic. It lists key readings on psychological ownership and the pieces of ownership, and a one-page background on each firm: industry, size, conversion date and ownership history.

Section 2: Field Procedures

Access: a signed letter from each CEO granting access to employees, meetings and documents, and agreeing that employees may decline without consequence.

Contacts: one liaison at each firm, usually an HR manager, who schedules but does not choose participants.

Scheduling: interviews and focus groups spread across shifts so front-line employees can take part during paid time.

Consent: individual consent forms; a script explaining that the firm will not see who said what.

Site kit: protocol, consent forms, two recorders, observation template, document request list.

Daily log: after each site day, a short summary of what was collected and what remains.

Section 3: Protocol Questions

Protocol questions are what the investigator needs to learn, not what she will ask employees. Each is linked to sources.

What practices share financial or performance information, with whom, how often and in what form? Sources: leader interviews, documents such as meeting slides, observation of an all-company meeting.

How do employees in each group describe their understanding of company performance? Sources: employee interviews, focus groups.

What decisions can employees influence, and through what channels? Sources: leader and employee interviews, committee charters, meeting minutes.

How do employees in each group describe what being an owner means to them? Sources: interviews, focus groups.

How has the ESOP been explained since conversion? Sources: ESOP education materials, trustee interview, onboarding documents.

What events since conversion have strengthened or weakened ownership feeling? Sources: leader and employee interviews, newsletters.

The investigator asks herself what practices share information; she asks employees to tell her about the last time they saw the company's numbers.

Mapping Sources to Propositions

A matrix lists each proposition against each source. For P1, on information sharing, every source contributes: documents show what is shared, observation shows how, interviews and focus groups show how employees understand it. For P3, on differences among employee groups, interviews and focus groups are central, with sampling within each firm designed to include all three groups. The matrix shows no proposition depends on a single source.

Section 4: Report Outline

Each case report follows the same outline so cases can be compared: firm background and conversion; ownership practices, organized by wealth, information and control; employees' experiences, by group; how practices and experiences relate; and how the case bears on each proposition. Cross-case analysis in Week 7 will draw on these parallel reports.

Case Study Database

Rowley (2002) emphasizes that case researchers should organize evidence so it can be retrieved and examined, separately from the researcher's report. The database will hold transcripts, field notes, documents, the daily logs and memos in folders by firm and source type, with each item coded by date, firm, source and embedded unit. A spreadsheet index lists every item with a short description, so the learner, her committee or a later researcher can find any piece of evidence quickly.

Chain of Evidence

Every claim in the final report will cite items in the database, which link to protocol questions, which link to research questions and propositions. A reader should be able to move from a conclusion back to the evidence and from a research question forward to the conclusion.

Pilot Visit

A one-day pilot at a fourth employee-owned firm, a printing company outside the study, tested the protocol. Four revisions followed. Front-line employees could not attend interviews during peak production, so interviews were moved to shift overlaps. The document request list was too long for a small HR team and was cut to essentials. One protocol question about "governance" confused leaders, who associated the word with the board, so it was reworded around decisions in daily work. And the observation template lacked space for who spoke in meetings, which the pilot showed was revealing.

Keeping the Protocol Current

Fieldwork will reveal issues the pilot did not. Any change to the protocol after the first firm visit will be dated, explained in a memo and, where possible, applied at the firms already visited through follow-up calls or document requests. The version used at each firm will be stored in the database. This prevents the protocol from drifting so far between sites that the cases are no longer comparable.

Sequencing the Three Sites

The learner will visit Firm C, the mixed case, first, then Firm A and Firm B. Starting with the case expected to show internal contrast lets her refine questions about employee groups before visiting the polar cases. Each firm will receive two site visits, spaced about six weeks apart: the first for leader interviews, observation and document collection, the second for employee interviews and focus groups, informed by what the first visit had revealed about the firm.

Ethics at Each Site

Because leaders arrange access, employees may fear that participation or comments will be reported. The protocol requires that the liaison not choose participants, that interviews occur away from supervisors and that quotations in reports be attributed only to an employee group. The trustee's interview will avoid any discussion of individual accounts.

Conclusion

The protocol's overview, field procedures, investigator questions mapped to sources, report outline, database and chain of evidence make data collection at three firms consistent and traceable. A pilot visit improved scheduling, document requests, wording and observation. Week 4 will plan the individual interviews.

References

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465-1474. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.722

Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management Research News, 25(1), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170210782990

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.