3.

Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
The research for this proposal is to be presented utilising more than one method of data collection, as
the triangulation of multiple sources allow an improvement in understanding of the issue under
examination (McNulty et al., 2013). Incorporating both primary quantitative data by the way of a
questionnaire survey to the three stakeholder groups (Sponsor/Clubs/Supporters), and secondary
quantitative and qualitative data in the form documentary analysis of existing journal articles, empirical
studies, statistical analysis and information available on the companies/football clubs’ websites.

Within the questionnaire survey to the three stakeholder groups, there will be a mixture of ‘closed’
questions requiring ‘yes/no/unsure’ responses and evaluations of the strength of their feelings towards
certain topics based on a Likert scale (1 to 5). Where appropriate, certain questions have been adopted
from the aforementioned literature review articles for the purpose of conducting comparisons within
the results/findings section. Opportunities for further comment will be provided in the form of ‘open’
questions. This approach allows the proposal to consider both quantitative and qualitative analysis of
the resultant data.

The recipients of the questionnaire are the 92 professional football clubs within the 4-tier structure and
the 21 companies listed as the FA’s corporate/commercial sponsors on their website. Responses by way
of the online survey for the supporter’s groups will be analysed wholly, dependent on numbers meeting
the statistical minimum sample size.

A general set of questions will be presented to all respondents, however an additional section
specifically for the individual stakeholders will be submitted. For the corporate sponsors (institutional
investors), their views on the performance of the FA’s governance with reference to the OECD’s six
principles of Corporate Governance that they themselves are obligated to follow. A Likert scale
evaluation will be required to demonstrate their opinion of the FA’s adherence to the principles. The
selection of governance failures that befell the FA will be offered to the clubs and supporters for ranking
in terms of the impact on their perception of the organisation and how damaging to their interests and
the game in general.

The qualitative data received from the survey (based on the stakeholders’ assessment of the FA,
together with further comment, e.g. recommendations for future direction) can be summarised to
complement the quantitative data, of which it is intended to analyse the results using both descriptive
(means/mode/standard deviation) and inferential statistics of a non-parametric nature (Mann-Whitney
tests, Pearson’s Chi-square etc.) to support the proposal objectives and hypotheses. Specifically,
determining the presence of a significant result in the difference of perspective between the three
stakeholder groups and within the individual groups. The means of the scores received are to be
calculated in a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine any such statistically significant
differences.

With a large number of potential respondents, it seems practical to submit the questionnaire by means
of posting for the clubs and sponsors, with follow-up emails to gently illicit a reply if not forthcoming.
The desire is to direct the correspondence to either a Finance/HR manager or
Commercial/Communications Manager to garner the most relevant perspective from that
organisation/club. Hosting the questionnaire on a free-survey platform and submitting the link among
various internet forums for supporters and/or supporters’ trusts/organisations websites, would reach
the greatest audience.

With time constraints in mind it is the intention for this proposal to conduct follow-up interviews for
respondents who show a willing to elaborate on their perceptions, whether that be in-person for
representatives of the sponsors and/or clubs or in a less formal setting (telephone/Skype interviews)
with supporters.

3.2 Justification of Method

Upon commencement of my Masters degree in September 2017 it was to this authors pleasant surprise
to be set an assignment on a familiar topic, as part of the requirements for completion of a Corporate
Governance module. Allegations of bribery, corruption and negligent corporate governance issues have
dogged football, and indeed all sports organisations, at various periods of time recently and following
huge public and political pressure both nationally and internationally, the committees of The Fédération
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), The Union of European Football Association (UEFA) and
the FA staged a series of consultations in an effort to gauge the perception of their organisations’ failings
and the extent to which they needed to implement reform changes to legislation in order to combat
these apparent shortcomings. The resultant briefing report submitted (concerning the FA) formed the
early inspiration for the choice of research within this paper. Further investigation into the available
literature on corporate governance and similar peer-reviewed journals along with a study of methods of
producing research culminated with the choice of approach and investigation into the subject,
prompted by my own thoughts and experiences as much as the well-documented weaknesses. As a
lifelong supporter of a current Premier League football club, the travails of the FA are extremely familiar,
so much so that the working title of this paper contains a reference to, arguably, an early example of the
FA’s governance issues from 1991. However, knowledge of a research topic from a physical,
participating aspect provides a basis but is merely a stimulus towards constructing an academic research
proposal.

Enhancing on previous work in the field, Becker and Bryman (2004) identified and classified five distinct
ways of knowledge, despite the view that individual researchers have their own, and varied, view of
what constitutes truth and knowledge: i) Belief (holding on to what we believe is true despite evidence
to the contrary - it may be necessary to alter our beliefs upon completion of research); ii) Authoritative
knowledge (our personal knowledge gained from experience is superseded by knowledge from those
perceived to be in ‘high authority’ – the questioning of such authority maybe necessary within our
research); iii) Experiential knowledge (garnered from a lifetime of experience – research can dictate to
us the influences gained and prompt a reflective outlook on such knowledge and skills); iv) Theoretical
knowledge (utilising theories or sets of ideas to solve a problem or deal with an aspect of the world) and
v) Empirical knowledge (availability of research based on evidence that can be studied – adopting skills
and techniques to be able to state and test hypotheses within our research).
Schwandt (2001) noted that these, and similar views are essential in guiding our thinking, our beliefs,
and our assumptions about society and ourselves, and they structure our perception of the world
around us. Categorising this into paradigms – i.e. “a paradigm is a shared world view that represents the
beliefs and values in a discipline and that guides how problems are solved”. Thomas Kuhn made
reference to the term ‘paradigm’ in two settings: 1) to represent a particular way of thinking that is
shared by a community of scientists in solving problems in their field, and 2) to represent the
commitments, beliefs, values, methods, outlooks and so forth shared across a discipline. They often
highlight the concerns and motivations of the research groups, or of social scientists from a relevant
discipline, or sharing a set of theory-informed beliefs about the social world.

Paradigms are involved within research acting as the theoretical framework when constructing an
argument or theory. By addressing the fundamental notions of our research topic, the framework
enables us to collect the knowledge necessary to put forward the theoretical ideas and approaches.

Patton’s (2002) descriptions of the differing paradigms fell into a number of behaviours. Ontology – the
world view that is learned by philosophical assumptions about the nature of social reality, i.e. what do
we believe about the nature of reality? Epistemology - the ways of knowing, i.e. how do we know what
we know? Axiology - our ethics and value systems, i.e. what do we believe is true? Consequently, these
paradigms direct us to inquire about specific knowledge and use suitable procedures to systematic
investigation, in other words, methodology, i.e. how should we study the world?

The Ontological Question. This represents the manner in which the social world, phenomena or entities
that make it up can be observed. Whether referring to groups of people in society or organisations and
institutions and the events, situations and behaviours associated with them, the nature of knowledge is
available for the purpose of research. Three types of ontological positions can be studied: objectivism,
constructivism and realism.

Objectivism states that the social phenomena occurring within the social world have an independent
existence, separate easily distinguishable from the social actors (humans) who are involved.
Constructivism states that these social phenomena only exist in our reality as constructed philosophies
being revised and rewritten by the social actors, through social contact and replication. Whilst the
objectivist and constructivist positions can be deemed as unsuited counterparts, where each position
contradicts or negates the other, the suggestion is that both positions combined manage to represent
the entire knowledge of the social world. The argument against concerns the theory that the reality of
the social world is observable by more than the senses. Realism accepts that the social world has a
reality that is separate from the social actors entangled within it and, in addition, there is a dimension
that is hidden from the senses, which cannot be directly observed. This dimension is said to constitute
the compositions and instruments that prompt, influence and impact the social reality that can be
observed (Matthews and Ross, 2010).

“It is the ontological position that most differentiates constructivism from the other paradigms” (Guba
and Lincoln, 1994, p.111).

In utilising the three ontological positions on the nature and content of the social world and the
available studies, knowledge can be attained about the phenomena and different positions considered
towards what are acceptable methods to study such phenomena: The Epistemological Question. There
are three distinctive epistemological positions regarded as impacting upon the choice of research topic
and questions - positivism, interpretivism and realism.

Positivism was developed from the objectivist ontological position of an independent reality of study,
separate from the subject being researched and the researchers themselves, i.e. researchers have no
bearing on the data, instead taking an objective stance. Adopting a positivist approach to research
results in the collation of quantitative data; measurement of phenomena and the relationships between
them are obtained; and statistical analysis of data is conducted. Contrary to this approach is the belief
that research has to be inclusive of insights and accounts of the social phenomena that can be
interpreted by people, rather than those which are not always observable by the senses. This
epistemological position is interpretivism. By prioritising the subjective interpretations of social
phenomena, links can be made to the ontological position of constructivism, i.e. knowledge can be
derived from everyday concepts and meanings and then reconstructed into suitable research language.
The interpretivist approach is distinguishable by the following features: knowledge gathered includes
people’s interpretations and understandings – i.e. qualitative data; the main focus is on how people
interpret the social world and social phenomena, enabling different perspectives to be explored – i.e.
subjective connotations. In similar circumstances to the contradiction in the ontological positions of
objectivism and constructivism, positivism and interpretivism, within epistemology, are seen to be
adversarial notions. Evolving from a positivist approach, realism suggests that the apparent social reality
is supported by unseen but influential compositions and instruments. Whilst not directly observable,
their effects are apparent, allowing collection and provision of necessary evidence. Further, there is a
critical realist approach which gives precedence to the identification of those compositions and
instruments that cause inequality or injustice and provide the changes needed to negate their impact
(Matthews and Ross, 2010).

“It is their epistemological positions that most differentiate critical realism and constructivism from the
other paradigms” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p.111).

By turning the emphasis of positivism from an absolute assurance to a possibility there is an extension of
the theory, relating to researchers actively building knowledge rather than accepting the ‘status quo’ of
the social world around them and its phenomena. In questioning this certainty, by offering the notion
that research methods are not totally objective, Crotty (1998) argues for a less strict form of positivism,
known as post-positivism. These logical empiricists uphold the thought that both the social and natural
scientists share the same ambitions for research and engage in comparable methods of investigation.

Borne out of similar philosophical argument as critical realism, the distinguishing feature is whether the
focus is on theory verification (positivism) or on theory falsification (post-positivism) (Ponterotto, 2005).
The belief that there is an alternative, independent reality to our thinking that can be studied through
the scientific method. Critical realism, however, assigns the theory that error can infiltrate our
observations and the modification of theories is an option for researchers.

The Axiological Question. Alternatively referred to as value theory, it is a recently accepted expression
relating to the philosophy of values. It represents debate on critical analysis of truth, utility and
obligation. Focusing on the value of matters such as human life, knowledge, wisdom, freedom, justice,
self-fulfilment and well-being, axiology has relevance to the field of qualitative research in as much as it
has a direct bearing on the ethical context of research, offers an important basis for making explicit the
assumptions of the different paradigms detailed above and affords the foundation for understanding the
process of the addition to knowledge involved in scientific research (Given, 2008). Researchers who
adopt the transformative paradigm view research as a moral and political activity that requires them to
choose and commit themselves to a value position, unlike in the interpretative paradigm where every
viewpoint is correct, some views will be wrong, while others will be right (Chilisa and Kawulich, 2012).

The Methodological Question. In conducting research, one would have the objective of seeking
whatever can be known about a relevant subject. Constraints upon this, however, are that not just any
methodology is appropriate, the methodological question cannot be reduced to simply a choice of
suitable methods, but a predetermined methodology has to be fitted to the methods. Guba and Lincoln
(1994, p.108) stated “a ‘real’ reality pursued by an ‘objective’ inquirer mandates control of possible
confounding factors, whether the methods are qualitative (e.g. observational) or quantitative (e.g.
analysis of covariance)”. As an experimental and manipulative paradigm, research in the form of
questions and hypotheses are stated in propositional form and subjected to verification as empirical
tests; external conditions need to be purposefully controlled in order to avoid adverse outcomes.

The question remains for justification of an appropriate paradigm for this research paper, can it be that
they are in conflict with each other? Does the possibility exist where more than one of the viewpoints
can be adapted into a single framework?

Advocates of positivism and post-positivism take the stance that it is possible for the paradigms to be
integrated into a common rational structure for the resolution of differences, on the assumption that
‘point-to-point’ comparisons can be made, i.e. commensurability. Advocates of critical realism and
constructivism take the opposite position in that the paradigms are essentially contradictory, i.e.
research inquiry is either value free or it is not. As an example, constructivists state there is either a real
‘reality’ or there is not, hence, constructivism and positivism/post-positivism are not compatible.
Similarly, realism and relativism value freedom and value boundedness, respectively, creating the
impossibility of coexistence.

The previous paragraphs have illustrated the differences that exist between the proponents of each
paradigm, Guba and Lincoln (1994, p.116) conclude that resolution to the discussion will only come
about when a more informed or sophisticated paradigm emerges to supersede the existing ones:

“Paradigm issues are crucial; no inquirer, we maintain, ought to go about the business of inquiry without
being clear about just what paradigm informs and guides his or her approach”.

With this in mind and with reference to previous studies notified in the Literature Review, a positivist
paradigm can be apportioned to this paper. As the objective is for theory validation, rather than theory
falsification, we can discount the post-positivist paradigm according to Pontperro. Viewing reality as
being objective and knowable, this research is value free and based on precise observation and
verifiable measurement of data collection. A typically quantitative/positivist research design lends itself
towards avoiding the possibility of bias and error and validating the findings by way of established
analytical procedures as opposed to relying on an individual’s judgement (Firestone, 1997). On the
contrary, research studies utilising a constructivist paradigm make use of a more qualitative methods
and more than one reality.

There exist typical types of research designs similar to this paper’s objectives that include quantitative
approaches, such as Michie and Oughton’s (2005) seminal paper on the corporate governance of
professional football clubs in which they analysed data and information collated from results of their
questionnaire survey of all clubs in the English Premier and Football Leagues; their questionnaire survey
of supporter groups, including all supporters’ trusts at English Premier and Football League clubs; follow-
up interviews with selected clubs and supporters’ trusts as well as corporate governance statements and
financial accounts of the clubs and all London Stock Exchange listed firms, as a comparison. This was a
dual survey that reported results from their third annual review of the corporate governance of
professional football clubs. The paper drew upon a longitudinal data set covering football clubs and
supporters’ trusts for those three years, providing historical comparisons identifying trends in corporate
governance in professional football. Hamil’s ‘The state of the game : the corporate governance of
football clubs’ research paper submitted in 2003 and updated in 2005 bears similar methods in the form
of a questionnaire survey, making use of contributions from the same authors.

Examples of qualitative, empirical research design include Senaux’s ‘A stakeholder approach to football
club governance‘, Walters and Chadwick’s ‘Corporate citizenship in football: delivering strategic benefits
through stakeholder engagement’ in which they drew on qualitative primary and secondary data for
their paper, Dietl and Franck’s ‘Governance Failure and Financial Crisis in German Football’, a discussion
on the unique setup of clubs in the country and Anagnostopoulos’ (2011) ‘Stakeholder management in
Greek professional football : identification and salience’. Finally, the discussions and debates recorded by
Hansard on the subject matter within the Houses of Parliament by politicians and at the detailed
minutes of the sittings of the Commons Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport, as well as the All
Party Parliamentary Football Group, serve as qualitative source literature.

3.3 Detailed Method Approach

With the inspiration of the earlier modular paper on the reforms of the FA’s corporate governance
legislation, a further introduction to statistical analysis software and combined with Michie and
Oughton’s previous work, it was decided upon to take a similar questionnaire survey approach to this
research for collecting primary quantitative data. A set of structured questions was prepared to illicit the
perspective of the three stakeholder groups designated for this research. Following the preliminary
request for general information concerning the respondent for the purposes of statistical coding (i.e.
which stakeholder group/which club/employee position), further questions were set on: the general
view of the FA’s corporate governance image; the FA’s ability to reform itself following legislation
change; the possibility of Government intervention into the FA; the importance of, and the confidence in
the FA as a future ‘going concern’ as the governing body of football; and any adverse effect suffered by
stakeholders relating to the FA’s corporate governance failings. The design of these questions were as
one answer, Likert-style (a mixture of 1-3 (e.g. Yes/No/Unsure) and 1-5 ranges (e.g. Very Likely,…..,Not
very Likely)) options utilizing a drop-down menu system to select with the exception of one question
which offered a multi-answer, Yes/No option to ascertain the breadth of respondents’ knowledge of a
selection of the FA’s corporate governance issues over the last couple of decades.

With time constraints a major factor and a limited financial budget, the usage of a postal distribution
method was discounted. Further complications with accessing the views of the Supporters stakeholder
group, whose numbers were expected to be in excess of the responses from the Clubs and Sponsors,
resulted in an online questionnaire survey being deemed to be most appropriate, with direct e-mail
contact used as delivery method as well as advertisement on social media and football websites.
Advantages of online surveys include the guarantee a short time window for the collation of responses,
alleviating the problems associated with time and cost. The World Wide Web also offers researchers
access to the most extensive population sample and the potential of large data. Furthermore,
researchers point out that online data collection protects against the loss of data and simplifies the
transfer of data into a database for analysis (Carbonaro & Bainbridge, 2000). They also offered a number
of stipulations for a successful survey: easy access to surveys for all respondents; surveys should have a
simple framework in order to complete; they must have a built-in security system to ensure credibility,
validity and anonymity; and finally, surveys should require only a minimum of computer skills for their
completion.

Following a number of weeks in June where research concentrated on forming a working title and a first
version of an introduction, the analysis of the subject literature generated a catalogue of research
questions and the survey was ready to be formulated. During July, utilising the online survey platform at
www.surveymonkey.com, a 16-question format was produced (a maximum of 14 questions for each
stakeholder was requested, but not compulsory). The free version of the website restricted each
individual survey to only 10 questions and a maximum of 100 respondents, hence the decision was
made to purchase the monthly subscription for the duration of research (2 months expected), at a
minimal cost.

Prior to the construction of the survey, initial email contact was made to a sample of the potential
respondents (a selection of the FA’s corporate sponsors and the football clubs) in order to gauge
response rate and the likelihood of interest.

In August, the questionnaire survey went live and was opened to responses for a 4-week period. Emails
were sent to the FA’s 21 corporate sponsors and the 92 Premier And Football League clubs (see
Appendix). It was the objective of the email to address the employees of the companies/clubs who
would be in the most appropriate position to offer a perspective on corporate governance issues, hence,
requests were made for participation from either a Finance/HR/Media representative. For the purpose
of collecting supporter responses, the survey was hosted on 3 general and 1 club-specific football
forums, a Facebook link was included within the survey for respondents to ‘spread the word’ and a
tweet was typed for posting on Twitter with a request, not only for participation, but also for ‘retweets’
and ‘likes’ to garner traction around social media. Follow-up emails were sent to the companies/clubs
midway through the live period of the survey and further prompting on social media for supporter views
was conducted at regular intervals.

3.3.1 Limitations of Method

Prior to the decision made to adopt an online questionnaire survey as preferred method of research, it
was noted that there existed a number of disadvantages to counter those benefits listed previously. An
area of concern regarding online surveys is that of fraudulent respondents, participants may not answer
truthfully or pose as different people, creating multiple responses and creating bias.

The limitations in using online data collection can also be of a technical kind, problems can arise from
the Internet service provided or the respondents may lack the ability to use the new technology or an
aversion to partake in online computer surveys. Difficulties in accessing the target population also exist,
email messages announcing surveys are often construed as junk mail and are deleted without hesitation
or automatically diverted by screening programmes. Other online data collection limitations have to do
with population samples and their non-random nature. The control of the population can be achieved
through the use of population lists, but they are frequently very difficult to obtain. A common way of
designing online surveys is to link the survey to a home page or home pages and ask for volunteers to fill
out the survey. In such cases, researchers have little control over who and how many people fill out the
questionnaire, exposing the reliability of the survey (Lefever et al., 2007).

Whilst the ease of the distribution method online is considered an asset, this freedom to participate can
also be a hindrance, non-response bias could invalidate or dilute the effectiveness of responses. This
was typified at an early stage in the process with the initial email sample sent out to the selection of
stakeholder groups. Not only was resistance met from one of the football forums, in the form of a
registration message notifying that thread posts which are deemed as ‘self-promotion’ i.e.
Dissertation/Survey requests, would not be tolerated, but also a number of replies, from the sponsors
and clubs, were in the form of generic statements similarly informing of their position when it comes to
requests for educational/student requests:

“Thank you for your request and your interest in our company.

We receive numerous requests for researches and thesis’ every day. Unfortunately, these
projects are often only used internal. Moreover, the reply of these requests takes a lot of time.
Therefore, it is not possible to support your research work.

Thank you for your understanding. We wish you all the best for your project. Of course, you can
use any information that can be found on our careers page and general information page.”

Not only did these occurrences cast doubt on the prospect of a suitable number of responses but also
caused concern as to whether the survey was reaching the intended targets, rather than an auto-
response filter generating replies as noted above. Time constraints meant further contact, in person or
as face-to-face online interviews, were not plausible. Considerations were made as to whether securing
either proper media accreditation to approach the organisations or to offer official academic credentials
would have improved the response rate. Nonetheless, it can be argued that the dismissive, unhelpful
nature of the replies towards this author’s educational needs would not have been reciprocated if my
contact had been of a customer service nature, especially one in the form of complaint/problem.
Bearing in mind the volumes of communications the organisations receive of that nature, and the
presence of a department to deal with and accommodate such requests, it is possible that perhaps a
dedicated Student/Educational department could be necessary. When organisations are in the business
of attempting to address all concerns and to be all-inclusive to their stakeholders, it is difficult to
understand the stance of dismissing a section of their ‘community’ that was uncovered during this
research. The irony of what can be perceived as poor corporate governance is not lost on this author.