Data Collection Methods

In order to gain a solid understanding of any given topic, and to be able to create cohesive and value-adding research, one needs to examine the existing literature of the field. The difficulty with it is finding the right sources and analysing contradicting positions and findings against one another. Saunders et al. (2019, p. 72) defines literature review as “the process of making reasoned judgements and organising your thoughts into the written review”. They define three processes of literature review: the initial search, the critical review and the wider review (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2019, pp. 72-74).

The first literature review aims to investigate a multitude of topics, find possible literature, and brainstorm the final research problem leading to the thesis topic. The second literature review is less straight forward: one needs to review a multitude of

hand. This aims to challenge the researcher's point of view and bias and increases their in-depth understanding. It is expected that one needs to adapt their search parameters regularly and that some literature will potentially increase in value, whilst others lose their relevancy in the process. Lastly, the literature review helps to put the results into perspective and context (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2019, pp. 72-74).

Figure 14: The variety of qualitative literature review: from topic exploration to critical investigation of the sources at hand to contextualising the findings (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2019, p. 75).

Furthermore, the literature review can be approached either in a deductive or inductive manner. In the deductive approach, the review provides the basis upon which primary research tests can be conducted. One can use it to understand and test connections between theories and variables (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2019, pp. 78 & 154).

According to Saunders et al. (2019, pp. 153-154), deductive research follows the five following steps:

1. Establish an idea;

2. Create a testable hypothesis;

3. Compare arguments to existing literature and theories;

4. Collect data and analyse to test the hypothesis;

In order for the deductive approach to be successful, one needs to be working in a structured manner; make the methods measurable and reliable; formulate simple and straightforward hypotheses and use the results for generalisation. The last aspect means that one needs to be careful when choosing a research sample (Saunders, Lewis, &

Thornhill, 2019, p. 154). Inductive research, on the other hand, explores an unknown area and, whilst also using literature review as a foundation, does not test any specific findings but aims to explore new ones (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2019, p. 78). The author of this paper deemed the deductive approach more relevant.

There are many critical review methods, such as integrative review, theoretical review, or methodological review. This paper uses what is called theoretical review as a methodology. Its aim is ensuring the quality of the review by analytically summarising existing literature, drawing links and conclusions, as well as establishing weaknesses and dissimilarities. Based on this review, one can then establish new theories or hypotheses to be tested and discussed (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2019, pp. 78-79).

For this paper, a multitude of sources were consulted, from journals and podcasts to academic papers and general news. They were sourced mainly from the libraries of the Prague University of Economics and Business, the University of St. Gallen and the University of Bath's resources. Due to the heated public discussion surrounding this topic, it is indispensable to consult a variety of authors to prevent a strong bias. The journals and books consulted for this thesis include industry-specific journals such as

"Food Policy", "Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics" and "Environmental Science and Politics", as well as more general ones for example PLOS One and PNES.

Where possible, peer-reviewed papers were chosen.

Based on the literature review, data from different sources can also be taken and compared. It is crucial then, however, to make the data as similar as possible, and take an in-depth look into the research methodologies of the sources, as well as discussing them so that the readers can themselves critically assess the validity of the outcomes presented.

Field Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Primary research is formed by two disciplines: qualitative and quantitative research. The former deals with non-numerical data. Often only a limited number of people are involved in such research, and the aim is to explore the deeper motives behind actions

or variables. Literature review, as presented above, is one possible methodology of qualitative research. On the other side, quantitative data deals with more measurable, numeric data, but provides very little direct interaction between the researcher and those researched. Numbers are often analysed with statistical methods (Adams, Khan, &

Raeside, 2014, pp. 72-73).

Choosing between qualitative and quantitative research design depends on the questions at hand, as well as the time and financial constraints. The most suitable method, therefore, depends strongly on the questions or hypotheses one seeks answers for. It might also be necessary to mix quantitative and qualitative research approaches (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2019, p. 176). This paper aims to answer the following six research hypotheses and suggests the following approaches for each:

Hypothesis Research Method

H1: Meat consumption causes unaccounted cost (=externality cost) on society.

Literature Review

(Qualitative Research)

H2: Meat consumption generates personal utility to the consumer,

Using a mixture of methods will ensure the reliability of the work and decrease potential biases. Furthermore, quantitative surveys will be more representative in terms of the hypotheses (H3 and H4) it tries to answer. Hypothesis 6 will furthermore deal with calculations, with the data stemming from existing literature. The comparison of the data, however, is a novel approach.

Willingness to Pay (WTP) & Price Sensitivity: The Van Westendorp (vW) Method

To uncover the consumer’s WTP and their price sensitivity is an inherently tricky task.

Two significant issues as identified by Bakken (2013) are the fact that consumers try to

"play the system", and therefore provide incorrect numbers, as well as them not actually knowing how much they are willing to pay in a theoretical setting. Therefore, in an ideal setting, one should use what is called the monadic price experiment or choice-based conjoint analysis. Both put the consumer in a (hypothetical) purchasing situation and observes their consumption choices at different price levels. However, such experiments are costly, time-intensive and require either technical knowledge for the conjoint analysis or the physical premises of a supermarket or lab for the monadic price experiment, both which were not available to the researcher (Bakken, 2013).

Hence, an alternative approach was chosen, focusing on directly eliciting the prices the consumer is welcome to pay. This, however, needs to be crafted carefully for the results to have some worth. One method is to directly ask the participants what price they would be willing to pay; however, consumers will often not think in-depth about their answer,

H6: After limiting meat consumption, the reduction in

a) Health Cost

b) Environmental Cost

each outweighs the utility that individuals receive from consuming meat.

Literature Review

(Qualitative Research) + Calculations (Quantitative Research)

Table 4: Hypotheses and selected research methods.

higher prices, as an approach is seen by the research subjects as an option for negotiation, and the results will therefore be skewed (Pritchard, 2020). An alternative method, which is also used by consulting companies such as Simon Kucher & Partners is the Van Westendorp (vW) pricing sensitivity meter. It is based on probability measurements as used in-game and utility theories, and likely useful for this study (Lipovetsky, 2006). The vW method asks the survey participants the following four questions (Galanter, Moskowitz, & Silcher, 2011, p. 27; Pritchard, 2020):

1. At what price would you consider the good to be a bargain - a great buy for the money?

2. At what price would you consider the good to be starting to get expensive - but you would still consider it?

3. At what price would you consider the good to be too expensive to consider?

4. At what price would you consider the good to be too low, so that you would fear something is wrong with it?

The outcome of the analysis is then a price computation, done by calculating the upper and lower price limits for the consumers, as well as the value curves. At the point of the price limits intersection, the 'ideal' price is found. At the point of intersection between a bargain and the still considered price the 'indifference point' is found. This can then further be visualised in a graph. The consumer's price sensitivity can also be explored with this method. While the validity of the results for finding the ideal price point is under debate across the literature, it may still serve to give some initial guidance into consumer behaviour and their price sensitivity (Lipovetsky, 2006; Bakken, 2013).

For analysis purposes, Excel functions are used. The data must be checked for validity by ensuring that the prices related naturally to one another. The needed Excel computations are taken from a template by XLSTATS.

A mock result of such a pricing survey can be seen in Figure 15. The prices between the black crosses form the acceptable price range. The indifference point is where the pink diamond is placed when Pricey and A Bargain cross. The ideal price is found at the blue square, where too cheap and too expensive intersect (Sherwood, 2018).

Figure 15: Van Westendorp pricing survey results, graphical representation. (Sherwood, 2018)

Quantitative Survey Design

As discussed, the quantitative survey was based on the Van Westendorp method and was distributed via an online questionnaire. According to Adams et al. (2014, p. 119), creating a successful survey is an iterative process. This is visualised in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Survey creation is an iterative process, where piloting and continuous testing can ensure high-quality

It is essential that a survey is clear and to the point; that the participants easily understand the questions, and that instructions are clearly given, as they will be filling the questionnaire out without a possibility to ask the researcher for clarification. The participants should further be able to understand scales. To increase the participants' response rate, and better validate the sample, a shorter survey is preferred where possible. (Adams, Khan, & Raeside, 2014, pp. 119-124).

When designing questions, it is good to refer back to the literature review, as well as previously done questionnaires of a similar kind. Adams et al. (2014, p. 121) state that

“typically, most surveys are adoptions of ones which have been run in the past”. It is further essential that questions are not leading but leave the respondents a choice. When choosing between open and closed questions, it is important to be aware of each advantage and disadvantage. Whereas closed questions are more manageable for respondents to answer, and improve comparability, open-ended questions can allow the participant to clarify their meaning and communicate their opinion better. A mixture of question types could help drawing from both benefits; still, the questionnaire length has to be kept in mind (Adams, Khan, & Raeside, 2014, pp. 123-125).

When asking for opinions or awareness, one method is to use the so-called Likert-scales, that obtain the respondents' viewpoints on a multi-point scale. There is a debate whether the scale should come with odd or even response options, questioning whether it is wise to let respondents have a neutral standpoint (Adams, Khan, & Raeside, 2014, p. 125).

As seen in Figure 16, it is further essential to pilot the survey, to observe potential flaws and pitfalls that the researcher may overlook. Once the survey has been tested and corrected, it can then be distributed amongst the target group. For distribution, it is vital to motivate participants by an engaging welcome text; making it easy to navigate the survey, and generally to keep the survey simple as well as visually appealing. It further helps to inform the participants of the research outcome and make a note to them that the surveyor is a student, gaining them empathy. The value of each response may also be conveyed to the participants to heighten motivation (Adams, Khan, & Raeside, 2014, pp. 127-131).

For the questionnaire results to be valid, it is crucial that the reliability of the survey is critically assessed; that questions are discussed in the different ways they can be interpreted and that all results and not just some are included. The results should also

not be subjectively evaluated or modified, as this would constitute unethical research practice (Adams, Khan, & Raeside, 2014, pp. 132-133).