This is a building block for any MBA or advanced researcher to read and present a research, between many other presentations, I find this as quality number one, that is why I started reading it to give me light in preparing my MBA thesis. Ketchen Jr. Auburn University, Alabama Brian K. Boyd modeling limited dependent variables: methods and guidelines for researchers in strategic management The theoretical contribution of case study research to the field of strategy and management the methodology attempts to present some of the specific tools and experiences used to inform the design of the research and the development of an interpretation.
Thus, research techniques or methods are the methods that the researchers adopt for conducting the research studies. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Research methodology in management Current practices Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management Volume 3. Taree Research methodology in management pdf lillian January 3, no Comments.
Whilst these concepts emanate from philosophy, it is not necessary to have studied philosophy in order to make sense of the terminology. In essence, the purpose of setting out your research philosophy is to help signal to other researchers those claims you might make in your findings, and the basis on which you would make such claims. However, it is highly likely that the same broad research question or objective could have been approached using a very different style of research.
All that you are required to do is demonstrate that you engaged in a conscientious selection and defence of what you deemed to be the most suitable approach, given your chosen topic. Historically, certain paradigms may have been used for certain topics and methods, yet it would be foolhardy to dismiss the potential for innovation to be found in combining ideas and mixing methods.
Some of the ideas that follow may at first seem challenging and difficult to work with. As a health warning, we would acknowledge that we have made some simplifying assumptions in the approach that we have set out. Those well versed in the philosophy of knowledge may take issue with some aspects of our presentation here.
However, we are confident that the structured approach we are proposing will suffice for the vast majority of individuals tasked with articulating a methods statement. Articulating a research philosophy When undertaking any research project it is considered good practice to clearly outline the basis for claiming to know what we know.
Kuhn set in place the tradition that once a paradigm is chosen it is advisable for the researcher to remain within it. Hussey and Hussey emphasise the importance of researchers recognising and understanding their philosophi- cal orientations within the paradigm adopted for a specific project.
Kant argued that there are ways of knowing about the world other than through direct observation, and that people use these all the time. This proposition provided the platform for the launch of many of the ideas associated with research philosophy.
Prior to this, objects were considered in isolation, separate, and unchange- able. Kant theorised that things could be considered as objects of experi- ence: phenomena, rather than things in themselves specified negatively as unknown beyond our experience : noumena. Therefore, if human faculties of representation are used to study these phenomena, a priori conceptuali- sations can be envisaged.
For example, if we had only ever had the experience of sitting in chairs before and we saw a stool for the first time, rather than categorise it as unknown, we could conceptualise a priori that it would be possible to sit on a stool just like we do on a chair. Kant also showed how flawless logic can prove the existence of God and at the same time prove that there is no God at all; illustrating that opposing philosophies can be equally logical and at the same time contradictory and incomplete: a salient warning to any emergent researcher defending their philosophical stance.
The roots of research method Gorgias, a fifth century Sophist, is remembered for his provocative apho- risms. The aphorism deals with ontology, epis- temology and introduces the problem of rhetoric and language in a world where communication was shifting from the spoken to the written word. Plato Phaedrus in BC argued that writing would deteriorate memory, wreak havoc on logical constructions, and create an artificial reality. Before exploring some philosophical concepts first relating to ontology , Table 4.
Deduction a priori argument: deriving a proof or using evidence to test a hypotheses. Epistemology The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity. Metaphysics The branch of philosophy concerned with the ultimate nature of existence. Ontology The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being and of reality.
Methodology The study and application of methods. Paradigm Theoretical framework, within which research is conducted. Philosophy The academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs, and with investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality metaphysics , the resources and limits of knowledge epistemology , the principles and import of moral judgment ethics , and the relationship between language and reality semantics.
Reflexivity Critical self-awareness and examination of beliefs and knowledge-claims. In the most basic sense this means that you must articulate whether you see the world as objective or subjective.
The term ontology is rarely used beyond academic institutions and it can be difficult to know how to use it confidently. As with much specialist terminology, a brief look at the linguistic components that form the word can help to unlock a more practical meaning.
Therefore ontology is the study of being or reality. In lay terms it may be considered as how we view reality. Outside of science fiction and fantasy novels, we might think of there being only one reality, in which we live, breathe, and die.
Yet the afore- mentioned fictions are often inspired by the thought experiments through which philosophers and theorists question our understanding of reality. The most well-known of these is the brain-in-a-vat scenario, whereby a scientist stimulates a disembodied brain with such precision as to simulate an entirely realistic participation in what we call reality. Does the brain experience reality, or is the experience of the scientist somehow more real?
In more contemporary terms, popular stories such as the Narnia novels or the Matrix film series are based on the premise of stepping into a different reality. In ontological terms, the philosophical notion of solipsism asserts that since we cannot know other minds, the world and those other minds do not exist.
Similarly, a nihilist ontology contends that knowledge is impos- sible, and that there is no such thing as reality. A rather more mundane example of an altered reality relates to illness or pain: do we experience the world in the same way when we are suffering? For example, if you were asked to remove a hot dish from an oven, you would instinctively look to put a protective glove on your hand to perform this task.
You would do this because you would expect to feel pain in your hand if you attempted to remove the dish without protection. The pain would be caused by your nervous system reacting to the heat of the dish so as to protect the skin from being burned. Can it be objectively measured? If it is just our body trying to send a message to our conscious brain that lift- ing the hot dish with unprotected hands is a bad idea, then surely we can override this message and lift the dish anyway?
The theoretical reality of pain, as simply a sensory message to our brains to protect us from harm, versus our experiential reality of pain, as something that is unpleasant and negative, presents the different ways in which ontol- ogy can be considered.
Can suffering even exist without being experienced? As shown by the Methods Map, ontological assumptions can be broadly divided into two fundamental configurations: objective and subjective. Although these terms are far more commonly used, it may be helpful to develop clear distinctions relating to their use in the context of research. An objective perspective might be thought of as looking at reality as made up of solid objects that can be measured and tested, and which exist even when we are not directly perceiving or experiencing them.
In particular, an objective perspective would allow that something as simple as measuring your height would result in the same answer, regardless of who does the measuring. In more complex settings, we might aspire that our objectivity allows us to make the judgements necessary to decide upon the guilt of a defendant in a court of law. In contrast, a subjective perspective looks at reality as made up of the perceptions and interactions of living subjects. For instance, our response to a particular piece of music varies such that we might find something delightful whilst our friends find the same piece entirely unlistenable.
Having established these basic definitions, we can return to the process of researching organizational settings. For instance, take the claim that hap- pier workers are more productive. This belief, typical of enquiries into the physical sciences, would be described as an objective ontology. An objective ontology thus assumes that reality exists independently of our comprehension of it, and that it is possible to establish and explain universal principles and facts through robust, replicable methods.
At this point, you may find yourself agreeing that this seems rather obvious and sensible. Alternatively, you may feel a sense of discomfort at what you perceive to be an oversimplification of the myriad factors that might influence happiness, productivity, motivation, duty or fear, each of which may be influencing how productive an indi- vidual worker is in a given circumstance on a given day.
A subjective ontology sees facts as culturally and historically located, and therefore subject to the vari- able behaviours, attitudes, experiences, and interpretations — what we call the subjectivity — of both the observer and the observed.
This is sometimes known as a relativist ontology, although this is arguably misleading, as one can appreciate the power of subjectivity without necessarily being a moral or cultural relativist. Subjective ontology approaches reality as multiple in the sense that each individual experiences their place and time in the world in a different way.
For example, the subjectivity of an African-American woman in s Mississippi is likely to be entirely different from that of a Native American Indian male in the same time and place although both are likely to have their experiences shaped by severe oppression.
You may already notice a problem with the subjective approach, namely that it seems to require a certain objectivity to make a universal claim for a subjec- tive ontology. This is not a problem that we shall attempt to solve here.
A simpler criticism of an entirely subjective ontology would be to say that there are things in the world with observable characteristics, without which they would be something else. For instance, zinc, or ethanol. A subjective approach might counter this by saying that these characteristics are only observable relative to a particular vocabulary, set of assumptions, and people who subscribe to them; that scientific knowledge is widely accepted as true does not mean that it is universally accepted.
Questions of objective and subjective ontologies continue to fuel philosophical debate, perhaps because they are largely irresolvable. Like it or not, when interacting with other people we are constantly making subcon- scious comparisons and judgements, to ascertain our position within that interaction.
We may change the way in which we act if we know that we are investigating something, or indeed our actions are being investigated.
At the same time, it seems there is an observable reality that exists outside of human interactions, the properties of which can be measured and predicted. As such, it should be understood that objective and subjective ontologies are not mutually exclusive, and many researchers delineate their positions in relation to these poles, somewhere between the two. If this leaves you uncertain as to which way of studying reality is the most appropriate for your research, then take some comfort from the fact that this is a healthy sign that you are engaging with an exploration of the underlying philosophy of your research.
At the beginning of any project and often towards the end! Ontological questions require careful and continuous answering, and there will always be a valid argument against any position you select. The one certainty is that considerations of how the researcher and the act of researching might unwittingly impact upon that being researched must be expressed, in order for the study to demonstrate an appropriate depth of investigation.
In academic research particularly within the social sciences asserting our ontological position is crucial, since this sets out the basis on which we view reality. All that we can really hope for is a general consensus within the parameters deemed acceptable by a given community, and it is therefore important to recognise that the somewhat manufactured and exaggerated opposition between objective and subjective ontologies acts as a catalyst for critical thinking.
Following the Methods Map from our considerations of ontology, we now encounter and must make decisions about our epistemology. Epistemology Epistemology concerns the way in which we obtain valid knowledge.
The Methods Map illustrates four epistemological positions: positivist, critical realist, action research, and interpretivist. For instance, if you are asked for the time, and guess it correctly without a watch, is this reliable knowledge?
Or should this guess be verified somehow? Would hearing a time announcement on the radio represent confirmation, or would you be unsettled to know that digital transmission of radio signals introduces a small delay? The importance placed on the verified accuracy of the time would depend upon the context in which you need confirmation, e. The term epistemology can be deconstructed in a similar way to ontol- ogy. By being clear about the way in which we might obtain valid knowledge we are in turn being clear about the nature of any knowledge claim that we might make.
For instance, the observation that happier work- ers tend to be more productive is a form of knowledge claim. In everyday life we might engage in a debate as to the validity of such a claim, citing other factors that might influence happiness, productivity, or the relation- ship between the two. However, as researchers, we are required to draw connections between the assumptions we hold about reality ontology and the ways in which we might develop valid knowledge epistemology.
These are placed in similar opposition to objective and subjective ontolo- gies, as representing two different ways of thinking about knowledge. Again, these are specialist terms that can seem difficult to grasp, but a useful shorthand is to think of positivists positing and explaining principles, and interpretivists interpreting and understanding relationships. As we progress, it will be become clear that a research study expressing an objective ontology with a positivist epistemological approach might naturally be aligned with a quantitative methodology, whilst a study expressing a subjective ontology with an interpretivist approach tends to be aligned with a qualitative methodology.
There are many others being applied within social sciences research, however, particularly when it comes to undergraduate and post- graduate research, a solid understanding of these epistemologies is neces- sary to make an informed decision about the approach you will take. This view is summarised in Giddens , p. The popularity of positivism in business research is probably because the data used is highly specific and precise.
In social science, unlike physical sciences, paradigms cannot be true or false, as ways of looking; they can only be more or less useful. Critical realists assume that there is a reality that exists independently of human perceptions, but that our access to this reality is always limited and skewed by those perceptions. Our perceptions are both physically limited e. Building on this, critical realists hold that although it is not possible to objectively verify universal characteristics of reality, humans nevertheless behave as if this were possible.
We interpret and act upon situations as though causal relationships e. This view assumes that the power of perceptions can and does shape the world, but at the same time sees the effect of that shaping as the construction of often reliable and measurable circumstances.
For example, when I strike a match, I assume that the flame will not be so large as to engulf and ignite the rest of the box. Our percep- tions inform and guide our decision-making, yet many scientific theories have physical consequences independent of human experience. This layering of reality is expressed by critical realists as stratification, which is a principal feature of this perspective, although there is arguably some ambiguity in the application of the term.
Briefly, stratified reality con- sists of a hierarchy of overlapping layers, with lower or deeper, invisible levels causing effects at higher more easily perceived levels. We might consider this as the distinction between what we can see happening, the events leading up to this, and the various forces that may or may not come into play at a given moment.
This uniquely structured interaction of layers produces a particular outcome that cannot be reduced to its constituent parts, but nevertheless can be observed at the higher levels of stratification.
This becomes more complicated when we start to think about social reality, such as the case of happy workers. Phenomena such as happiness are subject to similarly layered distinctions based on what we assume to be reality, and again tempered by our limited ability to perceive what is occurring.
Critical realists are particularly interested in the differences and interactions between the individual and society, and between individual actions and social structures. We can read the words on these pages without having access to the process of writing, the chemical properties of ink, the historical chance and measurement that led to the printed word, or to the discussions that preceded the decision to write.
The way in which we read these words is likely to be altered if, for instance, we have had an unfortunate prior experience with a spontaneously combusting box of matches. Such idiosyncratic elements of human experience and biography come together to create a perspective on critical realism that is completely individual, yet refers to something that certainly seems to exist.
One of the most commonly used definitions of action research is that it involves working with organiza- tional members on matters of genuine concern to them and over which they have a genuine need to take action Eden and Huxham, It is therefore a highly applied and engaged form of research which sees managers and researchers collaborate to foster change.
Kurt Lewin introduced the term in to denote a new approach to social research that combined generation of theory with changing a social system through the researcher acting on or in the social system. Sadly, Lewin only wrote 22 pages on the topic of Action Research Peters and Robinson, , and died suddenly in , aged 57 years old. Nevertheless, Action Research evolved in two related but distinct traditions.
In the UK, a group of war-time researchers who later formed the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London, developed their own variant of Action Research using a steering committee to develop a strategy for carrying out the research and implementing the findings in a particular context.
Researchers would gather background data, perform analysis and implement changes, often in the first instance using a test area of the organization. Today there are a number of variants of Action Research in use see Reason and Bradbury, for a comprehensive overview. However, Action Research is more commonly associated with qualitative data. Indeed, MacIntosh and Bonnet p.
The validity of Action Research is often challenged precisely because it places heavy emphasis on developing a deep understanding of one specific setting, thus critics claim it has a limited capacity to develop generalizable knowledge. Despite its popularity as a method, only a handful of empirical publications in the most prestigious journals feature Action Research in their method statements. Researchers considering Action Research there- fore face two challenges.
First, they must find a host organization willing to a participate in the research and b committed to taking action on the basis of the research conducted.
Second, they may face greater difficulty in publishing their findings in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. Interpretivism identifies that there are fundamental differences between the natural and human sciences and these distinctions stemmed from the different aims — explanation versus understanding.
The basic premise of the interpretivist paradigm is that unlike the physical sci- ences, which deal with objects external to the researcher, the social sciences deal with action and behaviour generated from within the human mind. There is a clear interrelationship between investigators and the investigated, researcher and the researched. St Anselm asserts that nothing is achieved or ascertained by merely speculating from the sidelines; a certain level of committed involvement is necessary.
For all things that we know, we know in so far as they have some unity and identity, and in so far as some attribute belongs to them universally. Also, developments in chaos theory and quantum physics have led to an increasing number of studies questioning whether the natu- ral world is as stable and law-like as had been previously supposed see for example Prigogine and Stengers, Businesses, events, organisations, and even individuals do not, in themselves, possess meaning; meaning is conferred on them by and via interaction.
Interpretivism seeks to observe the general trends and perceptions of a social phenomenon. Fundamentally, qualitative methods are useful for unravelling and understanding what lies behind any phenomenon about which little is known. Management is a practice rather than a science and even proponents of the unity of science such as Popper who assumes that facts can be gathered in the social sciences in much the same way as in natural sciences have unfortunately devoted little attention to the particular problems of social science.
Recognition also needs to be given to the importance of being as objec- tive and neutral as possible in the interpretation and presentation of the research.
Current thinking would consider it essential for a research project to be framed within one philosophical paradigm, and to remain within it: the philosophical paradigm and the basic research assumptions must be compatible and clearly understood.
We shall now turn to the effective use of language, before considering the role of values in your research. This section briefly explores two aspects of rhetoric which are central to the dissertation and underpinned by your research philosophy: metadiscourse and authorial voice.
You are more familiar with this subject than you think. For a start we all use rhetoric every day to serve our agendas in conversation with friends and family, at university or at work.
Metadiscourse is a term for words used by an author to mark the direction and purpose of a text. It refers to all those devices which you use to organ- ise the text for the reader and can include textual as well as interpersonal functions. It includes use of language, first person pronouns, and evaluative expressions. When you are writing your dissertation you should consider the reader looking over your shoulder. In writing a dissertation you must address your reader who is probably your marker too, whilst proving you are making a contribution and demonstrating yourself as a competent member of the academic discipline.
How you use aspects of metadiscourse will also help shape your autho- rial voice — the way in which you write to differentiate yourself from other authors. This does not mean that as an author you have to write the same way all the time, just as different social occasions require different dress codes, different texts require different writing styles. A reflective essay would require a strong personal voice whereas a report or an exam would require a more formal tone.
This view of authorial voice also has close paral- lels with a major tenet of post-structuralist thought. According to Foucault people have, by their very nature, multiple instead of unitary person- alities or subjectivities. The Russian literary and linguistics scholar Bakhtin proposed the notion of heteroglossia, from the Greek meaning many tongues. Most academic writers develop an autobiographical self, the identity they bring with them to their writing.
The underpinning philosophy that informs the research design that you adopt for your study will shape how you write your dissertation. If you adopt an interpretivist stance then you might be more inclined to write in a personal voice, using personal pronouns if considered appropriate by your supervisor and the tone could highlight the evolving decision making which took place during the research process. Whereas if you were positiv- ist in your approach, your writing might more naturally take a more formal tone, based on set definitions and with a rather impersonal voice.
As has been implicitly mentioned in this chapter, language itself is a construction that we use to communicate our work and our ideas. Within the area you are studying there will be prevailing assumptions relating to the meaning of words and phrases and their appropriate uses. For example, you may intend to interview for your dissertation business owners who could legitimately be described interchangeably as entrepreneurs, leaders and managers.
However, each of these three terms has a vast area of literature that inform their meanings, and thus by using all three your metadiscourse would be weakened, thereby jeopardising the strength and validity of your conclusions. Your writing style and language choices will influence your marker, and should be appropriate to your academic community.
Finally, and most importantly, it should be readable. This might seem like an obvi- ous thing to say but how often have we read academic papers that are full of incomprehensible words and groaning under a writing style so impenetra- 4 ble that the text is rendered unreadable. Writing should use language that is accessible to as many people as possible. Axiological considerations Axiology is the philosophical study of value, often seen as the collective term for ethics and aesthetics; the two branches of philosophy that depend on notions of value.
This is distinct from Research Ethics which should inform your data collection. Values here inform the bias, which you as an individual bring to the research project.
We all have biases; it is how we deal with them or at the very least acknowledge them that is important. One of the defining features of contemporary industrial society is post- modernity and the development of reflexivity or self-consciousness. Simply put, reflexivity is that stage beyond reflection: reflecting back on oneself. Reflexive modernity or postmodernity, and the vagaries of the post-modern condition are virtually unavoidable in contemporary research within the social sciences, which include business management.
Personal subjective experiences are often central to the choice of research path, and should not go unacknowledged. In social science research we deal with human interaction and feelings, not the cold hard facts normally studied in the natural sciences and engi- neering. This can present individuals in sensitive and demanding situations, such as the complex dynamics studied in Alexanderet al. That said we might also keep in mind the words of Benedict XVI , p.
Most texts are value-laden and have inherent bias. Assumption Question Positivism Critical Realism Action Research Interpretivist Ontological What is the Reality is Reality is stratified Reality is knowable Reality is nature of singular, set and engaged with through interaction multiple and reality? As illustrated by the Methods Map, this involves the selection of a general methodology, and specific techniques.
Chapter 5 looks at case studies, and Chapter 6 explores different sources of data. Chapter 7 offers a discussion of qualitative data gathering techniques, while Chapter 8 looks at quantitative data gathering techniques. Again, following the Map, you will then come to select an appropriate approach to data analysis. These approaches are broadly categorised as deductive, which typically works to analyse quan- titative data, and inductive, which tends to be used to analyse qualitative data.
Chapters 8 and 10 provide the accompanying discussions on analys- 4 ing qualitative and quantitative data respectively. Only since the era of the Enlightenment, and the rise of rationalism — with its rigid view of a nature governed by intractable rules — has the writ- ten word been straitjacketed by very clear ideas of just what is and is not physically possible.
Imagination and a refusal to take things at face value play a big part in scientific understanding, research and discovery. For instance the King James Bible, first published in , refers several times to the unicorn, while dragons were often hunted in the Dark Ages.
The abil- ity to take an imaginative leap beyond accepted scientific dogma and the entrenched views of academic colleagues, disciplinary boundaries or even apparent common sense has been at the heart of a significant number of scientific or technological advances in the last few hundred years.
For exam- ple, throughout most of the 20th century, the conventional wisdom was that peptic ulcers were caused by gastric juice. Only by a pioneering doctor infecting himself with a bacterium Helicobacter pylori could he prove that conventional wisdom was incorrect and win the Nobel Prize for medicine.
Clarendon Press Oxford Aristotle, Metaphysics, Oeconomica, and Magna Moralia. Loeb Classical Library, Volume Heinemann Modern sources Adorno, T. Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie. Berlin: Luchterhand. Alexander, M. Tourism Management, 33 5 , Babbie, E. The Practice of Social Research.
0コメント