The Essence of Research Methodology

Transcription

1

2 The Essence of Research Methodoogy

3 Jan Jonker Bartjan Pennink The Essence of Research Methodoogy A Concise Guide for Master and PhD Students in Management Science

4 Dr. Jan Jonker Nijmegen Schoo of Management (NSM) Radboud University Nijmegen (RU) PO BOX HK Nijmegen The Netherands Dr. Bartjan W. Pennink Facuty of Economics and Business University of Groningen Department of Internationa Business and Management Landeven AV Groningen The Netherands [email protected] ISBN: e-isbn: DOI / Springer Heideberg Dordrecht London New York Library of Congress Contro Number: # Springer-Verag Berin Heideberg 2010 This work is subject to copyright. A rights are reserved, whether the whoe or part of the materia is concerned, specificay the rights of transation, reprinting, reuse of iustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfim or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Dupication of this pubication or parts thereof is permitted ony under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must aways be obtained from Springer. Vioations are iabe to prosecution under the German Copyright Law. The use of genera descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this pubication does not impy, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the reevant protective aws and reguations and therefore free for genera use. Cover design: WMXDesign GmbH, Heideberg, Germany Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (

5 Preface Methodoogy is the fied which is indisputaby compex. In the academic word, it is often said to be important, yet in everyday academic practice, it is not aways treated accordingy. In teaching, methodoogy is often a mandatory course. Usuay, it consists of earning how to adopt severa common approaches when doing research, and how to conceive a research design (often eading to a survey). This usuay eads to coecting data on a modest scae and when the opportunity arises anaysing the data with the hep of some statistics. Ask the students of their opinion at the end of such a course and they tend to heave a deep sigh of reief and say, I have got through it. Then their rea courses start again, in which methodoogy often does not pay a roe at a. We are of the opinion that writing-off methodoogy in this way is a rea pity. It ignores the vauabe roe that methodoogy shoud pay in academic teaching as a whoe. Here, methodoogy is presented as a form of thinking and acting that, whie obviousy entaiing research work, can aso incude the design and change of organisations. This broad approach has been purposefuy chosen, as it is amost obvious from research and graduation projects that the students do not reay have a cue what methodoogy invoves and, therefore, wasting their time by producing work that has a itte quaity. The successfu Dutch edition of this book demonstrated the need to provide a brief yet concise introduction to the fied of methodoogy. We sincerey hope that this revised and eaborated Engish edition can meet simiar needs. This book has not been written for feow academic methodoogists. It is mainy aimed at teachers and ecturers who want to pay attention to methodoogy in their courses. This may invove working on research assignments, expaining certain methodoogica aspects of speciaised knowedge, as we as supervising Master s and, sometimes, PhD projects. Above a, this book is aimed at students who work in the fied of management sciences and to those who are specificay invoved in the studies that concern the functioning, structuring, diagnosing, or changing of organisations. The goa is to offer them a preiminary guide to define and carry out various forms of research. Our overa objective here is to provide the student with v

6 vi Preface a cear understanding of methodoogy and its vaue for their academic work. Hopefuy, it wi aso encourage speciaised ecturers to actuay assign methodoogy a more important pace in their teaching. As it is common in a preface, we express our thanks to a those persons, authors, and coeagues, who have contributed to this book. We are gratefu for using their texts, ideas, and critica remarks. In particuar, we are gratefu to a (Master s and PhD) students who have had to strugge with various preiminary versions of the manuscript, as we as with the many ideas and notions under construction. Specia acknowedgement is due to the former Nederandse Organisatie voor Bedrijfskundig- en Economisch Onderzoek (NOBEM), a Dutch graduate network of universities that provided academic teaching to PhD students in particuar with respect to research methodoogy. Over the years, this network offered us a systemic opportunity for cooperation in bringing a fine resut in the Dutch edition of this book. We recognise the vauabe support of Louwe Dijkema and Jacqueine Koppeman (both at that moment empoyed at Roya Van Gorcum Pubishers in Assen The Netherands) who supported that first edition. This Engish edition is revised and rewritten on the basis of teaching experience gained since the first reease of this book. We express our gratitude to Frau Dr. Martina Bihn at Springer Verag for being so patient and supportive. We fee honoured to be guided by her. We thank Anneiene Jonker who has spent countess hours working on the figures, references, and gossary. We are aso indebted to Sarah Trenker who heped turn our origina text into proper Engish. Specia thanks aso go to Jacques Igaens, professor at the IAE of the University of Tououse 1 (France) who provided time, space, and company for editing the fina version of this manuscript. Finay we acknowedge our academic empoyers. They have aowed us admittedy sometimes under duress to give courses outside the reguar teaching schedue for more than a decade. Without this vauabe support, itte woud have come of what initiay started as an idea to make methodoogy more accessibe to a broad group of students during their studies. Jan Jonker and Bartjan Pennink Doetinchem Nijmegen Tououse Groningen Lasvaux Appingedam Tubbergen January 2010 Pease note: Everywhere in the book where he is used, she can aso be read. It goes without saying that this aso appies for the term researcher, which obviousy incudes both mae and femae researchers. The choice for the grammatica mae form is not based on any form of discrimination whatsoever, but purey aimed on achieving a more readabe text.

7 Summary This pubication is designed to provide (Master s and PhD) students with a concise introduction to research, especiay, in organisations. The aim is to famiiarise them with the knowedge they need to make we-reasoned methodoogica choices when preparing an (appied) approach and provide them with the toos they need to deveop what is referred to in this book as a research design. What methodoogy actuay entais is expained by means of the Research Pyramid, which consists of the paradigms, methodoogies, methods, and instruments used to coect, cassify, and anayse data. Specia attention is given to the process of constructing conceptua modes. The guiding principe here is the distinction between open and cosed questions. The notion of methodoogy is expored by ooking at research methodoogy and intervention methodoogy. Both forms are examined in order to demonstrate the range of assumptions and choices underpinning a carefuy crafted research design. This eads to the methodoogica Box of Bricks providing a schematic overview of the choices one can make whie designing a research. Two interudes, respectivey, between Chaps. 3 and 4 and Chaps. 5 and 6 provide some critique on assumptions regarding methodoogy in genera and outine a mutimethod approach. The text as a whoe is intended as an introduction to hep students to understand what structuring research impies. The genera assumption is that the students reading this text are engaged in organisation-oriented research be it in a business or a not-for-profit organisation. It is structured around a number of succinct chapters and 15 figures. There is a summary provided at the end of each chapter. Each chapter aso contains a compact overview of references to other textbooks and/or websites speciaising in specific themes such as designing a questionnaire, appying grounded theory, or deveoping a conceptua mode. The book contains more then 50 practica exampes, exercises, discussions, and short case studies. These are aimed at showing the student how to appy methodoogy in a specific context. Short footnotes draw attention to more fundamenta theoretica, ontoogica, or epistemoogica issues. Criteria are isted that make it possibe to judge the quaity of the (research) resuts. At the end of the book, various vii

8 viii Summary checkists are provided to hep students structure their research activities and refect on key issues and choices to be made. A specia feature of this book is an extensive gossary that provides the terms and notions used in this book. This text is appropriate for courses on Research Methodoogy for Master and PhD students and can aso be used as a part of the reguar curricuum, e.g., Human Resource Management, Organisationa Design or Change Management, Internationa Management, Phiosophy of Science. Extensive experience can be acquired by using it as a basic textbook for courses focusing on the preparation of a thesis or dissertation. It wi aso be hepfu for peope who want to refresh their knowedge about methods and techniques.

9 Suggested Reading This is a textbook on the essence of research methodoogy. It was deveoped over a number of years whie providing courses and workshops to PhD students, in particuar. Many if not a of these students were engaged in a variety of research projects in the area of management sciences. What we have discovered during this ong period is that many of these projects are amost by definition of a quaitative nature. A rather quaitative approach is aso used for this text, which aims to offer a comprehensive grounding in what methodoogy is a about. Originay, we set out to write a sim and accessibe text offering an overview of the key ideas and notions concerning methodoogy. The success of the Dutch edition has demonstrated that we might have succeeded in achieving this aim. This Engish edition shoud aso be read as an introduction to the fied. There are penty of fine and sophisticated texts avaiabe as additiona reading in this fascinating fied. This text is just a means of offering students access to the subject; no more nor ess. If you are a novice in the fied (e.g. a Master s or PhD student), take some time and try to read the text as a whoe. You wi no doubt encounter many terms (and subsequent definitions) that you might perceive to be grotesque if not outrageous. Whatever happens, do not worry: that is what an introduction to a new fied is a about. Do not et yoursef be fooed by the deiberatey simpe anguage we have chosen to use; it is aready difficut enough to grasp the meaning of methodoogy without getting buried under the avaanche of words and terms that seem to come with it. If you do not have much time but just want an overview of what methodoogy is a about pease read at east Chaps.1 and 2; we think that it is mandatory for any reader. Eaboration on conceptua modes is provided in Chap. 3. We have introduced the idea of an Interude (there are two) to hep give our journey a specific if not personaised direction. Chapters 4 and 5 can be read separatey depending on the nature of the research you have in mind; they provide a brief introduction to quantitative and quaitative research. Pease do not skip the second Interude since it wi offer you a short introduction to a muti-method design. Two chapters deserve ix

10 x Suggested Reading specia attention. Chapter 6 provides an overview of the different criteria the various stakehoders engaged in your research project might use. It essentiay shows that it is practicay impossibe to ive up to a expectations. Do not fee frustrated; handing these different requirements in a proper and justifiabe way is what good research is a about. Be cear and specific about what you are trying to achieve. Chapter 7 provides a more theoretica discussion on the reationship between methodoogy and acting. In doing so it estabishes a broader perspective of the roe of methodoogy in organisations. We are aware of the fact that this chapter does not treat methodoogy in the sense of doing research. Sti we consider it essentia that anyone doing research in organisations shoud be aware of the more fundamenta issues with respect to methodoogy. It might come in handy to know that there is a fina Chap. 8 enabing you to assess your work using a number of checkists. There is aso an extensive Gossary heping you to carify terms and definitions you might aready be using in your present work. We ike to stress once more that this book was originay conceptuaised with a quaitative approach in mind. The research practice of students shows time and again that most business-oriented projects adopt this approach. However, we certainy do not deny the vaue of a more quantitative approach as is demonstrated in severa chapters and in one of the Interudes. In the end, sound research, no matter what kind of research it is, starts with cear-cut thinking and (conceptua) sense making. It is ony then that an answer to the underying question can be sought.

11 Contents 1 Looking at Research Introduction Looking at Reaity Probematising Probem Stakehoders Conducting Research The Nature of a Research Question Open and Cosed Questions Linking the Research Question, Probem and Goa Probem Definition The Position and Roe of the Researcher What Is Methodoogy? Chapter Summary References The Essence of Methodoogy Introduction Search Behaviour: From Probem to Answer The Research Pyramid Basic Attitude Matching Search Behaviour Basic Approach Positivism Constructivism Methodoogy: Not a Map, But a Domain Methodoogy and Method Methods Techniques: Thinking and Acting Data Techniques The Distinction Between Quaitative and Quantitative Research Research Design Chapter Summary References xi

12 xii Contents 3 Conceptua Modes Introduction Defining a (Conceptua) Mode Maps and Modes Properties of Conceptua Modes Theory and Conceptua Modes The Functions of a Conceptua Mode in Designing Research Question: Open or Cosed? Roe of a Conceptua Mode with a Cosed Question Roe of a Conceptua Mode with an Open Question Constructing a Conceptua Mode Chapter Summary References Interude I Conceptuaising Methodoogy A.1 Conceptuaising Methodoogy A.1.1 The Socia Origins of Probems A.1.2 Instrumentaity A.1.3 Intervention A.1.4 Measurabiity A.1.5 Theory A.1.6 Subjectivity A.1.7 Ontoogy A.1.8 Epistemoogy A.1.9 Deontoogy A.1.10 Finay: The Roe of the Researcher References Quantitative Research Introduction The Box of Bricks: Cosed Question Quantitative Paradigm Quantitative Methodoogy Quantitative Methods and Techniques Quantitative Research Criticised Chapter Summary References Quaitative Research Introduction The Box of Bricks: Open Question Quaitative Paradigm Quaitative Methodoogy Quaitative Methods Exampe 1: Grounded Theory (GT) The GT Instructions... 84

13 Contents xiii Exampe 2: Chain Reasoning According to Toumin The Instructions of Chain Reasoning Exampe 3: Action Research Guideines for Action Research Quaitative Techniques Quaitative Research Criticised Box 5.7: Anaysing a simpe conversation (2) Chapter Summary References Interude II Combining a Quaitative and Quantitative Approach in One Research Design A.1 Combining a Quaitative and Quantitative Approach in One Research Design A.1.1 Introduction A.1.2 Phase 1: Observing and Deducing A.1.3 Phase 2: Theorising and Conceptuaising A.1.4 Phase 3: Interpretation and Appication A.1.5 Combining the Best of Both A.1.6 Using the Nature of the Question for a Muti-method Approach References Assessing Your Research Introduction Jugging with Requirements and Criteria Cassification of Criteria In Advance During Afterwards Quantitative Requirements Quaitative Requirements Responsibiity Assessment Criticism Quantitative Quaitative Chapter Summary References Acting and Organising Introduction Acting Action Repertoire Refecting Norma Organisationa Actions in Reation to Research Action Knowing

14 xiv Contents Justifying Acting and Organising Design and Change Patriarch Lewin Criticism Action and Designing Methodoogy and Technique Chapter Summary References Eaborating Your Own Research Design Introduction The Research Proposa A Summary in the Form of Questions Checkist for assessing a Master Thesis or Dissertation Tite and Structure Readabiity Justification Maintenance Epiogue References Comparative Gossary Epiogue References Gossary

15 List of Figures Fig. 1.1 The fied of research Fig. 2.1 The box of bricks of research Fig. 2.2 The research pyramid Fig. 2.3 From probem to answer Fig. 2.4 Research design reated to theory, methodoogy, question and context Fig. 3.1 Construct as meant Fig. 3.2 Reations between concepts and variabes Fig. 4.1 Empirica cyce: deductive Fig. 4.2 The box of bricks: cosed question Fig. 5.1 Empirica cyce: Inductive Fig. 5.2 The box of bricks: open question Fig. 5.3 Quaitative research strategies. Mies and Huberman (1994) Fig. 5.4 Chain reasoning: data versus caim. Toumin et a. (1979) Fig. 5.5 Quantitative and quaitative research combined Fig. 5.6 Nature of the question combined xv

16 List of Exercises Box 1.1: Looking at Reaity? Box 1.2: Who is Having a Probem? Box 1.3: Exampe of an Open Question Box 1.4: Exampe of an Cosed Question Box 1.5: Brief Checkist at the Start of a Research Box 1.6: Presenting Your Research Box 1.7: Checkist Probem Definition Box 1.8: Discussing What Constitutes Good Research Box 2.1: Questioning the Basic Approach of the Researcher Box 2.2: Are you a Positivist or a Constructivist? Box 2.3: Basic Approach Reated to a Research Question Box 2.4: Defining Methodoogy Box 2.5: The Methodoogy Needed to Pan a Hoiday Box 2.6: Transating you Intuition into a Methodoogy Box 2.7: Distinguish Methodoogy from Methods Box 2.8: Understanding the Notion of Technique Box 2.9: Preparing a Tak Box 3.1: Exampe of a Conceptua Mode Box 3.2: Possibe Side Effects of Conceptuaising Box 3.3: Embeddedness Box 3.4: Dispay of a Conceptua Mode Box 3.5: Different Starting Points for Conducting Research Box 3.6: Operationaisation of the Environment of an Organisation Box 3.7: Construction of a Hypothesis Box 3.8: The Use of Sensitising Concepts Box 3.9: A Labe as Starting Point in the Construction of a Conceptua Mode Box 4.1: Exampes of Cosed Questions Box 4.2: Reevance for Whom? Box 4.3: Checkist of a Probem Definition Box 4.4: Start of a Quantitative Research xvii

17 xviii List of Exercises Box 4.5: The Fow of Quantitative Research Box 4.6: Exampes of Statistica Techniques Box 5.1: Exampes of Open Questions Box 5.2: The Fow of Quaitative Research Box 5.3: The Focus of a Case Study Box 5.4: Cassifying Conversations Box 5.5: Anaysing a Simpe Conversation (1) Box 5.6: Interview Processing Box 6.1: Criteria for Judging Research Box 6.2: Exercise Regarding Market Opportunities Box 6.3: Diemmas of Conducting Research Box 6.4: Reiabiity? Box 6.5: Research Criteria: Quaitative and Quantitative Box 6.6: Changing Requirements During Your Research Box 6.7: Communication Probems Box 7.1: A Simpe Exercise Regarding Everyday Acting Box 7.2: The Nature of Acting Box 7.3: Manageria Acting: Entrepeneurship Box 7.4: The Rationaity of Thinking Box 7.5: Discussion Regarding Everyday Acting Box 7.6: Some Definitions of Acting Box 7.7: Discussion: Methodoogy and Action Box 7.8: Discussing the Nature of Organising Box 7.9: Discussing a Methodoogy of Organising Box 7.10: Techniques Revisited Box 7.11: Reating Techniques to a Methodoogy

18 About the Authors Dr. J. Jonker is an associate professor and research feow at the Nijmegen Schoo of Management of the Radboud University Nijmegen (Hoand). His main research interest focuses on organisationa change, corporate socia responsibiity (CSR) and business strategy. He is a visiting professor at the University of Nottingham (UK), the Business Schoos of Nancy and Tououse (France) and Barceona (Spain). He has written many books and numerous artices. He combines his academic work with business consuting, thus staying in touch with different probems, discourses and reaities. Dr. B.J.W. Pennink is an assistant professor at the Facuty of Economics and Business of the University Groningen (Hoand) where he mainy teaches courses in research methodoogy and Internationa Management to undergraduates and graduates in different Masters programmes. He ectures at severa universities in Indonesia (Jakarta, Bandung). In addition he was a visiting ecturer at the University of Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso between 1991 and Since 2006 he is project manager of coaboration project around Capacity Buiding of the IFM (Institute Finance Management) in Dar Es Saaam. They both have been ecturers in Quaitative Methodoogy for the Dutch Organisation for Business Research (NOBEM) between 1989 and NOBEM was a fruitfu network organisation between universities across The Netherands providing methodoogy courses for PhD students in the fied of business studies. This book is based on precious and peasurabe experience gained teaching together for more then a decade. A concise edition of this book appeared in Dutch under the tite De Kern van Methodoogie (2000 (first edititon) and 2004 (second edition)) pubished by Roya Van Gorcum Pubishers (Assen). xix

19 Chapter 1 Looking at Research Abstract This chapter outines the structure and topics covered in this book. The centra aim is to teach students how to design and conduct proper (appied) research. Research starts by identifying the research question. The questions addressed here, are inked to the reaity of organisations. This reaity is probematic for two reasons firsty, owing to the nature of organisations itsef and secondy, the probems that arise as a resut of the processes of organising. Probems in this area need to be broken down into a probem definition eading to a research goa and question. We assume that if you have a cear understanding of the probem, you impicity aso have the soution. Probems in organisations are by definition inked to various stakehoders. Two of them the cient and the researcher often jointy work out what the probem is. The researcher often has to navigate between the requirements made by the organisation and those representing the community of science the third important stakehoder. Deaing with the various requirements of these stakehoders creates tension for the researcher and he needs to refect carefuy before taking any action. Subsequenty, handing the framed probem propery requires methodoogy. That is what this book is a about. 1.1 Introduction Imagine the foowing situation: a company s manager cas up your institute and asks if there is a student avaiabe to conduct research into the way quaity management systems can be better impemented. By making this teephone ca the manager thinks he has found an efficient and maybe even effective soution to his probem and, at the same time, has done the institute or rather the student a favour by offering a trainee post. Maybe there is even some money invoved! Perhaps he aso hopes that the student once he is carrying out the assignment in J. Jonker and B. Pennink, The Essence of Research Methodoogy, DOI / _1, # Springer-Verag Berin Heideberg

20 2 1 Looking at Research the company wi be abe to observe the company from a new perspective, detached from the probem for which he was hired. He may aso secrety hope that the student may aso provide some advice that coud ead to more efficiency in other fieds. The student wi no doubt start off wondering how to sove the manager s probem in a responsibe manner and how best to structure the. Other considerations wi incude estabishing a way to investigate the probem cevery (taking into account how much money and time is avaiabe and the requirements the research needs to fufi) and in what way the company wi benefit from the resuts of the research. More importanty, he wi need to base the method he chooses for the research on previous academic experience. He wi be confronted with many kinds of questions from the manager that wi need to be answered propery. Many wi find this a difficut task as students sti often consider doing research as being a kind of secondary activity and inferior to the main topics being taught in a specific programme. Understanding and appying methodoogy ony becomes important when it is time to prepare the actua dissertation or thesis. In fact, however research is very important when searching for cear-cut answers, since a graduation project or dissertation is based on demonstrating the abiity to examine a fuzzy probem that occurs in the organisationa reaity. In order to contribute to a soution the research wi need to consist of a combination of theory and (research) methodoogy that needs to be eaborated into an appropriate and we-reasoned research design fitting the probem at hand. Combining theory and (research) methodoogy and turning it into a research design is certainy not a standard job it is aways taiored to a specific probem. However, if the methodoogy is good and if the actua process of research is propery conducted a decent piece of research can be expected. Decent means resuting in research that is usefu in organisationa practice and meets academic standards. This first chapter ooks from a birds-eye perspective at the different stages of the process of a (appied) research project, starting from the point when a cient, teacher or tutor, aunches a graduation project and confronts the researcher or student with a question. It then ooks at the compex process which unfods in which the foowing questions a pay a roe at various times: What does observing (organisationa) reaity impy? What does creating probems probematising mean? Who is experiencing the probem in the organisation? What is the nature of the question? Is it open or cosed? 1 1 Throughout the book you wi find us using sets of terms that seem to be opposite. The most important of these are: (a) open and cosed questions, (b) inductive and deductive research, (c) appied and fundamenta research (d) a quaitative and quantitative approach and finay (d) conducting the research through your own eyes or through the eyes of someone ese. Athough it might invite the concusion that those terms are aways dichotomous, it is not the reaity. Sti we have chosen to use these terms as being opposite to each other, in order to demarcate assumptions and positions thus providing an overview of the possibe choices in

21 1.2 Looking at Reaity 3 How shoud the research question and objectives be eaborated? What is the nature of the research is more fundamenta or more practice oriented? Which woud be the most appropriate methodoogy? Which methods and techniques shoud be used for data coection? How shoud one s own roe and position be defined in this research? One can dream up more questions but this is quite sufficient for a start. Answering these wi provide a step-wise introduction to the fascinating matter of methodoogy. 2 Our intention is to show that proper handing of the methodoogica issues at hand, resuts in a transparent process between question and answer. These questions wi recur in various ways in the foowing chapters, where they wi be examined in more detai. 1.2 Looking at Reaity A singe perception of reaity does not exist. There is no expicit condition or situation that everyone interprets as universa reaity. This may come as no surprise. Reaity is a moving target! Anyone who ooks around sees houses, streets, or a passing cycist. Anyone who is deep in thought, if ony for a moment, sees peope, events from the past or a kaeidoscope of (private) thoughts. Anyone who is engaged in a conversation with someone ese sees the person taking whie using anguage, making gestures, bringing to the fore thoughts and using metaphors and other inguistics to get the message across. Whoever definitey knows what is rea in the description above (and everything mentioned above is competey true) may be the first to say what reaity is. So, reaity offers by definition an ontoogica 3 probem: we a know it exists, we operate in it everyday, yet, the moment we are asked to define it we find ourseves faced with a Pandora s box: peope have the process of designing and executing research. This deiberate use is one of the pedagogica features of this text. 2 By the way: throughout this book you wi find a number of these footnotes each time eaborating a more fundamenta issue. The comparative Gossary at the back of the book can aso be hepfu when refecting on these issues. It shoud come as no surprise that the task of giving a certain precision to methodoogy is not straightforward. The principa reason why this is not simpe is that methodoogy, methods and techniques are terms often used in a mixed-up, interchangeabe and vague way. Whie not mutuay excusive, each term has a sufficienty specific meaning, which is why considerabe care shoud be taken when using them to avoid terminoogica confusion. 3 This is typicay one of those terms you can find in the Gossary. We define it as the study of the essence of phenomena and the nature of their existence.

22 4 1 Looking at Research different perceptions of reaity, they give it different meanings depending on their situation or position. This book ooks at organisations. 4 Organisations shoud be observed as a specia form of reaity. They are visibe on the one hand, because when you ook at an organisation you wi see buidings, chairs, computers and peope who are occupied with a mutitude of things. On the other hand, it is possibe to argue at the same time that is impossibe to see an organisation. Even with the most common theoretica notions such as hierarchy, processes, structures or vaue chain you sti cannot see anything. The activities of peope or the products they make in organisations (aso often uncear think about poicy, service or heath-care for instance) are ony partiay visibe. So, what does one see when ooking at reaity in organisations? Organisations are (deiberatey) made by peope. They are constructs or artefacts created with one or more specific purposes in mind. Therefore, one coud say: together peope decide to create a specia kind of reaity caed organisations. Yet, what do peope do when they create this organisation? These are intriguing and fascinating questions to which there are many different appropriate answers. For instance, one can consider the organisation as a purey mechanistic construction which, for exampe, produces cars, ight bubs or diapers. Conversey, someone ese may ook at the processes of man-machine interaction, inguistic processes creating action or the coection of forms of cooperation and how they take pace. And yet a the peope invoved may be ooking at one and thesamesituationatthesametimeandinthesameorganisation!wearetouching here on a scientific debate caed the nature of reaity or reaism. Two fundamenta positions can be observed in this debate. Metaphysica reaism considers reaity to exist independenty of what peope think, whie epistemoogica reaism considers reaity accessibe to researchers through the frames of reference they appy to a specific situation. 4 How one can ook at organisations is a vast fied of study in itsef. Perspectives range from mechanica constructs to oosey couped systems, from micro-communities to menta prisons or from systems of cooperation to deiberate entities enabing the deveopment of competencies eading to individua sef-actuaisation. It shoud be cear that this book wi not address these different perspectives. It is simpy based on the assumption that organisations are a reaity.

23 1.3 Probematising 5 Box 1.1: Looking at Reaity? 5 The word of direct perceptions consists of bits and pieces, scraps and raves, the ow rusting of the centra heating, a disgusting taste in my mouth, the pain in my hip, the red coour of my typewriter, the tapping of typing, the pear-grey gow of the sky, my gasses resting on my nose, rain dripping down through the ceiing in the other room, birds in the sky, the sound of tyres of cars outside on the street, the tites in my booksheves, this and that, now and then, a puzzement of perceptions. Taken from: The Fourth Dimension, R. Rudy (1991) Question: Are you abe to define the position this author is taking in the reaity debate? Organisations are the object of study for peope such as management scientists, organisationa socioogists, inguists and communication scientists. A these peope ook at and observe different aspects, issues, phenomena, parts and functions of an organisation. Moreover, they can a prove that they can see the aspect they are studying. Perhaps that is why organisations are such an intriguing object of study. Nevertheess, over the past 100 years and more, many books (one can easiy say compete ibraries) have been written about what organisations are supposed and not supposed to be. The fact remains that we ive in a society dominated by organisations a society where the fabric is constructed on the basis of organisations. Everything we do, buy, use, touch, make, se, buy, utiize, throw away, burn, recyce or demoish is directy connected to the phenomenon of (an) organisation. Whether this is good or bad is not an issue here. 6 This pubication departs from the (possiby simpistic) fact that organisations do exist that they are omnipresent in our contemporary society and, therefore, specific issues can become the object of a research. For us research starts by defining a probem even if this probem might not be what the research is a about in the end. 1.3 Probematising A probem or a situation that is aeged as being probematic in an organisation needs to be perceived first, before it actuay can be referred to as a probem. It is spotted as a probem (in a subjective way) if someone is bothered by something: a 5 Here you find another pedagogica feature of this book. We have added a bit more then fifty of these boxes with questions, exercises, short checkists and more, a intended to hep you put serious consideration into you own research design. 6 In the past decade a vivid organisationa and societa debate has (re)occurred on the subject of this neutra or instrumenta perspective. The debate can be traced under headings such as Corporate Socia Responsibiity (CSR) or Corporate Citizenship (CC). These debates question the roe, position and function of organisations in contemporary society. Whie management sciences address in genera the construction (design) and effective operation of an organisation, these debates raise the issues of the wider societa impact of organisations.

24 6 1 Looking at Research situation, a resut or specific behaviour. The person invoved wi say: I have a probem, or... things have not been running smoothy atey, or If it goes on ike this we wi ose market share and then we wi have a probem. If a manager then says he has an organisationa change probem, then he indicates, and at the same time frames, an issue 7 that apparenty needs to be soved. He (and maybe others invoved) interpret this issue as something that has to change in order for the probem to be soved. Discussing this issue as a change probem impies an interpretation of the nature of that probem and a possibe soution. If you have the probem you impicity have the soution! It is aways peope that have or create a probem. This suggests that a probem is aways created by peope through their interpretation of a reaity they are operating in. This phenomenon (how things appear to peope and how peope experience the word) is caed probematising. Probematising 8 is the process in which peope in an organisation interpret a situation in such a way that it can be referred to as a probem. It impies going beow the surface of what has been offered as the probem and trying to define what is reay the matter. In the process of probematising they can make use of facts, figures, concepts, paradigms, opinions, experiences, emotions and many, many other things. Probematising therefore is not soey a rationa process based on facts but a ivey mixture of what peope have in their minds and hearts and eads to a biased and fragmented interpretation of the word. A process that impies giving priority to one particuar probem above another; peope invoved have to make choices between more and ess important probems. The process of probematising resuts in assigning a recognisabe abe 9 thus creating the probem as defined by a person or a group of peope in the organisation. Probems are the product of peope and organisations (random probems out in the open do not exist). It is the peope in a particuar situation that wi ca a specific issue, situation or phenomenon probematic. Soaprobemisbydefinitionman-made. The resut of this often very impicit process wi be a probem indication or probem description. 10 Organisations are constanty confronted with a certain number of probems with different degrees of importance. Some wi simpy become obsoete over time, some wi disappear and some are seected for further inspection. But whatever is 7 Framing an issue impies by definition the use of theory of any kind; we cannot see reaity without bringing theory to it. A theory is a series of ogica and reated arguments specifying reationships among a chosen set of constructs or variabes based upon or eading to concepts regarding a specific issue or situation (adopted from: Doty and Gick, 1994). 8 The word probematising is not common in everyday anguage. Sti this process in which peope perceive, eaborate, interpret, frame and abe a situation in such a way that it is caed a probem is what probematising is a about. In brief, probematising is the process in which peope make a probem. 9 This is caed the process of reification: regarding things that are not rea as rea. 10 Given the probematic nature of probems it might be handy to structure them in (a) the initia probem, (b) underying probems and (c) fundamenta or hidden probems.

25 1.4 Probem Stakehoders 7 done to sove them, probems wi aways occur. Organisations and probems are ike cats and feas. Some probems are toerabe ( In our organisation the coffee has aways been awfu ), whie other probems are not and peope fee they shoud be soved. Therefore, having a probem is not ony determined by the concreteness or reaness of the situation ( This is serious ), but by the necessity to have it put on the organisation s agenda first. Probems, however specific and reaistic they are, determined within a framework of poitics and power. They are based on the subjective and subject-bound interpretation of a certain situation. The idea that it is a matter of one ceary defined probem that a peope invoved agree on is an iusion. It is a poor consoation to know that a peope invoved with the probem (incuding the researcher) subsequenty act on the basis of their own interpretation of the probem as they perceive and interpret it. What is indicated to be a probem in the organisation therefore depends on peope. By caing something a probem there is aso a suggestion that the probem once defined, remains the same. Yet, just by referring to a situation as a probem, thus pacing emphasis on a particuar situation or group of peope, may make the situation change. The mere act of seecting a situation as being probematic is an intervention. So, probems change during handing. This dynamism is a difficuty that shoud be taken into account when trying to study and sove them. Box 1.2: Who is Having a Probem? Stop reading for a moment and try to provide a brief answer to the foowing questions (which assume you are aready doing research): (a) What probem (probems) is your cient actuay confronted with? Make a short ist. (b) Which probems do you have at this moment (ooking at this research project)? Aso make a short ist. (c) Now make a brief comparison. Are you and your cient taking about the same probem? Are you certain of that? Did you check? 1.4 Probem Stakehoders Probems in organisations are aways connected to peope. Conceptuaising the different roes of these peope in reation to the probem resuts in the identification of the foowing stakehoders and their roes: probem creators, -sponsors, -owners, -sovers and -subjects. Probem creators are peope in the organisation who are abe (i.e. have the authority and power) to put the probem on the organisationa agenda. They focus attention on a probem and often attach a certain priority a certain weight to it. Once it is put on the agenda their task is basicay fufied and they need to pass it on to others.

26 8 1 Looking at Research Probem sponsors are generay peope without a direct probem, but who provide a certain service in putting and keeping the probem on the organisationa agenda. Without their support the probem might disappear. Sponsors back up the probem notion (on the basis of various motives which may be poitica, financia or emotiona), but in fact do not contribute to reaching a soution. Probem owners are peope who are assigned rights of ownership of a probem, vountariy or invountariy. An owner is appointed during the process of making the probem an item on the agenda. After the abeing has been estabished the probem can be passed on to the (functiona) manager who best fits the bi. ( I see we have a staffing probem or I think we can ceary see a ogistic probem here. ). A particuar phenomenon is worth noticing here. It can be reay appeaing to coect probems; they provide the coector with a ticket to budget, power and status and might even distract others from his individua shortcomings. Probem sovers are peope who dea specificay with the probem: they are responsibe for examining, advising and eventuay soving the probem. Probem sovers sometimes have the (dua) roe of probem owners, but most of the time other peope are appointed as (interna or externa) advisors, trainers or researchers. This cassification is not competey infaibe, of course, as examining a probem does not aways impy soving it. Finay, those invoved (or the probem subjects) or the probem originators are the ones the probem is about. They are the cause of the probem. Where does the probem come from, whom or what causes it? The probem might sometimes be individua (a manager who has put his hand in the ti), but most of the times it concerns a certain we-defined group of peope in the organisation (e.g. a particuar department, the saes force, back office peope, interna consutants) who are batting with the probem. Curiousy enough they are not aways invoved in the process of probematising. Those invoved in creating the probem have a tendency to overook the subjects; they tak about them but not with them. Who has what kind of probem and when? What does the probem actuay entai? Why is it considered to be a probem and why does it need to be soved? These are a questions that are generay difficut to answer at the start of research. They tend to be sippery thus difficut to grasp. Given the fact that the actors invoved wi interpret the probem in (fundamentay) different ways, it is not an easy task to get to grips with what is at stake for which stakehoder and what the nature of the probem as they perceive it. One thing is cear though: once the phase of probematising has been competed, the resut is a product that has a name and abe, and it becomes a transferabe phenomenon that can be shared by different groups of peope in the organisation. This definition takes pace by appying a recognisabe abe, which is most often taken from an estabished body of knowedge within the management sciences (e.g. ogistics, human resources, communication, etc.) and recognisabe for

27 1.5 Conducting Research 9 the organisation. A probem shoud therefore be defined as the interpretation of a (empiricay 11 ) abeed situation, condition, phenomenon or function of an organisation that is experienced as so probematic by those invoved (stakehoders) that it requires (some) research to reach a (possibe) soution. Maybe we coud say that probems that do not have a potentia soution are not probematised. Given the nature of the process of probematising it is important to put the term probem temporariy between brackets at the start of research. It is rarey cear what is going on exacty. Is it reay important to estabish, for exampe, who is invoved, what the probem s consequences are, the possibe effect or impact of a soution and so forth and how the discrepancy between the current status and desired status is interpreted. Last but not east, it is important to refect on the ambition of a probem. Do we tak about something that can be soved without much effect on the going concern, or is it something that is fundamenta to the its operation? When the actua research starts, the ony estabished fact is that there is something going on that has resuted in a (sti ongoing) probematising process and subsequent probem formuation. Yet, at some point, the peope invoved in the probem have decided that it needs to be deat with and that outsourcing, researching or contracting to others (e.g. consuting or training) is an obvious next step. Subsequenty, peope start making teephone cas, arranging appointments or sending e-mais. They move into action to hande the probem. It is then that the probem, as it is now defined, is discussed for the first time. We consider that the moment when the actua research starts. 1.5 Conducting Research Conducting research entais the deiberate and methodica search for (new) knowedge and insights in the form of answers to questions that have been formuated in advance. Conducting research is a specific form of goa-oriented acting. 12 It is common to divide research into scientific and appied research. Scientific research (or fundamenta research) invoves conducting research that contributes to genera knowedge, knowedge that is expressed in the form of statements, modes, concepts and (grand) theories. After defining the probem, the scientific researcher starts by determining which knowedge is present in a certain fied (e.g. in the form of aready avaiabe theory expressed in recognised 11 Pease observe that we have squeezed in the word empirica here. Empiricism refers to a ine of thinking where study of reaity...suggests that knowedge is gained through experience and the senses. (see Gossary). It assumes that there is an objective and a subjective reaity or one derived from theory and one from practice. 12 We wi ater devote an entire chapter to the reationships between organising, methodoogy and acting. The notion of acting is at east as od as Aristote. He states: the origin of action its efficient, not its fina cause is choice and that choice is desire and reasoning with a view to an end (Nicomachean Ethics, 1139a, 31 2).

28 10 1 Looking at Research pubications), estabishes certain shortcomings in the comparison between the question asked and the knowedge avaiabe, tries to eiminate these shortcomings by generating new knowedge and insights on the basis of research and finay adds the resuts of his efforts to the existing body of knowedge (e.g. in the form of an artice or report). The fundamenta endeavour in the generation of scientific knowedge is that it produces knowedge of a generay appicabe (generaisabe) form and that it is true (vaid, reiabe, etc.). Appied research (aso caed practica or management research) is research that engenders data, insights, methods, concepts and views often derived from the knowedge gathered during the course of fundamenta research which are appicabe for a specific organisationa or manageria probem. Appied research strives (a) to obtain knowedge about a particuar issue, etc. in the organisation and (b) to contribute to the improvement of that issue, etc. eading to probem soving. The roe of the researcher is to examine the probem as it occurs and formuate reevant (research) questions. Subsequenty, he wi search for various forms of support (in the form of theory, methodoogy and practica guidance), attempting to deveop answers by means of these resources. Finay, he wi then offer these soutions to stakehoders and possiby other reevant parties. However, this does not impy that the researcher who conducts appied research just messes around. Appying specific methodoogies derived from a more scientific background to practica situations is in itsef aso a part of science. That is caed the word of design (van Aken, 2004). Appied research uses the same methods as scientific research. This means that appied research has simiarities to fundamenta research in the sense that it is aways a matter of sound and justifiabe work. This pubication revoves around the design and impementation of correcty executed appied research. 13 Research, by definition, starts with a question regarding a probematic organisationa situation. Does this impy that once engaged in appied research one cannot switch to fundamenta research and vice-versa? Given the fact that both kinds of research are based on the same methodoogica body of knowedge using identica methods and techniques the answer is sti by definition no. However a series of appied research projects can turn into truy scientific research whie fundamenta research can deiver outcomes appicabe in various situations. It a depends on what the researcher has in mind at the start of his project, the scope, depth and theoretica eaboration of the researched phenomenon at hand. Whatever the case, any research project wi start with a question. It is the nature of this question that guides the research process. 13 It is common to make a distinction between fundamenta and appied research. Research can be considered fundamenta when caims about a particuar phenomenon are vaid and reiabe for a situations and/or cases. Whie making use of the same methodoogies, methods etc. appied research ony provides insight to a particuar phenomenon in a specific case. In itsef this insight can be vaid and reiabe but can t be used to predict how the same phenomenon might occur in other situations.

29 1.6 The Nature of a Research Question The Nature of a Research Question The previous section has possiby created the impression that the manager (or others invoved), who detected the probem, has (or have) a we-defined and cear-cut storyboard for the researcher to work on. In most cases, this is an iusion. Athough the process of probematising may have engendered a probem, the probem wi probaby not have a cear form. The organisation presents a probematic situation that can be approached from different anges. Whose probem is it? Why has it occurred at this particuar moment? How can you study the probem? Which theoretica eements are distinguishabe in the probem? Is it actuay cear what the probem is? And to whom is it cear? These are the kind of questions that a researcher needs to ask when he accepts a research assignment. 14 Pease remember: at first sight the probem does not need to consist of a wedefined question that is researchabe. It a depends on the nature of the question. We find it hepfu to divide between open and cosed questions Open and Cosed Questions An open question takes a broad ook at a probem, thus eaving ampe space for various definitions. In the case of an open question, it is often uncear in advance what actuay needs to be examined. The researcher s basic attitude (see Chapter 2) in deaing with this kind of question is dominated by theory deveopment and searching for a grounded theory. Moreover, the initia question probaby might and wi change in the course of research if not straight away from the start. In designing and carrying out the research, the researcher wi strive to obtain a baanced understanding of the organisationa reaity to ensure that those invoved with the probem in the organisation (the actors in the fied) are assessed correcty. The theory that has been sought and found aso needs to be understood by the peope invoved and be usefu to them. It is essentia to reaise when confronted with an open question that the course of research cannot be stricty determined in advance. An essentia part of conducting research based on an open question is mainy the actua carification, but it is aso about exporing which does not aways ead to carification of the question. It is ony after a certain time that it becomes cear what the meaning of the initiay formuated open question is and if and how it subsequenty needs to be answered. So, the resut of a research project based on an open question might resut in a cear and we-defined question eading to the subsequent research. 14 Impicity we make a distinction here about someone enroed in a reguar programme doing research and a (business) consutant. Researchers just starting with research are not considered to be consutants. In the course of the project they might begin to act as a consutant, but that is a in the process of earning. Consutants are hired to sove a probem.

30 12 1 Looking at Research Box 1.3: Exampe of an Open Question What kind of menta images do change managers use? How do they use these images? A cosed question on the other hand, contains a cear outine which needs to be understood and is therefore suitabe for further deineation, for exampe, in the form of operationaising and testing hypotheses. On the basis of a cosed probem the researcher wi formuate one or more suitabe research questions. It is these research questions that wi be answered by conducting the actua research. They wi consist of severa concusions that wi be used to draw up recommendations and that may contribute to the soution of the perceived probem. Box 1.4: Exampe of a Cosed Question To what degree are peope in the organisation stimuated by various incentives for motivation? The researcher who conducts research by means of a cosed question (generay) operates according to a cear action pan in which the most important research activities are estabished in advance. You can think of the position and use of theory, the deveopment of conceptua modes, the operationaising of variabes, formuating hypothesis, means of anaysing data and so forth. The greater the emphasis given to testing hypotheses, the more infuence the action pan wi have on the actua course of the research process. Using an open or cosed question is neither right nor wrong. A question being open or cosed depends on the nature of the issue being studied, it depends on the interpretation by the researcher and a variety of other factors. Yet, the nature of the question that the researcher poses (or is given) at the beginning wi be essentia for determining the subsequent way of working. An open question cannot be tested; it provides a generic direction. A cosed question compicates (or even prevents) the invovement of the empoyees in the research. In the case of an open question the researcher wi make a sincere attempt to reay come to understand what is going on from the perspective of those invoved. With a cosed question the researcher wi make an attempt to estabish to what degree there ony appears to be a probem (eading to counting facts resuting for exampe in percentages). No matter what the nature of the question is, this triggers the methodoogica approach to the research. Working with an open or cosed question demands a different basic attitude on the part of the researcher an attitude that requires its own methodoogy.

31 1.7 Linking the Research Question, Probem and Goa Linking the Research Question, Probem and Goa So far, the consideration of the issue raised by the organisation (and the researcher invoved) is seen to resut in many extra questions and a fundamenta distinction between open and cosed questions. If the researcher wants to progress, he shoud use this information as the starting point of the probem-formuating process. This process wi resut in a definition of the research probem, the research objective, the research question and the identification of possibe pre-conditions. There are innumerabe artices and books that examine the roe, pace and meaning of probem- and goa definitions as we as what a decent research question shoud comprise. Therefore, severa (abeit imited) references have been incuded in the references that are encosed with this chapter. The checkist beow emerges sooner or ater for amost every type of research and is often foowed by an in-depth anaysis resuting in more detaied questions. Here we wi ony focus on the issue of defining the probem at the start of a research project. Box 1.5: Brief Checkist at the Start of a Research Give a short description of: 1. The situation in which the probem occurs (context) 2. Your probem definition (at present) 3. The research question and which eements of the probem you are going to examine 4. Your research objective and what you are aiming for with your research 5. Any important pre-conditions that need to be met (such as e.g. time, money, and access) Probem Definition The probem definition is the resut of a reasoning process conducted by the researcher in order to transate the phenomena to be examined into a (scientific) researchabe (and reevant) research probem. Therefore, a probem definition is the researcher s product, as he creates a certain formuation in order to define the probem from his perspective (based on his present knowedge and experience). It is important not to forget that a probem definition often contains quite some symboism 15 and tends to be rather abstract. A probem definition consists of both a research objective and a ogicay derived research question; these precisey estabish what needs to be examined and why and under which (pre) conditions it shoud take pace. This question is often based on compex reasoning about phenomena in the organisation guided by theoretica notions. These derive content and create meaning given its reevant context. 15 Symboism here refers to the fact that the probem stands for something in the organisation. It is a framed and abeed phenomenon referring to e.g. bad management or to much bureaucracy or incompetent peope.

32 14 1 Looking at Research Box 1.6: Presenting Your Research Prepare a short presentation of your research so far (maximum: 5 min). In this presentation you shoud address: (a) What the research is about (perhaps you can te us something about the occasion and the context?) (b) Which question(s) you aim to answer by doing this research? (c) Why is this of importance? (d) What kind of research you want to conduct to answer that question? (e) If there are any important conditions you have to take care of A probem definition has a dua function. On the one hand, it is an important way to achieve synchronisation between the cient, the university (tutor or supervisor of the research project) and the researcher (student). A probem definition is aso a vehice creating a possibiity to communicate about what is perceived as the probem. It heps to shape and focus the research. The research objective states what is to be accompished by the research and for whom (or with whom), as we as what the probabe resut wi be (knowedge, a mode, suggestions for improvement, a change) and why this is reevant (for those invoved). The research question estabishes the main question, outining the research objective in a comprehensibe way. This means, for instance, that the research questions need to reate to an existing theoretica body of knowedge or an estabished conceptua mode. The research question is an important starting point for deriving (ogica) subquestions. Sub-questions provide the specification of the centra research question in the sense that they need to be answered in order to provide the answer to the main research question. Formuating just the necessary number of sub-questions is a difficut task. As a rue of the thumb, stick to a maximum of three; in genera more questions can t be answered. Possibe methods and techniques (see aso Chapter 2) aso have a dua function. On the one hand, they are used for coecting and anaysing various data deemed necessary to answer the research question. Simutaneousy they shoud adhere to any preconditions stipuated in the research, such as the expicit conditions the cient demands regarding the design and performance of the research and the use of the resuts. It often takes the researcher quite a ong time to produce a crysta-cear probem definition (and a ogicay derived research question and -objective) at the start of the research. Pre-conditions are reguary overooked at this stage. In order to test whether a probem definition is a good one, it can be assessed according to the foowing three criteria: (a) reevance, (b) effectiveness and (c) researchabiity. It is wise to examine the tentativey deveoped probem definition more then once against these criteria. They can be eaborated with the hep of the foowing checkist:

33 1.8 The Position and Roe of the Researcher 15 Box 1.7: Checkist Probem Definition Pease consider each of the questions beow before moving ahead with your research. 1. Does the probem definition provide a reiabe argument for the research goa? 2. Is the probem definition ceary reated to the probems of the cient (and) (or) the organisation (and) (or) the context? 3. What sort of reationship is there between the peope invoved with the probem (creators, sponsors, sovers and those who are concerned with the probem)? 4. What does the answer to the (research) question yied for the organisation concerned? 5. Are the (first) ideas about the design, structure and reaisation of the research such that they actuay contribute to answering the question? 6. Is the research feasibe given the environment in which it needs to be reaised; are required sources accessibe? 7. Is it we-founded research, that is to say, is ceary, competey and precisey indicating what is being questioned and where, and is it mutuay consistent? Adopted from De Leeuw (1996) 1.8 The Position and Roe of the Researcher A ogica and inevitabe aspect of the requirements that are appicabe when doing appied research is that the resuts need to fufi the demands of the word of science on the one hand, and the more pragmatic demands of the organisation, on the other. Both want to be abe to do something with the findings yet what they want to do can be quite different. The requirements are certainy not unique and the researcher wi need to justify his approach taking these two different fieds of interest into account in his approach to the research. In order to ive up to these demands the research wi need to be designed propery, which means it needs to adhere to a systematic and controabe structure. At the same time, the resuts of the research wi need to be such that the knowedge can be understood and impemented in the organisation that provided the assignment. We do not deny that under certain circumstances iving up to two expectations can ead to a diemma for the researcher.

34 16 1 Looking at Research Box 1.8: Discussing what Constitutes Good Research Discuss the foowing questions: (a) Who decides in your case what is good research? (b) How can the knowedge that the research produces be used and by whom? (c) Who is the owner of that knowedge? (d) Who can and may use that knowedge as we (and under which conditions)? (e) What are (and what can be) the (other) functions of the research? Naturay, the researcher has his own ideas and opinions about the research, the assignment, the organisation and... himsef. He cannot be considered a sort of machine without any opinions or standards, or a person who conducts research without any interpretations, emotions, insecurities and preferences. Whatever these opinions may be, it is vauabe when they are incuded in the preparation, reaisation and assessment of the research. 16 In the end, after a it is the researcher who is personay confronted with the demands of the company and the (academic) institute. This requires integrity, in order to be abe to dea objectivey and coherenty with his and other peope s points of views, opinions and insights. The tension area arising owing to the various demands paced on the researcher during his work is visuaised in Fig. 1.1 business word research Fig. 1.1 The fied of research researcher s interpretation scientific word 16 Navigating between these different demands from various stakehoders might easiy ead to tricky diemmas for the researcher; we have noticed that. The fundamenta issue addressed here are the ethics of correct or good research. Principes invoved are e.g. respect for persons, informed consent, beneficence, anonymity and confidentiaity. See: Beach, D. (1996). The responsibe conduct of research, New York: VCH or Kimme, A. J. (1988). Ethics and vaues in appied socia research, Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Pubications.

35 1.9 What is Methodoogy? What is Methodoogy? In a book that deas with methodoogy, you may fee that surprisingy itte has been said about the subject up to now. The previous section described the course the researcher foows when starting a research project a course that has produced more questions than answers so far you must have noticed. What has been brought to ight is that research starts with an open or cosed question. This initia question forms the basis from which to eaborate a probem definition and to decide on the research goa and question. How you can turn that theoretica probem definition into a practica form of research and put together a research design has not been discussed yet. This is what the rest of this book is about. A we woud ike to bring to the fore in this ast paragraph are some genera remarks regarding methodoogy. Methodoogy 17 is, broady speaking, the way in which a researcher conducts research. It is the way in which he chooses to dea with a particuar question (which may consequenty resut in a probem definition). He aso has to consider the way in which he is going to dea with the (peope of the) organisation and estabish his overa approach, by choosing how he wishes to conduct the research. The researcher may decide to create a questionnaire and send it to peope in the organisation. He can aso opt to work in the organisation (iteray) in order to be abe to observe the organisation as he coects data. Which method he seects depends both on the nature of the question, and on the view of what he considers (impicity or expicity) to be good research. This amagam of (scientific) considerations and contextua conditions are shaped by persona preferences, previousy referred to as the researcher s basic approach. There are two cear categories: The first researcher conducts research in the organisation by means of a wedefined research question. This question often appears to have a cosed character. This form of research is characterised by research activities that are accompished in a definite order of rank. The second researcher conducts research with the organisation, often based on an open question. What needs to be examined exacty, et aone how it shoud be done, is not determined in advance. The most important eement of research based on an open question is the search behaviour of the researcher. Research questions are used as road signs eading from one pace to the next. 17 With a due respect to many others before and after him we think the one and ony Godfather of methodoogy was René Descartes ( ). In 1637 he wrote a sim manuscript caed Discourse on Methods. In this andmark book (pubished in Latin in Hoand give the imited freedom of expression he had in his own country at that time) he proposed a four-step method. These steps are based on intuition, deduction, enumeration and reporting. It takes itte effort to recognise much of our contemporary approach to research in this method. By the way, the book is sti avaiabe in any good book shop. Quite remarkabe: a 400 year od bestseer. For more information pease visit:

36 18 1 Looking at Research Naturay, it is possibe to pursue an approach that combines eements from both of these perspectives. We wi eaborate this during the second Interude hafway through this book. It may aso be the case that in the course of research the nature of the question changes, so that a competey different basic approach is demanded of the researcher. Deaing with this situation in a cear, transparent and justifiabe way requires a cear methodoogy; it requires a starting point, direction, specific action pan (methods) and an appropriate technique for coecting and anaysing the data. What makes it possibe to dea with a these aspects is discussed in detai over the next chapters Chapter Summary 18 This chapter introduced the main topics of this book. Conducting research entais ooking at reaity. This ooking at is a probematic task; there are just as many interpretations of reaity as there are peope (or so it seems sometimes). Conducting research within the framework of this pubication puts an emphasis on appied research; it is research asked for by a company or organisation. The researcher who conducts appied research uses the rues of the game and toos of scientific research. When a question has been raised, it has to be estabished where a probem exists in the organisation and who the stakehoders of the probem are. Researchers transate probems into research questions; the distinction between open and cosed questions was, therefore, introduced. In ine with the nature of the question, the issues of probem definition, research question and research objective were briefy outined. Attention was aso paid to the roe of the researcher in the research and, in particuar, to his basic attitude when conducting research and the diemmas that might arise. At the end of the chapter, a provisiona description of the term methodoogy was introduced and two basic approaches were described, entaiing conducting research either at or with an organisation. These topics wi be covered in more detai in the foowing chapters of this book. In the next chapter we wi focus on the notion of methodoogy. 18 At the end of each chapter (except the ast one) you wi find a summary of the saient points. If you ack time or just need to refresh your memory you can start by reading a these summaries one after the other; it wi give you a pretty good impression of what it entais to design an appropriate methodoogy.

37 References 19 References As you wi notice throughout the book we have incuded some Dutch references. For us these references represent corner stones of our body of knowedge. For the sake of readabiity we have decided not to quote abundant sources. In the foowing ist a imited number of references are provided for the topics covered in this chapter. We do not pretend that this ist is compete. For each of the foowing chapters there wi be a simiar overview. However, at the end of the book, after the Gossary a more comprehensive ist of iterature is provided. Cois, J. & Hussey, R. (2009). Business Research: a practica guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students (3rd ed.). New York: Pagrave McMian. Cooper, D. R. & Schinder, P. S. (2008). Business research methods. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hi. De Leeuw, A. C. J. (1990 & 1996). Bedrijfskundige Methodoogie: Management van Onderzoek. Assen: Koninkijke van Gorcum and Company Doty, D. H. & Gick, W. H. (1994). Typoogies as a unique form of theory buiding: towards improved understanding of modeing. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), Gi, J. & Johnson, Ph. (2002). Research methods for managers. London: Sage. Gronhaug, K. & Ghauri, P. (2005). Research methods in business studies. London: Pearson. Gustavsson, B. (2007). The principes of knowedge creation: research methods in the socia sciences. Chetenham: Edward Egar. Haebone, E. & Priest, J. (2009). Business and management research: paradigms and practices. New York: Pagrave McMian. Mayor, H. & Backmon, K. (2005). Researching business and management. Basingstoke: Pagrave Macmian. Pennink, B. J. W. (2003). Judging management research. Ruane, J. M. (2005). Essentias of research methods: a guide to socia science research. Maden, MA: Backwe. Scott, M. (2007). Deveopmenta research methods. London: Sage. Thomas, A. B. (2004). Research skis for management studies. London: Routedge. Van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for fied-tested and grounded technoogica rues. Journa of Management Studies, 41(2),

38 Chapter 2 The Essence of Methodoogy Abstract This chapter expores the notion of research methodoogy. The essence of methodoogy is structuring one s actions according to the nature of the question at hand and the desired answer one wishes to generate. Exporation is iustrated by means of a Box of Bricks eaborated for cosed and open questions. This exporation is structured with the hep of the Research Pyramid which consists of four eves: research paradigms, research methodoogy, research method(s) and research techniques. This Pyramid provides the structure for a concise introduction to quantitative and quaitative research. The chapter concudes with some remarks on research design. Like the introduction, this chapter shoud be regarded as a mandatory chapter for anyone engaged in setting up a research project. 2.1 Introduction Amost every student associates methodoogy with drawing up a research pan. In educationa practice, this is often imited to writing a questionnaire, coecting a imited set of data and, then, earning to appy some rudimentary statistics. This idea is obviousy naïve and incorrect. However, it may possiby be a correct expression of the (impicit) perspective of what research is for the average group of students. This perspective is further strengthened by the terminoogica confusion about the word methodoogy and its underying connotations. Terms such as methodoogy and method are often used arbitrariy. This can ead to a sort of methodoogica potpourri. Subsequenty, one sedom hears questions asking, for instance, what a certain methodoogy has to do with a certain type of research, what the nature of the question is and what (core) theoretica perspectives are used to expore and conceptuaise the issue at hand. As a resut, the importance of defining the nature and possibe contribution of a specific kind of research is often ignored. It is not surprising that in many studies directed either at reguar students, teachers or doctora students methodoogy forms a difficut, and preferaby avoided, subject of conversation. That is a pity, to say the east. In academic ife in genera J. Jonker and B. Pennink, The Essence of Research Methodoogy, DOI / _2, # Springer-Verag Berin Heideberg

39 22 2 The Essence of Methodoogy or at east in carrying out a decent piece of research, proper and transparent choices are the key to success. In this book, methodoogy is regarded as a kind of action reading or more precisey as, an action repertoire. 1 Action reading means: preparing a type of repertoire, based on a set of premises, (theoretica) considerations and practica conditions, according to which the researcher structures the ogic of his research given the question he wants to answer. An impicit yet important assumption here is that the researcher shoud be abe to justify the reasons for this choice of a specific (research) approach and make sensibe choices based on the different requirements of a particuar question. There are methodoogies that steer action for a kinds of activities (both mentay and iteray) inside as we as outside organisations (see aso Chap. 6); so a methodoogy is not ony about doing research, it is about acting. Action reading that centres on doing research heps the researcher to systematicay eaborate his approach using an open or cosed question (see Chap. 1). This (re)search behaviour is guided by sef-evident facts, notions, beiefs and premises the researcher (impicity and expicity) uses to frame how he can come to know the word. Simutaneousy, a connection needs to be made to the specific word or context in which the probem or question occurs. Obviousy, the centra question is how the researcher wi shape that behaviour. What choices does he have? In which way do these choices pay a roe in his search behaviour? Where and when are his choices expressed? To make this connection and provide guidance we deveoped the Box of Bricks of Research which is introduced beow (see Fig. 2.1). probem owners (managers) probem soution Observed reaity Empirica reaity Steps in the research research question research answer Fig. 2.1 The box of bricks of research 1 We have chosen the words action reading and -repertoire given the fact that the Engish anguage does not have an equivaent for the Dutch (or reated German) handeingseer which, iteray transated, means doctrine for acting.

40 2.2 Search Behaviour: From Probem to Answer 23 Research paradigm Research methodoogy Research methods Research techniques Fig. 2.2 The research pyramid Direction on how to define appropriate (re-)search behaviour is furthermore supported by means of the Research Pyramid (see Fig. 2.2). This pyramid is composed of four action eves: paradigms, methodoogy, methods and techniques. On each of these four eves choices need to be made. One can consider this pyramid as a (ogica) chain of interconnected events ranging from rather abstract (on the paradigm eve) to very concrete (on the technique eve). Moving from top to bottom through this pyramid eads to an eaboration of the research question based on cear-cut arguments eading to specific choices. Making choices on these four eves is steered by both the nature of the question and the researcher s basic approach. This basic approach can be typified by the distinction between knowing through the researcher s eyes or knowing through somebody ese s eyes. The resut when done we is a dedicated customised methodoogy for the research project. A fundamenta premise here is that the researcher is in a position to manage his research process and can be hed responsibe for the choices made. 2 Given the fact that there is an infinite range of possibe choices, it is in the end the researcher s method or reasoning that eads to a transparent and justifiabe research design and the subsequent action. 2.2 Search Behaviour: From Probem to Answer When the researcher starts his research his starting point can be described using the Box of Bricks. There is a probem (think back to a the previous remarks on the nature of the probem and the process of probematising in Chap. 1). That probem 2 For us methodoogy remains an exciting kind of Aice in Wonderand experience. The sheer act of considering and making choices, understanding the underying structure of the reasoning process: that is maybe what pure methodoogy is a about. One rather important condition in a of this is that there is room to make these choices. Otherwise you can t be hed responsibe for the resut. We wi touch upon this issue again in Chap. 6.

41 24 2 The Essence of Methodoogy Probem description by probem owners Those who are invoved in the research Probem soution question answer Researcher s integrity and insights Scientific word Fig. 2.3 From probem to answer resuts in a (research) question demanding an answer. The answer is generated on the basis of research; on the basis of the researcher s deiberate search behaviour. This answer in turn creates the basis for the soution to a probem, athough this wi not aways be the case. One might very we see this as a four-part probemquestion-answer-soution puzze. 3 The ine of reasoning is visuaised in the Fig This four-part probem-question-answer-soution puzze is compicated by its doube context. 4 Firsty, there are the probem owners who have certain ideas about the probem (see Chap. 1). Secondy, there are other parties (inside and outside the organisation) who are connected to the probem in various ways and have their own opinions (do not forget: make a stakehoder anaysis if necessary and estabish how important they are in terms of infuence!). Finay, there is the researcher with his persona interpretation of the probem; an interpretation that changes over time. Yet in the end, it is the researcher who needs to provide a soid answer which meets both the demands of the research word, and is aso reevant to the word in which the probem occurs. The difficuty here is that to the probem owners the possibe probem soution is not necessariy the answer to the question that is troubing the researcher. 5 Probem and question sometimes have their home in two different words, hence the doube 3 This diagram is our adopted version of what is generay known in the iterature as the empirica cyce. In Chaps 4 and 5 this cyce wi be used in an inductive and deductive manner. 4 This doube-context touches upon the probem of hermeneutics, the art, ski or theory of interpretation, of understanding the significance of human actions, utterances, products and institutions,... concerned with the theory and method of the interpretation of human action... from the perspective of the socia actor. 5 Fu-fronta we touch upon the manipuabiity of a probem. Probems can be used by peope in organisations to generate additiona means of exercising power soving them is about the ast thing they woud ike to do. Looking at this from a certain distance shows that probems have a kind of dimensions and are not necessariy aways perceived from the anaytica stance taken here. We cannot provide a soution to this phenomenon, but at east warn you about it.

42 2.3 The Research Pyramid 25 context. This doube context consists of perceived reaity (by the probem owners as we as by the researcher) and empirica reaity ; what the researcher sees during the research that he is conducting. The researcher needs to navigate between those two words, or contexts. This impies deicate navigating between different demands and criteria, which continuousy force him to make choices without knowing what the utimate consequences are and if these choices are, thus, appropriate. It forces him into constant refection on which steps to take in his research, steps that take into account how he ooks at these words, how he deas with intermediate findings, how he chooses soutions. Making these choices is what structures his research. It is certainy not an easy task! 2.3 The Research Pyramid It shoud be cear by now that once the researcher has identified the question at the start of a new project, he is confronted with a number of options he needs to choose from. If the choices are made propery, the research wi be sound. However, the probem here is that often a researcher is not reay aware of these choices, how they correspond and the fact that he needs to make many of these choices in advance in order to end up with a proper design. In order to hep structure this often-difficut decision-making process the Research Pyramid has been introduced here. The pyramid is composed of four eves. These are: The research paradigm: how the researcher views reaity. A paradigm is expressed in his basic approach The research methodoogies: a way to conduct the research that is taiored to the research paradigm The research methods: specific steps of action that need to be executed in a certain (stringent) order The research techniques: practica instruments or toos for generating, coecting and anaysing data The key function of the pyramid is to hep the researcher earn to consciousy structure his approach to the research. The research wi need to be designed in such a way that the researcher is abe to justify his research. The assumption here is that the researcher wi have to make his actions transparent. In order to be abe to do so the researcher needs to refect on his approach and pans, and try to find out what he fees to be good research. 6 Obviousy, the question is then whether his impicit perspective on doing good research actuay reates to the question he has to 6 The notion good refers to criteria that can be appied from the different words as introduced earier. What is considered to be good in the academic context is not necessariy so in the context of the organisation and vice versa. Naturay reference is made here to vaidity, reiabiity, accessibiity and so forth. See Chaps. 6 and 8 for further eaboration.

43 26 2 The Essence of Methodoogy research. So, a first and important step in setting up a research is to refect on one s basic research attitude and foow it up with corresponding (re)search behaviour. Once this is more or ess cear, it is important to compete preparation by making deiberate choices regarding the methodoogy, methods and foow-up techniques. It goes without saying that this is often a difficut process. In the remainder of this chapter deas in detai with the different choices offered by the Research Pyramid and its four eves. 2.4 Basic Attitude Matching Search Behaviour The (impicit) way a researcher approaches reaity and his research can be referred to as his basic approach. Premises and presuppositions regarding how reaity can be known characterise this basic attitude. This impies that reaity can be known in different ways, from different perspectives and with different purposes. 7 Usuay, a basic attitude is caed a paradigm. Gummesson (1999) describes it as:... the underpinning vaues and rues that govern the thinking and behaviour of researchers. Or it can be defined as:...a term, which is intended to emphasize the commonaity of perspective, which binds the work of a group of theorists together in such a way that they can be usefuy regarded as approaching socia theory within the bounds of the same probem (Burre and Morgan 1979, p. 23). Basicay, a paradigm can be seen as a coherent whoe of assumptions, premises and sef-evident facts as shared by a certain group of professionas (consutants, researchers, teachers, managers, etc.) with regard to a specific (a) domain of reaity, either (b) a certain object or subject of research, or (c) the way in which research can be conducted. As it is cear from this description, different kinds of paradigms can be discerned for different groups of peope either in academia or in organisations. Paradigms can, thus, be considered very usefu menta toos, frames of references that hep peope within a particuar group communicate and understand each other. In any domain peope pose paradigms in order to guide their acts and behaviour. Just think of nurses, doctors, accountants, consutants or yes, managers. Here a distinction wi be made between theoretica paradigms and methodoogica paradigms. A theoretica paradigm concerns the prevaiing thought(s) about a certain research subject or object. In this case, the term theory aready refers to certain existing insights and perceptions that consist of (vaidated) notions and terms and the way they are interconnected. A theory is an idea or set of ideas that is intended to expain something. It is based on evidence and carefu reasoning but it cannot be competey proved. Coins Cobuid (1987, p. 1515). Theory heps to observe and 7 The question about how we know what we know or what we assume to be knowedge is covered by epistemoogy.

44 2.4 Basic Attitude Matching Search Behaviour 27 interpret reaity and offers, whether justifiabe or not, frames of expanation (or an initia impetus) for phenomena in that reaity. Or in the words of Cooper and Schinder (2008), p. 51): A theory is...a set of systematicay integrated concepts, definitions, and propositions that are advanced to expain or predict phenomena (facts); the generaizations we make about variabes and the reationships among variabes. Research cannot be done without theory!. 8 Our interpretation of reaity and the phenomena under study aways appear because we bring a kind of theory to that (empirica) reaity. Any observed phenomenon is, thus, oaded theory. A methodoogica paradigm is specificay about research behaviour and can, therefore, provide indications about the way in which research shoud be conducted. A specific research methodoogy directs the behaviour of the researcher, but conversey the researcher may have a certain affinity with a specific form of research (no matter how unintentionay). Therefore, the (impicit or expicit) choice of a specific research paradigm is directed by the nature of the question respectivey the phenomena to be examined, their context and the affinity of the researcher. This affinity, which we ca basic attitude, is quite determining in setting up a research Basic Approach Anyone who examines a probem wi not start from scratch but with some kind of pattern, some assumptions and ideas in mind. The researcher wi make an attempt to isoate phenomena which need to be examined in reaity (e.g., I m conducting research on the vaue chain of this company. ), either using an existing theory or theoretica notions (cautious initiatives). In this way, he aims to obtain insight into the way the phenomenon is functioning or dis-functioning. Each researcher, therefore, has knowedge (no matter how impicity) about how reaity is to be perceived in advance. This coud be caed a-priori knowedge. What is more important is that this knowedge aso contains a number of criteria of what is good and what is not. These are not methodoogica criteria but theoretica criteria regarding the phenomenon under research. 9 Here the focus is on the researcher s opinions (often unintentiona) about the way the research shoud be conducted. These opinions are caed basic approach. We distinguish between approach A and B. 8 Just et this observation sink in for a moment. If reaity cannot be observed without theory then any act, any observation even any refection is drenched in theory; it cannot be made or pronounced without that theory. This is the utimate consequence of the doube hermeneutics we taked about earier. 9 So two sets of criteria are invoved here: (a) one regarding the way the phenomenon under review can be judged (a priori) on the basis of avaiabe (theoretica) knowedge and (b) criteria regarding the way the research shoud be approached given the research question.

45 28 2 The Essence of Methodoogy Knowing Through the Eyes of the Researcher The essence of basic approach A is that the researcher can create an image of the (empirica) reaity that needs to be examined in advance, behind his desk on the basis of existing knowedge, etc. Subsequenty, this image wi be given cear shape by means of a conceptua mode that structures the remaining research activities (see Chap. 3). The researcher expores or tests through his research the extent to which the ideas that he has created about reaity beforehand are correct; whether they are true or fase. A core aspect of this approach is that a specific phenomenon in reaity can be known a-priori on the basis of (aready avaiabe) knowedge. This body of knowedge can be found in e.g., pubications Knowing Through the Eyes of Someone Ese The essence of basic approach B is that the researcher knows that he needs certain (sometimes vague) theoretica notions about a specific reaity. Yet, it is the peope in the perceived reaity (the company) who hod the key to profound knowedge of that reaity. He must therefore try methodoogicay to observe reaity through the eyes of someone ese. The researcher is abe to discover that these two basic approaches ony methodoogicay typified here point to concepts (and paradigms) 11 used for defining how we know reaity. 12 In the context of this text it is how a researcher knows that he has discovered something about reaity by means of his research. It woud extend far beyond the scope and aim of this book to refect upon the actua debate in this fied of knowing and knowedge about reaity, athough interesting in itsef. Sti it woud not make much sense to even try giving a short outine of this fied here. The theory of knowedge is indisputaby mutifaceted. It suffices to provide a popuar cassification of the two centra notions behind these basic approaches. Here this is indicated by the denominators positivism and constructivism. 10 Just one itte remark here. Using materia from others is of course when you start thinking about it aso a way of observing or coming to understand the word through the eyes of someone ese. So the introduced distinction is ess sharp then it might appear at first sight. Yet, for the sake of carity we stick to these two basic attitudes. 11 Pease observe the confusing use of the notions of concept and paradigm here. Athough we wi eaborate on concepts in the next chapter it is worth spending some time considering how these two are reated. Do we first need a paradigm to construct a concept? Or can we construct a concept regardess of the (underying?) paradigm? 12 The issue raised here is caed ontoogy :...the theory of existence or...what reay exists, as opposed to that which appears to exist, but does not, or to that which can propery be said to exist but ony if conceived as some compex whose constituents are the things that reay exist (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 608). Ontoogy reates to...our assumptions of reaity such as whether it is externa or a construct of our minds (Jaspahara 2004, p. 93).

46 2.4 Basic Attitude Matching Search Behaviour 29 Box 2.1: Questioning the Basic Approach of the Researcher There are two basic approaches. Basic approach A: Knowing through the eyes of the researcher. This impies knowing based on individua experience and test resuts. Basic approach B: Knowing through the eyes of someone ese. This impies knowing by hypothesizing and discovering. Pease consider for a moment what your approach is and if this approach corresponds with the question you are addressing in your research. Pease consider for a moment what your attitude is and if this corresponds with the question you are addressing in your research Positivism The aim of appied research is to provide soutions to probems that occur in practice. Researchers focus on creating (re)designs and pans of action for these probems. Their approach is based on the beief that (scientific) action produces concepts that are usefu. Most researchers are taught to dea with these probems during their studies by foowing a three-step approach: diagnosis, design and change. Firsty, create a cear probem definition, then design a soution and, finay, impement it. This often resuts in the deveopment and impementation of a number of instruments and techniques: organisationa recipes that have to be mixed together carefuy if the desired effect is to be achieved. An important condition is that the peope who are invoved in the research act upon these toos themseves. The fact that in practice it often appears that this approach does not work (or just to a imited extent) is attributed to peope s resistance to change and the course aterations which take pace during the impementation of the desired changes. Yet, the researcher can caim his innocence, because he handed the project in a methodoogicay correct way. The researcher decides on the best form of research for a specific situation using his expertise. He bases soutions on facts that are obtained by means of research he justifies scientificay. It shoud be noticed that in many cases, books in the fied of business research which predominanty focus on methodoogy do not even consider impementation as part of the research. This description, which shoud be interpreted with a mid smirk, is generay caed positivism. We are convinced that vauabe research is conducted when the researcher aso takes into account the impementation of the research resuts Constructivism Appied research takes pace in the compex environment of an organisation. Peope, systems, processes, procedures, cuture, designs, attitudes, behaviour,

47 30 2 The Essence of Methodoogy rues, poitics; everything is going on and changes at the same time. Everything is true or at east vaid and resuts in a variety of probems. Whoever makes an attempt to examine an organisation, et aone tries to change it, wi find that each group of peope, each department or each ocation has its own characteristics, habits and rues. That is why each time we face a unique probem, one that is actuay ony understandabe and sovabe by refecting on knowedge and experience gathered during the course of the research inside the organisation. Empoyees who are invoved in research constanty have to reconstruct their own reaity and change it to adapt to the situation and to deveopments. There are no standard approaches, designs or concepts. At best, they can be of hep in deveoping a kind of guiding notion in order to frame a situation. Examining reaity from the outside hardy engenders any new insights into the actua state of affairs. True insight requires reaching an understanding of a situation, together with those invoved, in order to deveop theories regarding the meanings and probems that occur in that situation and in ine with that create soutions that are suitabe, understandabe and appicabe. The researcher s roe is to shape this process in such a way together with those invoved that the uniqueness of the situation is done justice. This invoves choosing methods that enabe peope to earn how to discover and change their own reaity. In the course of the process, the researcher deveops knowedge about the organisation, a earning process that is aso shared by the peope invoved. In this context, the notion of vaidity obtains a compete different meaning. This concept is aso known as constructivism. Both interpretations can be eaborated in a number of ways. What is important here, though, is that the methodoogy and theory about knowing are expicity inked. A connection created through the nature of the question, respectivey the probem being examined and the way in which the researcher approaches the probem. It is impossibe to deveop a specific form of research prudenty et aone a specific kind of methodoogy if any of the premises and assumptions regarding the phenomenon (subject or object) to be examined, are not taken into consideration. Choosing a specific methodoogy therefore is not something that takes pace randomy. But then, what is methodoogy? Box 2.2: Are you a Positivist or a Constructivist? Form pairs and interview each other briefy in order to find out how the other person views reaity: as a positivist or as a constructivist. Use open questions. Discuss the resuts of the interviews (preferaby in a group) so that you can produce a broad overview of characteristics that beong to these two scientific concepts.

48 2.5 Methodoogy: Not a Map, But a Domain 31 Box 2.3: Basic Approach to a Research Question Look at the research question beow and argue what your basic approach woud be. We woud ike to find out how the workoad is perceived in our hospita. Discuss the outcomes of your considerations with others in the group (if possibe) in order to get a cear understanding of the reation between the nature of the research question and your basic attitude as a researcher. 2.5 Methodoogy: Not a Map, But a Domain Methodoogy is first and foremost associated with conducting research. The etymoogica and traceabe meaning of methodoogy (deduced from Greek methodos = meta hodos) is the way aong which, in other words aimed at foowing a certain route. In this case methodoogy impies: the way (or route) the researcher wi need to take in order to achieve a certain resut (knowedge, insight, design, intervention, soution). However, athough a route (afterwards or on further consideration) can be estabished by means of an intentiona or unintentiona starting- and finishing point, it remains to be seen how the route is eaborated in-between. Anyone who wants to trave from Paris to Rome can choose to go on foot, by horse, by train, by pane or just take the car. What is more, the means of transport can be changed aong the way. Once on the road, unexpected deveopments (the train does not go any further) can make you change your origina pans and force you to think of an aternative to continue on your way. This fundamenta idea that there are many roads that ead to Rome indicates that there are choices within a specific methodoogy. Ideay, these choices shoud ead to a simiar resut in the end. Apart from the common use of methodoogy, the term comprises an additiona function for the researcher. Anyone who conducts good research may sooner or ater be expected to justify the reasons for choices being made to his supervisor, the cient, peope in an organisation, etc. Justification is ony possibe when you are aware of the choices that you have made and how you have reasoned those choices. You may need to justify these reasons to different stakehoders and expain why and on the basis of which criteria and considerations you have deat with certain matters. In other words, you wi need to be abe to make your actions transparent, thus, comprehensibe showing aternatives, providing arguments and demonstrating the reasons for what you have done. Methodoogy impies... a system of methods and principes for doing something (Coins Cobuid 1987). As such a methodoogy is empty 13 ; it provides a map, a starting and finishing point, but not the directions for the actua trip through a certain area. Doing something covers the methodoogy to trave, eat, pass an exam or create change. This indicates that methodoogy is something competey norma 13 This is a curious word here, empty. It means that athough the methodoogy provides cues for how to act, it does not give specific instructions for any specific situation.

49 32 2 The Essence of Methodoogy and convenient in a possibe situations. Deiberatey having a methodoogy for different situations, being aware of the construction of your own methodoogies and how you wi determine whether you have achieved your goa is, thus, very usefu. Methodoogy does not simpy mean conducting research, but in fact specifies way of acting in a particuar situation with a cear goa in mind. We have aready used the expression action reading for this process before. Athough it is very hepfu to know what methodoogy is a about, its daiy use is not the foca point of interest. This book concentrates on the use of methodoogy in conducting research. The basic objective is to show how to choose from different existing methodoogies depending on the particuar situation, probem or question. What is aso important is the way the researcher himsef deas or wants to dea with a particuar research question. How do you view the question? What do you think when you ook at it? Is it a question of gathering knowedge, of insight or of the way peope view each other in an organisation? And what woud you do about it? Ony examine and then eave? Or woud you provide recommendations for improvement as we? If so, what woud your proposa be? Woud you impement the proposa yoursef or woud you eave that to others? As a researcher you are supposed to dea with this question in such a way that you can expain how you have reached certain decisions. Box 2.4: Defining Methodoogy The word methodoogy is derived from the Greek meta hodos meaning the way aong which. In more everyday anguage it means... a system of methods and principes for doing something (Coins Cobuid 1987). A methodoogy assumes there is a ogica order the researcher needs to foow in order to achieve a certain predetermined resut (e.g., knowedge, insight, design, intervention, change). Defining and defending the ogic of this ogica order is what methodoogy is a about. Box 2.5: The Methodoogy Needed to Pan a Hoiday Imagine that you want to go on hoiday. You have a (imited) budget, but you want to stay away as ong as possibe. You aso want to see and experience a ot. You decide to go with a group of other peope. Briefy describe how you determine what you wi require to make this trip a success. Box 2.6: Transating Your Intuition into a Methodoogy You are visiting a company for the very first time. You instanty sense that there is a bad atmosphere. Now you need to transate your professiona intuition into facts. Describe briefy how you coud examine this situation. Pease eaborate different approaches. Use a imited number of adequate keywords in a ogica order to describe your approach. If possibe: give a short presentation in which you ogicay present your considerations and choices.

50 2.6 Methodoogy and Method Methodoogy and Method Based on the preceding arguments, methodoogy can be considered to be action reading, i.e., what has to be done given a certain attitude, context, and concept in order to achieve a specific goa or destination. A methodoogy indicates the main path to the destination, but without specifying the individua steps. Methodoogy thus heps make the main outine of the approach transparent to both yoursef and others (in academia and business). In this way, it functions as a compass, a beacon, a set of principes and goba instructions. However, this does not mean that methodoogy prescribes what you shoud do (or not) in a specific situation or a particuar moment in time. Such detais entai methods and techniques. How one wants to fi in the approach with detaied methods and techniques is based on additiona considerations, considerations which wi depend on your basic attitude, the question at hand and of course the overa methodoogica approach Methods Methods (aso often and rather confusingy caed methodoogies in many textbooks) indicate specific steps (or actions, phases, step-wise approaches, etc.) that shoud be taken in a certain eventuay stringent order during the research. It is obviousy impossibe to anayse data before it is avaiabe for exampe. Prior to the anaysis you wi need to consider the best way to coect the data. In this way, a method is adopted that can be compared to a raiway timetabe with arriva and departure times for a stations. Once the train has departed, it wi pass a the stations in a fixed order. However, whie it is unthinkabe that stations wi change paces, methodoogies for research are often not constructed quite as rigidy. However, the more concrete the methodoogy, the better the resut. However, the more open a question the more freedom the researcher has to create his methodoogy. Moreover, various aspects wi pay a roe depending on the situation (contextuay or organisationay). What access do you have to existing or new information, to data sources? Who owns this information? Are you aowed to tak to peope? Under which circumstances wi these conversations take pace? How about confidentiaity and anonymity? How much time do you have for this research? What are the (impicit or expicit) expectations of the resuts of this research? Who wi benefit from these outcomes and in what ways? It is these kinds of questions that wi occur before and during the research, which wi party provide direction to and shape the methodoogy you wi use. Therefore, when you have to give your reasoning for the chosen methodoogy and methods it wi appear that the context in which you conduct your research expicity infuences the fina research design. It aso becomes cear that the many issues at stake in your research (e.g., ethica, technica, contextua) can easiy ead

51 34 2 The Essence of Methodoogy to sometimes amost unsovabe diemmas. It is virtuay impossibe to sove these issues before the start of your research. Sti what you can do is treat them propery and in a transparent manner whie carrying out your project. Box 2.7: Distinguish Methodoogy from Methods You receive the assignment to investigate a hote s staff s eve of motivation. Consider, argue and describe briefy: (a) which methodoogy you wi choose given the situation at hand and (b) how you wi eaborate this choice into a specific method; which specific steps do you pan to take and in which order. Describe the resuts of this exercise briefy. Reconsider and criticise afterwards the ogic of your steps. 2.7 Techniques: Thinking and Acting Further eaboration of the methods within a specific methodoogy takes pace in choosing techniques, aso referred to as instruments or toos. It is a matter of technique when the researcher strives to achieve specific goas on the basis of experience, rationa consutation, scientific knowedge, cacuations and the ike. It invoves appying a systematic way of working that incudes estabished rues, reguations and procedures as a means to achieving the fina goa(s). 14 Techniques can be understood as concrete instructions for acting that have an expicit, compeing and prescribing character. Athough it seems possibe to ceary define techniques, it is ess easy to indicate what the term reay means. Technique roughy impies something ike abiity or experience, which is expressed in a specific form of acting instruction, but aso in the specific way a specific issue is considered. Taking a coser ook, it can be estabished that there wi aways be one form of technique avaiabe for something, no matter what you examine. In order to recognise the nature of specific techniques it is usefu to proceed by means of a cassification. First of a, a distinction can be made between action techniques and thinking techniques. Action techniques are techniques that concern the practica actions (or activities) of peope. This kind of technique we use throughout the day when making coffee, opening the door with a key or riding a bike. Acting techniques within the frame of doing research are, therefore, no more or ess then a specific category of technique. Thinking techniques are techniques that cassify thinking activities. Thinking techniques hep to propery structure thought as we as obtain insights into the way one coud think 14 It might be good to state ceary that the same goa or goas can be achieved via different means and routes. We touch here on the phiosophica debate regarding teeoogy, a notion derived from the Greek teos, end and ogos, discourse, the science or doctrine that attempts to expain the universe in terms of ends or fina causes. Some aso ca this in a different setting the issue of equifinaity: the fact that the same resut can be achieved through different means.

52 2.7 Techniques: Thinking and Acting 35 about a certain subject. 15 Thinking techniques are therefore more theoretica by nature; they are aso methodoogica in the sense they indicate a way aong which to think. Action techniques point to a certain goa in (organisationa) reaity that an individua wants to achieve by means of his actions. The preceding exampes are based on the conviction that the researcher has the abiity to deiberatey choose a certain (set of) technique(s). This woud impy that an intentiona choice is invoved. Intentiona means that a specific technique is chosen on purpose, with a cear-cut roe and function in mind, knowing what the function of that technique is. Precisey by choosing this technique the researcher expects to achieve the desired resut fast and efficienty. This impies that the researcher knows beforehand what a specific technique (or combinations of techniques) can and wi deiver when appied. Choosing a specific technique, therefore, is normativey steered. The user of the technique has formed an idea of the effect that the technique wi have if it is used. No matter how impicity (apparenty unintentionay) used, it is a question of the presumed reationship between a certain technique and the objective the researcher wants to achieve by using it. This inks techniques to specific goas. Given a certain situation or question there is a potentia suppy or domain from which a researcher can choose his techniques. Furthermore, he can use the same technique (if need be combined with others) at different moments during the research. Here we are faced again with the principe of equifinaity: simiar techniques can be used at different moments and in different situations, either as compementary or fixed techniques in the process. 16 Which choices wi be made at what moment depends on aspects such as the type of situation in which the researcher needs to operate (context), the course of deveopments in that situation (process) or the infuence respectivey the effect of certain (previous) actions by the researcher and/or others in that situation. The choice for a certain technique (or set of techniques) is guided by: (a) Norms and criteria (b) Persona preferences (c) The principe of equifinaity (d) Context (e) Interna and externa deveopments 15 In phiosophy this is known as the doube hermeneutics : one can think in a certain way and think about the thinking itsef. We have seen a simiar issue previousy when taking about the nature of knowedge and more in particuar the way we know what we know or when we try to determine what it is we know. Here the ontoogy issue gets minged with the hermeneutics. Pease check if this coud be the case in your work in progress. 16 We refrain here from eaborating what the possibe causaity is between choosing specific techniques and how this causaity might deveop whie appying them in carrying out the actua research process. Let s stick to the observation that using a specific technique in a specific situation aters by definition that situation, even if it is ony for a short moment in time. As such it is an intervention. When using a series of techniques either simutaneousy or subsequenty this interventiona side-effect wi be reinforced be it in a negative or positive sense.

53 36 2 The Essence of Methodoogy Given the imitess opportunity to appy simiar techniques at different times and with different purposes in mind the resut in (no matter what) practice is a contextuaised amagam of different techniques. Box 2.8: Understanding the Notion of Technique Verify the technique you use for the foowing situations: (a) ighting a match, (b) making coffee, (c) taking a right or eft turn whie driving the car and (d) interviewing a person. What can you say about the nature of these various techniques? Are they a the same? If yes: what do they have in common. If not: what makes them differ? By the way: in Chap. 7 you wi find much more on techniques. Box 2.9: Preparing a Tak You receive an assignment to provide a tak of 15 min about the roe of business aiances for entrepreneurs of sma and medium enterprises. Leave aside the content of your tak for now. Instead indicate: (a) the context of your tak, (b) possibe choices you have in preparing it and (c) norms and criteria you or your audience are using. Craft a itte design for your tak based on the outcomes of these considerations. Then sit back and ask yoursef: (d) how you coud have done this differenty and (e) if there are other deveopments that can affect your ecture and what you wi do if these deveopments occur. 2.8 Data Techniques Techniques for doing research indicate how the researcher can either think about his research or carry out specific actions in that research. To create a proper research design one needs to use both in an iterative way. Thinking about one s research has everything to do with paradigms and methodoogies that shoud be cear by now; they provide the means to structure the research thinking. Acting techniques are the researcher s toos. They shape and guide the way in which data 17 are generated, estabished, cassified and anaysed. Data invove a the information the researcher coects during his research. Techniques for coecting data are used within the framework of certain methods. This may regard data that is deiberatey generated (e.g., answer scores of a questionnaire) or data that aready existed (coecting a company s annua reports for the ast 3 years). Data can be cassified based on its nature. A distinction can be made between inguistic data (e.g., transcription of a conversation), numerica (in figures) data (e.g., a company s profit and oss 17 Data are considered to be raw information, usuay in the form of facts or statistics that you can anayse, or that you can use to do further cacuation (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 357). Or: facts (attitudes, behavior, motivations, etc.) coected from respondents or observations (mechanica or direct) pus pubished information (Cooper and Schinder 2008, p. 82).

54 2.8 Data Techniques 37 account) and visua data (e.g., drawings, pictures, photos, rich pictures, etc.). It is common for simiar techniques to be used athough different methods and methodoogies are being used (Rose 2001). We distinguish six types of data: Data type 1: existing numerica data Data type 2: newy generated numerica data Data type 3: existing inguistic data Data type 4: newy generated inguistic data Data type 5: existing visua data Data type 6: newy generated visua data Depending on the choices that have aready been made with regard to methodoogy and method the researcher can choose the technique that fits the nature of the data he wishes to obtain. In principe, four types of techniques can be distinguished: Techniques to generate data Techniques to register data Techniques to cassify data Techniques to anayse data An exampe using these techniques is provided beow. In a first step, the researcher chooses to make use of interviews, which is an action technique that resuts in newy generated inguistic data. He can then decide to anayse the data by means of turns based on sentences, which is a thinking technique aimed at cassifying and anaysing the information. After the anaysis of the first series of interviews it may be necessary to repeat the procedure again; the same action technique is used once more. Then, based on the outcomes of the first round of interviews the researcher can choose to conduct the second series of interviews using a more open approach. In this exampe the researcher has chosen to ask as few questions as possibe to enabe the respondents to interpret them as broady as possibe. The researcher appies a technique in a doube sense: aowing himsef to generate outcome he cannot foresee whie at the same time appying a technique which encourages the respondents to think. By choosing this technique the researcher shows that he does not want to steer the way the data is structured. In his preparation he has aso paid attention to the fact that the questions themseves are not directive. The way the researcher records interviews, for instance by means of a tape recorder, is a technique in order to coect data. Once recorded, choices have to be made regarding the way the data shoud be cassified and anaysed. The act of cassification can take pace on the based of a deiberatey chosen thinking technique such as sentences, words, actors, turns and others. Considerations for choosing a specific cassification technique is normay based on the assumption that the researcher wants to extract a certain meaning 18 out of the coected data. Finay, choices have to be made regarding the way data wi be 18 A definition of the meaning of meaning is the customary significance attached to the use of a word, phrase, or sentence, incuding both its itera sense and its emotive associations.

55 38 2 The Essence of Methodoogy anaysed that is, how the coected raw data wi be turned into a whoe that makes sense. Cassifying and anaysing data are, thus, both techniques that wi manipuate the origina data. It is the researcher who wi shape and guide this process of manipuation based on his theoretica notions, skis and assumptions regarding the outcomes he is ooking for. It is assumed that the researcher is abe to choose more or ess consciousy between a the possibe techniques he can use in his research (see Chaps. 4 and 5). In this choice, considerations about thinking and acting wi irreversiby pay a roe. The decision to choose a certain technique (or set of techniques) then needs to reate to the chosen method and methodoogy. It is cear though not obvious that the chosen techniques, methods and methodoogies are supposed to be consistent with the paradigmatic presumptions. Last but not east, a considerations, premises and choices need to pertain to the matter in question. What is more: the nature of the question shoud be the starting point. 2.9 The Distinction Between Quaitative and Quantitative Research A the previous considerations ead to yet another issue. In the corridors of many universities the distinction between open and cosed questions, between testing and discovering or between positivism and constructivism is briefy deat with as the common distinction between quantitative and quaitative research or, even quantitative versus quaitative research. Quantitative research is often regarded as being purey scientific, justifiabe, precise and based on facts often refected in exact figures. Conversey, quaitative research is often regarded as messing around, being vague, not scientific and not foowing a structured pan. Whoever conducts quantitative research adheres to tradition, works on distinct matters and produces reiabe figures. On the other hand, anyone who informs his tutor about his intention to conduct quaitative research is ikey to face criticism. In most cases, the researcher soves this diemma by presenting it as a case-study design (see aso Chaps. 3 and 5). Packaging it in this way is a generay accepted aternative in business studies and offers a soution to the possibe methodoogica diemmas that occur whie choosing between quaitative and quantitative research. However, some questions remain unanswered. Just to name a few. What is the essence of both forms of research? How can they be distinguished from each other? What determines the choice for either one of them or for an intermediate form? In the most extreme situation there is a tight reation between the different approaches A and B and the nature of the research question. Thus, research guided by an open question is guided by the attitude of knowing through the eyes of someone ese. And research guided by a cosed question is reated to the approach in which knowing is deveoped through the eyes of the researcher and is based on conceptuaising in advance eading hypothesis and testing. We think that this

56 2.10 Research Design 39 reation is not as absoute as stated here, but we wi use this rather traditiona distinction in order to aign with mainstream methodoogica iterature focusing on either a quantitative or quaitative research approach. This way, we can easiy show two extreme positions and their consequences when carrying out research. In Chaps. 4 and 5 these approaches wi be covered separatey. Given the unique character of many of the questions that occur in organisations, deiberatey choosing a specific research methodoogy or an intermediate form and eaborating it accentuates its importance Research Design In the previous sections a great number of basic principes, assumptions and premises have been introduced and briefy discussed. Together they offer the researcher an amost unimited number of combinations and thus choices, which may initiay seem daunting. Anyone who has started research recenty (or whoever finds himsef in the midde of it) wi often strugge to design his research propery. It is not easy at a to make the right choices at the proper moment without knowing what ies ahead. For us, a design describes a (fexibe) set of assumptions and considerations eading to specific contextuaised guideines that connect theoretica notion and eements to dedicated strategy of inquiry supported by methods and techniques for coecting empirica materia. Sti, the essence of sound research remains making cear choices that structure the research. This research behaviour is initiated by the (open or cosed) question within a certain context (the organisation and conditions it puts forward). On the one hand, this question resuts in the search for and eaboration of a suitabe theory or theoretica notions about the question, respectivey the probem that has been signaed. In Chap. 3 we wi hande this issue within the framework of constructing a conceptua mode. On the other hand, the question resuts in the search for and eaboration of a research methodoogy that fits that question and theory. The choices that the researcher makes are on the cutting edge of question, theory and methodoogy the design of research. Pease be aware of the fact that in many textbooks research design is restricted to the methodoogy part. This eads in genera to a design without taking into account the context, no eaboration on the nature of the research question and no connection with the chosen theory (see aso Chap. 3 in this respect). A sound design shoud ink these three! At the start of research there is no design, because there is not enough knowedge about the question and a suitabe theory has not yet been eaborated, et aone a deiberatey chosen and defined methodoogy. In the course of his research, the researcher often discovers how the three buiding bricks of the research design reate and connect to each other. However, this does not stop the researcher from deiberatey and consistenty searching for coherence whie conducting his research, subsequenty outining it and then providing it with a cear contour. Conducting research does not ony invove searching for theory in the form of

57 40 2 The Essence of Methodoogy Fig. 2.4 Research design reated to theory, methodoogy, question and context theory methodoogy Researchdesign context question pubications or coecting data by means of a chosen technique, such as an interview or a questionnaire. Conducting true research requires the researcher to be in continuous diaogue with himsef and others (cient, supervisor, respondents) in order to sowy and graduay estabish the coherence between these buiding bocks. Conducting research demands constant reasoning. It requires the temporary resuts of that reasoning to be expicit and we defined. If that has been accompished correcty, it wi mean the research is methodoogicay justifiabe. This is particuary true if the researcher is abe to keep reporting comprehensiby about the way he deas with the deveopment of insights or testing of theory on the subject of research in reation to the utiised theory about conducting research. Since many of the issues raised here are not at a cear in advance it demands from the researcher to keep a systematic track record of his research acts and of his deiberations in handing them. It might be that in the end this track record provides the most vauabe insights because it wi demonstrate transparenty how the researcher has handed the issue aong the way Fig Chapter Summary This chapter has provided an expanation of the term methodoogy. The essence of methodoogy is estabishing a path aong which research can be directed. The choice of a methodoogy is framed by the nature of the question and by paradigmatic considerations with regard to knowing. Two forms of knowing can be distinguished: knowing through the eyes of the researcher and knowing through the eyes of someone ese. This distinction is subsequenty eaborated in terms of positivism and constructivism. A methodoogy is ceary defined by means of certain (research) steps: the methods and techniques.

58 References 41 Further finaisation of the method occurs with the hep of techniques. Techniques concern the way in which data is generated, coected, cassified and anaysed. Choices with regard to methodoogy, method and technique can be denominated in terms of quaitative and quantitative research. Choices resut in a research design References Arbnor, I. & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodoogy for creating business knowedge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burre, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Socioogica paradigms and organisationa anaysis. Hants: Gower Pubishing. Cobuid, C. (1987). Engish anguage dictionary. London: Harper Coins. Cooper, D. R. & Schinder, P. S. (2008). Business research methods. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hi. Creswe, J. W. (2008). Research design, quaitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage. Gomm, R. (2004). Socia research methodoogy: a critica introduction. Basingstoke: Pagrave Macmian. Graziano, A. M. (2004). Research methods: a process of inquiry. Boston: Pearson. Gummesson, E. (1999). Quaitative methods in management research. London: Sage. Haebone, E. & Priest, J. (2009). Business and management research: paradigms and practices. New York: Pagrave McMian. Marsha, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing quaitative research. London: Sage. Nagy Hesse-Biber, S. & Leavy, P. (2006). Emergent methods in socia research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Quinton, S. & Smabone, T. (2006). Postgraduate research in business: a critica guide. London: Sage. Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing socia research. Thousands Oaks: Pine Forge. Robson, C. (2002). Rea word research. Oxford: Backwe. Rose, G. (2001). Visua methods. London: Sage. Seae, C. (2004). Socia research methods: a reader. London: Routedge. van Beugen, M. (1981). Sociae technoogie. Assen: Koninkijke van Gorcum and Company.

59 Chapter 3 Conceptua Modes Properties, Construction, Function(s) and Use Abstract This chapter examines the use of conceptua modes in appied research. First, some genera properties of these modes are outined against the background of various definitions. Any mode is based on theoretica assumptions so it becomes reevant to understand what theory is and the roe it pays in constructing a mode in your research design. Armed with these generic insights we then ook at the roe and functions of a conceptua mode in designing research as we as at how it can be used in the context of a cosed and open research question. In the fina paragraph suggestions are provided for the construction of a mode within the context of your own research. 3.1 Introduction We have been quite easy-going so far regarding the use of the word mode. The word is quite common in everyday anguage and in management-speak. There are modes for amost everything. We tak about business modes, management modes or specific categories such as quaity modes, stakehoder modes or modes for the vaue chain. Here we wi restrict ourseves mainy to the properties and functions of modes within the framework of research. In genera a conceptua 1 mode is nothing more than an abstraction of the way we choose to perceive a specific part, function, property or aspect of reaity. It is a representation of a system that is intentionay constructed to study some aspect of that system or the system as a whoe (adopted from Cooper and Schinder 2008, p. 52). We share the opinion with many others that our (coective and impicit) perception of organisations is to a arge extent shaped by precepts a genera rue intended to guide behaviour or thought of systems 1 It is time to say something about the word conceptua. It means: based on menta concepts. These concepts of the mind represent in a way paradigms and are, thus, fundamentay theoretica. The notion, furthermore, contains a reference to whoeness when you make a concept of something it impies it is a kind of encompassing or compete. J. Jonker and B. Pennink, The Essence of Research Methodoogy, DOI / _3, # Springer-Verag Berin Heideberg

60 44 3 Conceptua Modes theory. An organisation is, thus, understood to be a compex system. The word system means: an ordered entirety of eements. Systems tend to become compex when the eements interact in a variety of ways with each other as a resut of specific and dynamic reationships (adopted from: Rüegg-Stürm 2005, p. 7). For starters, these demarcations and definitions might be usefu in the context of research that is guided by an open or a cosed research question. Before eaborating the nature of conceptua modes in designing research it might be good to understand the characteristics of modes in genera and how they are reated to theory a bit more. 3.2 Defining a (Conceptua) Mode 2 We are a very much acquainted with modes, not ony in everyday ife but aso in the natura and socia sciences. Architects, consutants, designers, academics, managers and nurses a use various modes. Most modes serve to visuaise ideas, bring to the fore key properties of a phenomenon and hep to guide a specific pattern of actions or how things hod together in iustrating reationships. Basicay, in the famiy of so-caed scientific modes derived from a positivistic tradition hypothetica causa reationships are depicted, operationaised and then tested and verified. In the constructivist tradition modes are not depicted up front but are often the resut of a study. The mode then provides a oca theory with regard to how peope in a particuar situation perceive and make sense of a configuration of acts and interactions. This mode can then be put to the test. These modes carry out principay different functions. In order to eaborate on this we wi anayse the properties of modes hereby drawing an anaogy with maps Maps and Modes Cosey reated to modes are maps. Any map is based on signatures representing certain properties of the depicted terrain. These properties do not have anything physica to do with the terrain itsef, but are constructed, commony agreed symbos, signs and definitions. They serve to hep the user to reconstruct the terrain in his mind and are aimed at fufiing specific purposes. They hep him to find his way. To this end a number of properties of maps are important here: 1. A map never represents a reaity it is a reconstruction according to purpose and task. Symbos used in the map are deiberatey chosen and depend upon that purpose. 2 This paragraph is inspired by the work of Johannes Rüegg-Stürm of the University of St. Gaen (Switzerand) who wrote a sim yet highy inteigent work on the European Quaity Mode pubished in This work caed The New St. Gaen Management Mode provides a neat theoretica and practica eaboration of this particuar mode.

61 3.2 Defining a (Conceptua) Mode The pivota function is highighting certain things and eaving other things out in other words: a map is an abstract reduction of a compexity in a perceived reaity. 3. The usefuness of a map exists in what it omits. Since our word is infinitey compex, acting with a purpose in mind requires persistenty disregarding certain factors in order to reduce this compexity. 4. The core of a map is to decide once and not time and again what is, or is not, important in a given context given certain probems, criteria and requirements. 5. Every map deineates (impicity) the borders of perceived probems, thus, highighting what deserves attention and what ies outside the scope of that probem. 6. A kind of one map fits a does not exist. Maps are created or seected according to a goa and task to be accompished we naturay use different maps for different situations. 7. There are neither right nor wrong maps. Maps are more or ess appropriate and functiona according to a specific context and probem. One specific point needs to be emphasised here. Despite a these properties, maps sti do not te us what to do. They provide no recipe for action. Ony we, the users of the map, are capabe of deciding which course to foow, which route to take. A suitabe map can ony faciitate this decision process. We are a famiiar with what can go wrong in that respect Properties of Conceptua Modes It is evident that conceptua modes have much in common with maps. Yet, it is interesting to see what the specific properties of a conceptua mode are compared to a map? 1. They are verba or visua constructions heping to differentiate between what is important and what not. By definition modes are based on choice. 2. A mode offers a framework iustrating (ogica) causa reationships between factors that matter (at east in the eyes of its creator). They, thus, promote sense making or meaning in various situations. 3. Modes serve to direct focus, thus, faciitating (organisationa) communication which eads to speedier if not better understanding. 4. They create reaity in the sense of coective understanding. Since they are based on (a) anguage derived from theoretica notions they offer access to these notions. 5. As a sophisticated inguistic (and) (or) visua construction it strengthens an organisation s abiity to act coectivey once understood. We think modes are to be understood as contingent or contextuaised inventions iustrating a range of interreated properties and postuating specific (causa)

62 46 3 Conceptua Modes reationships considered to be important given a specific phenomenon or probem. Despite a these characteristics any mode can break down and fai to fufi its theoretica, methodoogica or empirica promises. Modes aso tend to have bind spots. They do what they shoud do but sti omit something important or even essentia. This may be because the researcher did not detect what shoud have been incuded or purposefuy excuded it due to a ack of professionaism. Modes can aso feign a fase reiabiity. Finay, they have a tendency to repace reaity the mode becomes an archetype of what is deemed desirabe and in which reaity has to fit. Given this criticism one coud say that modes are the fucrums of academic disposabes : they serve a certain purpose and shoud be thrown away afterwards. Whatever their properties, purposes or quaities, any mode is constructed with ideas in mind. Ideas either hed by the researcher (and the sources he uses) or by the organisationa actors invoved in constructing a mode. Ideas are derived from theory. 3.3 Theory and Conceptua Modes It thus becomes appropriate to define what constitutes theory. Key (1999) defines theory as: a systematic attempt to understand what is observabe in the word. It creates order and ogic from observabe facts that appear tumutuous and disconnected. A good theory woud: identify reevant variabes and the connections between them in a way that testabe hypotheses can be generated and empiricay estabished (Key 1999, p. 770, 317) or:... a statement of reations among concepts within a set of boundary assumptions and constraints (Bacharach 1989, p. 496). An important part of theory is the demonstration of reations between variabes within a conceptua framework. Pease observe the simiarity here between what defines a mode and a theory! A good theory in the socia sciences shoud meet the foowing criteria: it must be (a) fasifiabe, (b) ogicay coherent, (c) operationaisabe, (d) usefu and (e) possess sufficient expanatory power in terms of scope and comprehensiveness. Ideay, good theory shoud have both expanatory vaue as we as predictive vaue (Key 1999, p. 770, 317). It must aso be supported by a pausibe or ogica expanation to suggest how and why things happen (Labovitz and Hagedorn 1971, p. 925). A soid theory shoud aso incude the underying ogic and vaues that expain the observabe phenomenon. Conceptua modes are inescapaby based on theory or at east theoretica notions. Without this theoretica input, it is impossibe to make a focused construction of a specific reaity up front. Theory tes you where to ook, what to ook for and how to ook. It is simpy impossibe to observe any aspect of reaity, any phenomenon or probem without having a kind of theory in mind. That might sound quite concusive by what we see, what we think is important, what we seect for further inspection: it is a driven by theory. Without theory we can t make meaningfu sense of empiricay generated data or distinguish usefu resuts. Without it empirica research merey becomes data-dredging. Furthermore, the

63 3.4 The Functions of a Conceptua Mode in Designing Research 47 theory-construction process serves to differentiate science from common sense since a (in) direct objective of any research efforts is to create knowedge fundamenta or appied (aso see Interude I). This knowedge is created primariy by buiding new smaer or bigger theories, extending od theories and disregarding those theories that are not abe to withstand the scrutiny of empirica research. Whatever question we ask, whatever data we coect thus refects the impact of theory. Whenever we coect and anayse data, we are doing so in the ight of underying theories transated into frameworks, modes or concepts (inspired by Foey 2005, p. 72). So far this section must have provided ampe arguments to enabe the reader to appreciate the critica roe of theory in any research. Theory heps to expain what is aready known, what is missing and what the contribution of a research project can be. For now, a fina distinction might come in handy: the distinction between what is caed a grand or overarching theory (such as Systems Theory 3 ) and oca or sma theories. Grand theories are sophisticated and (in part) tested constructs that expain dominant phenomena such as organisations or institutions. Peope in academia can spend a ifetime testing or atering such a theory. In this respect there are a number of grand theories competing with each other. On the other hand there are oca theories. The assumption here is that peope especiay when working together in organisations deveop theories about how to behave, what to do or what not to do reated to the work at hand. Quite often appied research sets out to discover or test the construction of that oca theory. Whatever the case depending on the nature of the question, seection of a theory inked to an appropriate methodoogy or mix of methodoogies is a centra issue. This is made the more difficut by the ecectic 4 use of theories in management sciences. 3.4 The Functions of a Conceptua Mode in Designing Research Maybe the previous two sections have been a bit abstract or as we tend to say theoretica. What wi be done here is to bring together the different properties, assumptions and discussions, regarding modes on the one hand and theory on the 3 Pease note that in this chapter we wi tak about theory and systems theory in the same breath. Athough the ine to distinguish between the two is rather thin here we mean by theory (in genera)...an idea or set of ideas that is intended to expain something... which conceptuaises some aspect or experience (see Gossary). Systems Theory is a member of the famiy of theory focussing on systems. This is particuary important here because we consider not ony organisations systems but conceptua modes aso. 4 Ecectic means: deriving ideas, stye, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources (source: any decent dictionary).

64 48 3 Conceptua Modes other, in order to outine the principa functions of a conceptua mode in designing research. This wi enabe us to eaborate on the roe of conceptua modes either in a quantitative or quaitative approach. 1. The first function of a conceptua mode is reating the research to the existing body of iterature. With the hep of a conceptua mode a researcher can indicate in what way he is ooking at the phenomenon of his research. The theoretica concepts used to construct the conceptua mode introduce a perspective: a way of ooking at empirica phenomena. Using scientific concepts provides the word with a specific order and coherence that wasn t there before conceptuaisation. By using a (dedicated) mode, he indicates which factors he wi take into consideration and which not thus showing what he thinks is important. He then can start ooking for (additiona) iterature providing arguments for his ine of reasoning hence the importance of adequate referencing. In doing so the researcher aso connects his research with research resuts and theories of others. This enabes justification on a theoretica eve. This is probaby the most important function of a conceptua mode. 2. The second function is that buiding a mode can be hepfu in structuring the probem, identifying reevant factors and then providing the connections that make it easier to map and frame the probem. If done propery the mode is then a truthfu representation of the phenomenon being studied. Furthermore, the mode wi hep to simpify the probem by reducing the number of properties that have to be incuded, thus making it easier to focus on the essentias. 3. A third and fina function of a conceptua mode is inking it to systems theory. This wi aow us to make use of some important aspects of the characteristics of a system as defined in systems theory (Checkand and Schoes 1990). In most systems theories a system entais two components: eements and reationships among the eements. Understanding a system means: identifying the eements of the system, describing the reationships among the eements and understanding how the eements and reationships dynamicay interact to resut in different states of the system. (Northca and Mccoy 2004, p. 27). There is cear anaogy between the characteristics of a system and the previous definition of a conceptua mode. For appied research we can make use of the foowing characteristics: (a) The first one is that in a system the eements are ordered in different zones from fundamenta causes to outcomes. The eements of a system are cassified and reated in such a way that one eement causes the second etc, thus, demonstrating causaity. Pease bear in mind that there is aways the question here about the ogic of the order itsef and which reations are incuded in the system and which not. Once more this demands theoretica justification(s). (b) The second characteristic is reated to the question of the embeddedness of the eements in the research. Embeddedness makes is possibe to focus or in systems terms zoom in and out. In organisationa situations it is rather handy

65 3.4 The Functions of a Conceptua Mode in Designing Research 49 if not a prerequisite to search for the nature and degree of embeddedness. Nature refers to how observabe eements in the research are inked to one another. Degree points at stronger or weaker ties between the phenomena. To observe the actua practice of embeddedness of phenomena in the research ook for the impact on the different eves by zooming in and zooming out. We can use these notions of embeddedness (nature, degree and impact) in a kind of situations. Whie in the process of constructing a conceptua mode it is important to be aware of these notions. Reating characteristics to different eves requires cassifying these characteristics in a certain if not strict causa order. To do this in a responsibe manner requires theory. Box 3.1: Exampe of a Conceptua Mode Carrying out research on abour satisfaction and workoad is done by asking empoyees how satisfied they are with their work, the actua workoad, conditions, resuts etc. The actua mode consist of: Empoyees as the unit of anaysis. The properties of the mode consist of (assumed) perceptions concerning work, workoad, context and satisfaction. Possibe reations are between e.g. the perceived workoad and degree of satisfaction and it is possibe to hypothesize other reations. Box 3.2: Possibe Side Effects of Conceptuaising Sometimes the process of constructing a mode and the presentation of it in an organisation can be sufficient to sove the probem. Managers give their version of the probems to a researcher and the researcher is abe to transate these stories into a coherent mode. The mode then works ike a mirror. Possibe reactions are: Oh if you see it this way than we know what to do. In manageria terms the probem is then soved since peope can act upon the mode they have created. Box 3.3: Embeddedness Imagine a project which invoves comparing the resuts of severa business units within a muti-nationas. In terms of embeddedness we can ook at the various business units and at the eve of (comparabe) businesses. As a researcher we can pay attention to the eve of the mutinationas or business units or to both eves.

66 50 3 Conceptua Modes Box 3.4: Dispay of a Conceptua Mode In carrying out research on the diversity of menta modes in management teams, the researcher chose to use three variabes to construct his conceptua mode. The (a) diversity in menta modes between team members in a team, (b) the position in the organisation of a team member and (c) the gender of a team member. The causa assumption here is that the degree of diversity is caused by the other two properties. This is graphicay dispayed in the foowing scheme: Gender Position Diversity Question: Open or Cosed? The above demonstrates the roe of a conceptua mode in the context of research guided by a cosed or open research question. Starting with a cosed question the researcher gives a cear picture of which aspects are taken into account and which are not. Moreover he aso indicates how these eements are reated to each other and to the phenomenon being researched. A conceptua mode then consists of units with attributes and reations between these attributes. In research, the attributes are referred to as concepts. This mode then guides the remainder of his research activities. If the research is determined by an open question, the researcher cannot start with this cear picture. The use of an open question can be an issue of principe (and) (or) practice: the researcher does not know what is going on in the organisation and that is why he simpe starts with an open question. It is not hard to imagine that in such a situation the construction of a conceptua mode right at the start does not add vaue to the advancement of the research process itsef. It is during the research process that the researcher hopes to detect which concepts and which reations might be reevant. The product of research with an open question is therefore quite often a conceptua mode. Box 3.5: Different Starting Points for Conducting Research If a researcher wants to find out how the treatment of patients in a hospita can be organised in new ways he can start by reading the existing iterature but he aso coud start by going to a hospita and start with a series of open interviews (either individua or coective) with those who organise and carry out the actua treatment. Instead of ooking at existing iterature and concepts, the researcher chooses to start with some indicative concepts (caed sensitising concepts). From that starting point he can deveop ideas and knowedge about new ways of organising the treatment.

67 3.5 Roe of a Conceptua Mode with a Cosed Question Roe of a Conceptua Mode with a Cosed Question Key to research based upon a cosed question is the process of reating the theoretica mode to the empirica reaity. 5 Crucia is where the theoretica mode and the empirica reaity are reated is when they are transated into observabe constructs. This process is caed operationaisation. De Groot (1969) among others has given a detaied description of the process. Operationaisation is the process of changing a theoretica construct into a concept that can be seen in the empirica reaity. This transation process is guided and supported by theory that can be found in the iterature. Furthermore, this same iterature can provide operationaised modes deveoped and possiby tested by others. 6 To this first step we woud ike to add some features. The process of transation starts with refection on the phenomenon that needs to be transated in empiricay observabe terms. Yet, theories aone are not enough; aso refection and the imagination of the researcher are necessary to come up with a good concept. Athough the roe of theory remains centra, we think systematic refection and academic imagination are essentia to arrive at a transation into indicators that are measurabe in the empirica reaity. During a fina step the indicators wi be transated into a measurement instrument impying the constructing of a questionnaire with questions. The process of operationaisation can be seen as the transation of a theoretica notion into measurabe questions in severa steps. Firsty, a definition of the concept (the construct as intended (De Groot 1969), secondy a transation into indicators and, thirdy a transation of each of the indicators into questions (the construct as meant). In a these steps the researcher has to decide how to use refection, imaginisation and theoretica insights. Through the process new theoretica insights may be needed and of course previous ones may become obsoete. This may sound as if there is a kind of imitess iberty during this process. This is ony partiay true since the researcher has to justify every step of the way. In Fig. 3.1 an overview of these steps is provided. In terms of modeing we have to take into consideration the eve of concepts and the eve of variabes (the concept as meant to be) and that can be quit compicated. Take for exampe three concepts A,B and C. In which C wi be the concept to be expained by concept A and Concept B. When we add however now the resut of the operationaization (e.g. Concept A ends up in two variabes, concept B in one variabe and concept C in two variabes) we can see how compex the reasoning wi be on the eve of variabes (Fig. 3.2). Two additiona remarks need to be made here. Principay within the context of research guided by a cosed question the actua practice of the organisation their 5 Pease remember that athough we know it is phiosophicay doubtfu to speak of an empirica reaity we sti do it for practica reasons. 6 Characteristic of management iterature in genera is the abundance of a pethora of conceptua modes. We put the word conceptua between commas here because many of these modes are based on the (practica) experience of the authors without any precise theoretica foundation. Wrapped in an attractive anguage and supported by some do s and don t this makes a first-cass business case for consutants.

68 52 3 Conceptua Modes Fig. 3.1 The Process of operationaisation Imagination Theory Refection Construct as intended dimensions Diaogue Construct as measured by a concrete questionnaire (Construct as meant) Concept A Concept C Concept B Variabe A1 Variabe A2 Variabe B1 Variabe C1 Variabe C2 Fig. 3.2 Reations between concepts and variabes ongoing operations wi be kept outside this research process. Yet in appied research the researcher can ask for a kind of time-out in which he can discuss with the peope the usefuness of the mode and the measurement instrument under construction. That is why we have added the term diaogue to the figure. In a diaogue coud be more then one he can verify and justify what he is doing. A researcher shoud at east think about this feature in designing his research. If he wants to introduce this feature Isaacs (1999) can be very practica. The second remark concerns the construction of hypothesis. A hypothesis may be regarded as a statement of assumed empirica reationships between a set of variabes (Ryan et a. 1992). It provides a description of expectations in such a way that in the formuated sentence no contradictions can be found and a reation with the empirica word can be made. By formuating these expectations, grounded in

69 3.6 Roe of a Conceptua Mode with an Open Question 53 the iterature and eading to the conceptua mode, the researcher wi test or fasify his expectations with the hep of primariy numerica data. Deveoping a research design eading to testing hypothesis, two fina comments shoud be made. The number of hypothesis that can be tested is imited. Furthermore despite the criteria of objectivity and reiabiity (see aso Chaps. 4 and 8) outcomes cannot be generaised if the research is conducted in one even embedded case. This reay requires a more sophisticated design. Box 3.6: Operationaisation of the Environment of an Organisation Take for exampe the operationaisation of the concept: the environment of an organisation. The researcher has to give a definition of this abstract idea. It might be wise to start by using an existing definition. If you do so you have to provide arguments why you has chosen this specific definition and not others. In the second step you wi have to introduce some dimensions of this abstract concept. In the third step each dimension has to be transated in measurabe terms. If the choice has been made for a questionnaire then measurabe means here deveoping questions for the specific dimensions. The resut wi be a questionnaire that wi hep ascertain the environment of an organisation. Box 3.7: Construction of a Hypothesis Take for exampe the foowing hypothesis: Bad physica environment wi have an effect on team performance. The researcher focuses on two concepts and a reation between the two concepts (and in order to test the first has to operationaise both concepts). The hypothesis can be made more precise by specifying the character of the reation. Bad physica environment wi have a negative effect on team performance. This does not mean that the first hypothesis is wrong. The second is simpy more specific and has the advantage that after testing more specified concusions coud be formuated. 3.6 Roe of a Conceptua Mode with an Open Question In the context of research guided by an open question the conceptua mode pays a different roe. Research guided by an open question eads to concepts and oca theory emerging from the data in the process of the research (Bryman 2004). Here a conceptua mode can be considered as the constructed abstraction of how peope (incuding the researcher) perceive oca reaity. The mode then is a product of interaction and bargaining. The aim of producing such a mode is (re-) constructed understanding between the actors invoved which possiby ead to better communication about a specific situation such as actionabe aternatives.

70 54 3 Conceptua Modes Instead of the more strict definition within research guided by a cosed question in this context the definition of a mode can be described as anything goes, the condition being that the researcher is abe to justify his initia mode. Modes can be based on many underying concepts, which as a consequence, resut in a variety of possibe reations. In the soft systems tradition of Checkand & Schoes, the main target of the mode is to systemise the searching process in identifying eements and ooking for reations. By making the initia mode expicit, it is possibe for the researcher to describe exacty which process the mode wi be deveoping. During the process the researcher wi ask the peope in the organisation to hep him find out how the mode shoud be changed so that it has a stronger reation with how they think the word ook ike. This means he wi justify the process of research; steps to be taken and expected outcomes. The aim of the researcher is to deveop his knowedge about a particuar situation. This means that at the end of the research the origina mode wi most probaby need to be changed. Accounting for the changes in the mode and the systematic comparison with the initia mode wi aso be the resut of the research. The second characteristic of conceptuaising is the roe of concepts used in the initia mode. From the tradition of the grounded theory of Gaser and Strauss we see these concepts as sensitising (Strauss and Corbin 1998). These concepts wi deveop during the research; they are in a sense paces of interest or road signs showing the researcher which way to go. A sensitising concept gives a genera sense of reference and guidance to approaching empirica circumstances. Whereas testabe modes provide expicit prescriptions of what to see, sensitising concepts merey suggest directions aong which to ook. The hundreds of concepts we use daiy ike cuture, institutions, socia structure, mores and personaity are not definitive concepts but are aso just sensitising in nature (Bumer 1969, p. 148). A kinds of data (see Chap. 2) can be used to deveop the concept mode guided by an open question unti the researcher is convinced that the concept is fuy eaborated. Data can range from observations to minutes of meetings, incidenta taks, interviews on purpose etc. In the words of Gaser and Strauss the moment of saturation has been reached. This means additiona data or anaysis no onger contributes to discovering anything new (see Gossary). Data coection becomes entirey focused on the emergent mode. The researcher seeks evidence of saturation such as repication in the information obtained and confirmation of previousy coected data. (Denzin and Lincon 1994, p. 230). As the research progresses theoretica insights and connections between categories increase, making the process exciting since what is going on reay becomes cear and obvious (Denzin and Lincon 1994). In hindsight it might be that the fina sensitising concepts are totay different from the ones used at the start. Saturation remains a difficut yet crucia principe guiding research based on an open question. It is impossibe to define in advance when, or on the basis of what kind of data, saturation wi be achieved. Athough appying trianguation is certainy hepfu it is impossibe to define the actua moment of saturation. It is ony through his engagement in the actua research that the researcher wi become aware of this. Justifying what he is doing in e.g. memos or a research diary (see Chap. 5) can be hepfu in this respect.

71 3.7 Constructing a Conceptua Mode 55 Box 3.8: The Use of Sensitising Concepts In carrying out research on eadership styes in different companies a researcher can make use of the existing iterature and measurement instruments. But if the researcher wants to know in which way managers themseves tak and think about eadership he can use some eements of eadership as sensitising concepts and as starting points in the discussion. The managers wi provide the description of the actua eadership styes. Research starting with Leaders are at the front of the batte this requires a certain stye and Leaders are the ones who guide others how to act can be seen as sensitising concepts. 3.7 Constructing a Conceptua Mode What shoud a researcher do to construct his conceptua mode? In this paragraph we wi give some simpe yet not simpistic advice. 1. Maybe the best advice to start with is: make a quick scan of reevant modes in a specific fied. So, if your research is about genera management modes ook for e.g. the 7S-Mode, the Porter vaue-chain, the EFQM Mode or any other mode that fits the bi. If from the start your research is dominated by one specific discipine (e.g. economics, marketing and socia-psychoogy) concentrate on reevant and current modes in that discipine. 2. If you start with the (open) description of a (socia) situation or the management probem a good question to ask is whether it is possibe to provide an indication of how the peope invoved see the probem? And aso to find out which abe or heading fits the probem. Instead of asking which theory is reated to the probem the researcher thus starts with a simpe question. A good abe enhances recognisabiity and makes it easier to broaden the description of the management probem as we as focus on a specific aspect of the probem. A subsequent question coud be: Which theory can be reated to the abe? In this way you can deveop and sharpen your initia idea with the hep of the abe. For the more inexperienced researchers this can be very hepfu. Instead of asking for theories in genera a researcher is asked to ook for a mini-theory that wi hep him focus. 3. The third tip is again simpe. If you want to construct a mode, simpy start by making an image with a few concepts and depict reations. Instead of using (discipinary) anguage that needs to be earned and forces you to express ideas in a specific way this imaging might hep. Other tricks can be: make a ist of a possibe concepts and seect a top five. Then in a second step make a ist of a possibe reations and then of a imited number, say three to five. Of course your decisions can be supported by existing theories. 4. The fourth piece of advice is that in the fina conceptua mode the researcher shoud use as few concepts as possibe. In reation to that he aso shoud use equay few reations between the concepts. Furthermore, these reations shoud

72 56 3 Conceptua Modes be one-sided demonstrating a specific kind of causaity. At any cost circuar arguments shoud be avoided! 5. In drawing a simpe picture of the concepts in reation to each other the concept that wi be expained wi be put on the right side of the picture. The concepts that wi be used to expain wi be put at the eft side of the picture. In between concepts can be paced between these positions, these concepts are caed intervening concepts. 6. Each of the concepts has to be operationaised (at east in research with a cosed research question). In the picture this must be added beow the concepts. At the eve of operationaised concepts researchers make use of the term: variabe for the operationaised concepts. At that eve we make use of dependent variabes (to be expained), independent variabes (expaining) and intervening variabes. An arrow from one concept to another, or variabe to another variabe is associated with phrase ike: this variabe A expains the variance in the dependent variabe B and concept A can be a cause for Concept B 7. A seventh and fina piece of advice is: do not et yoursef be fooed by your own mode. If you go back in this chapter we have warned you aready that modes tend to start iving a ife of their own. It ooks as if that mode dominates everything you do in your research. We have caed that one of the bind spots. So, if you sense you are faing into this trap try to anayse very criticay why this is happening. A this advice wi force you to simpify your ideas to the bare essence and ideas shaped this way are far easier to combine with, on the one hand, the existing body of knowedge in a specific domain and, on the other hand, existing toos and (statistica) techniques necessary for anaysing the data generated by these modes. Box 3.9: A Labe as a Starting Point in the Construction of a Conceptua Mode If you want to conduct research on how a management team operates, you coud start with a abe such as: the different roes peope can fufi. This abe can be reated to existing theory, for exampe Bebin s roe theory. The next step shoud be a specification within this theory. What is of interest in this theory for this specific research question? If someone wants to do research on the deveopment and introduction of a new product we coud start with a abe such as: Business Deveopment. Again the next step must be a specification. 3.8 Chapter Summary We started this chapter with a definition of a conceptua mode: a conceptua mode consists of units with attributes (concepts, theoretica constructs) and reations between those attributes and concepts based on theoretica constructs.

73 References 57 The main functions of a conceptua mode reate the research to the existing theories, focusing the research, making cear in which way the researcher is thinking about the things going on and providing the possibiity to systematicay pay attention to the embeddedness of the subject that wi be investigated. When the research is guided by a cosed question the focus is on the operationaisation of concepts in measurabe entities eading to formuating a imited number of hypotheses. In the context of research is guided by an open question the focus is on choosing sensitising concepts and ooking for reations that are reevant. The conceptua mode emerges as a resut of the research. Throughout the chapter particuar attention was given to the notions of operationaisation, embeddednes and saturation. In the ast paragraph some advice was given regarding constructing your own conceptua mode. Look at what is aready avaiabe and reevant, ask for a abe instead of a theory, start with a simpe picture and try not to fa into the trap of etting your mode dominate your observations. References Bacharach, S. (1989). Organizationa theories: some criteria for evauation. Academy of Management Review, 14, Bebin, R. M. (1993). Team roes at work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Berkeey Thomas, A. (2004). Research skis for management studies. London: Routedge. Bumer, H. (1969). Symboic Interactionism: perspective and method. Engewood Ciffs: Prentice- Ha. Bryman, A. (2004). Socia research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Checkand, P. & Schoes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodoogy in action. Chichester: Wiey. de Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodoogy: foundations of inferences and research in the behaviora science. The Hague: Mouton. Denzin, N. K. & Lincon, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of quaitative research. London: Sage. Emery, F. E. & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causa texture of organizationa environments. Human reations, 18, Foey, K. J. (2005). Meta management. Mebourne: Standards Austraia. Giere, R. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning. Oranda: Hot, Rinehart and Winston. Isaacs, W. (1999). Diaogue: the art of thinking together. New York: Random House. Key, S. (1999). Toward a new theory of the firm: a critique of stakehoder theory. Management Decision, 37(4), Labovitz, S. & Hagedorn, R. (1971). Introduction to socia research. New York: McGraw Hi. Northca, N. & Mccoy, D. (2004). Interactive quaitative anaysis, a systems method for quaitative research. London: Sage. Rüegg-Stürm, J. (2005). The New St. Gaen management mode; basic categories of an approach to integrated management. Houndmis: Pagrave Macmian. Ryan, B., Scapens, R. W., & Theobad, M. (1992). Research method and methodoogy in finance and accounting. London: Academic Press, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Pubishers. Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of quaitative research; grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.

74 58 3 Conceptua Modes Interude I Conceptuaising Methodoogy I think, this time...we reay have a probem, don t you? Hm, yes, I think I must agree but...can t we hire a consutant again...a good one this time? You mean one that soves the probem and doesn t just send bis? Something ike that. Don t know if it is that kind of probem. Meaning...? We, this time I think the probem is us. What we do. How we tak? How do we decide? How do we treat each other behind our backs? That kind of things We, if you are certain, then we reay have a probem. A.1 Conceptuaising Methodoogy This first interude focuses on the probematic nature of conceptuaising a (organisationa) probem with the hep of methodoogy. It touches on a number of underying issues, thus demonstrating the imits of any research design. As a whoe it provides a critique of the measurabiity of organisationa reaity. The interude is above a meant as food for thought - not for soving probems. So, if the previous three chapters have eft you dazzed by the kaeidoscopic nature of assumptions, paradigms and, yes, methodoogies, do not read this interude. But, if you are asked to provide a critica justification of your research design you definitey shoud (see aso Chap. 8). We think this interude is hepfu in understanding and appreciating the content of the next two chapters on quaitative and quantitative methodoogy. A.1.1 The Socia Origins of Probems The essence of appied research is and wi be the researcher investigating a particuar probem in an organisation or company that ony occurs there and is, thus, of a unique contextuaised significance. Essentia to the kind of probems we address is that that they aways occur in a socia situation, in contrast to a aboratory experiment for instance. A socia situation can be categorised in the foowing research areas : The peope invoved (the actors or stakehoders); who form the focus of attention in this research? The actions themseves; which kind of activities or events does this research focus on decisions, operations, R&D? The pace where it a happens; does it revove around activities that take pace at the headquarters or in the business units? Does it concern the observation of a possibe situations or the same situation, but at different ocations?

75 A.1 Conceptuaising Methodoogy 59 The time when things happen; to what extent wi attention (need to) be paid to time or moment? Is it reevant to observe something over the years or wi the focus fa on the distinction between day and night? The used objects (and) (or) knowedge; does the probem revove around the right use of certain rues, procedures, reguations at the proper moment and to what extent is this machine-reated? The nature of the produced goods or services; to what extent might it be usefu to make a distinction between tangibe or intangibe goods? The meaning and intentions of peope s actions at a certain pace and at a certain moment. Anyone reading this wi again reaise that appied research focusing on probems is by definition embedded in the socia side of the enterprise. It is peope that experience a situation as probematic and subsequenty name and frame it. Given this socia nature a number of fundamenta questions surface when it comes to anaysing probems. Most of them have been touched upon in the previous chapters. Here we wish to address and eaborate some of them again thus providing food for thought. A.1.2 Instrumentaity It might be that your attitude when addressing probems especiay when doing research projects for the first time is to accept a probem on face vaue. Something ike:... this is the probem as it is and this is where my anaysis wi start. We previousy outined the idea that probems are human constructs. It is true that a certain reaity can be probematic but it can aso be the case that a specific reaity is probematised with other purposes in mind, purposes that have nothing to do with the probem itsef. Think of the person who protects his position by hoding on to a (sti to be soved but never wi be) probem. Or the fact that as ong as a probem is spoken about the person who possesses the probem receives attention. If that is the nature of the probem you wi have to focus your research on the person since he or she might be a key part of the probem. Anaysing this in a rationa goa-oriented manner coud possiby make the probem get even worse. In the end, the bottomine message is quite simpe: not a probems are constructed with the impicit desire to sove them. Some probems are created with totay different purposes in mind. Pease be aware that your research is not about soving a kinds of probems in the word. You do not sove probems at random. Just addressing them in a schoary manner is sometimes enough. A.1.3 Intervention The sheer act of announcing a research project is aready an intervention in a specific reaity. Even if you have done a your homework, the moment you announce that

76 60 3 Conceptua Modes you are starting a research project in an organisation that organisation wi change abeit modesty and imperceptiby. Without necessariy pronouncing it peope wi have certain ideas, motives and expectations about the upcoming research event. What wi he do?, Can I use this to some extent?, Wi he see me and what wi he then ask?, What kind of infuence wi this research have on my function? or This is once more a demonstration of our incapabe management I wi refuse any cooperation when it comes to it. You can never be ahead of a these questions. The act of intervening through your research raises a rea diemma. And as with a diemmas you are forced to make (difficut) choices choices that are open to more then just one interpretation that you then need to justify. A.1.4 Measurabiity The first two chapters have demonstrated the probematic nature of reaity. Sti no criticism was formuated about the measurabiity of that reaity. The term measurabiity can be interpreted in various ways. On the one hand there is the notion of abiity. It refers to the eve of professionaism of the researcher and his abiity to carry out a decent piece of research. Is he capabe of carrying out what he is panning to do in justifiabe manner? On the other hand, there is the assumption that if approached appropriatey reaity is indeed measurabe. It does no harm to question this second assumption. Indeed it is not compicated to measure the natura conditions in a workpace: temperature, noise or humidity are a very measurabe properties. What about notions such as the sme of the pace, a hostie atmosphere or even insufficient communication? In order to make these notions measurabe, it is necessary to make theoretica constructs (modes) based on an interpretation. Even done propery in terms of reiabiity and vaidity the question sti remains how measurabe such phenomena remain. A.1.5 Theory We have procaimed in the previous chapters that reaity cannot be addressed without a theory in mind. Theory shapes and directs our vision. In fact theory is the instrument or carrier that aows us to see what we want to see and not aways in the way we want to see it. Theory shapes and directs our vision. Impicity, it means that we can articuate what is theoretica and what is worth being seen and, thus, emphasised. The reevant theory given a specific probem can be articuated in words. Just think for a moment about emotions, intuition or gut feeing. Or think aso about a popuar construct such as emotiona inteigence. What we face here is a rationa and often inear-causa approach to reaity. Things can be identified, conceptuaised in a ogica construct and turned into measurabe properties. Just imagine you woud anayse the reationship with your partner in

77 A.1 Conceptuaising Methodoogy 61 such a way and then present it to him or her. Do you think it woud be a good idea? Not reay. A.1.6 Subjectivity When designing research we make a seection (intuitivey or consciousy) out of an ongoing stream of events. The sheer fact of seecting certain events above others the act of giving them additiona attention aso caed bracketing (Weick 1979) puts an emphasis on them thus enarging them. Even if we respect the most stringent schoariness bracketing remains something done by an actor based on his knowedge, experience and professionaism at the specific moment in time. Thus, it appears that by definition subjectivity in any research design is inescapabe. If we accept this fundamenta subjectivity of any research activity then justification becomes amost the ony way to demonstrate the quaity of a research design and subsequent process. A.1.7 Ontoogy We act in this word with imited knowedge. This argey accepted fact is aso known as bounded rationaity. Not ony is it simpy impossibe to know everything about everything, we can t even be sure we know what we know. What we know escapes our fu understanding yet it is at the same time an unimited source. This indirecty raises the issue of ontoogy: the overa conceptuaisation of a fied of knowedge not necessariy presented in a structured manner (see Gossary). In organisations we refer to this phenomenon as knowedge management. Ontoogy in genera reates to the assumptions we hod about reaity whether it is externa or a construct of our mind. Knowedge can be attributed in part to be in the possession of peope and at the same time a resut of interactions. Since peope cannot reay define what they know in a specific fied or regarding a particuar topic it is ony in interactions that they demonstrate and create knowedge. This compex phenomenon describes the socia construction of knowedge. We recognise again here the two fundamenta positivist and constructivist traditions, both of which are present in any research. A.1.8 Epistemoogy Epistemoogy can be described as the phiosophy of knowedge, especiay with regard to its methods, vaidity, nature, sources, imits and scope. It concerns the investigation of what distinguishes justified beief from opinion. Lucky guesses or true beiefs resuting from wishfu thinking are not knowedge. (Craig 2005, p. 224). As such it is the quaity assurance of what we know. Sti, specificity of

78 62 3 Conceptua Modes what knowedge is remains a matter of controversy. One view is that what distinguishes genuine knowedge from a ucky guess is justification; another is that the causation of the beief by facts verifies it. (Buock and Trombey 1999). Justification is a centra eement to any research design and its outcome. The nature of the facts i.e. the nature of the data and how they have been acquired forms the cornerstone in such a design. We stick to the view that the ogic of the argument used to seect certain means (methods and techniques) for producing data and knowedge has to be reiabe. A.1.9 Deontoogy If we expore criticay the definition of methodoogy it shows a certain degree of mandatoriness : as a rue, what seems to be required is shared conviction. Despite the earier stipuated emptiness of methodoogy we face an intriguing issue here caed deontoogy. Deontoogy concerns the study of the nature of duty and obigation of what is necessary. It is quite thought-provoking to consider the possibe universe of methodoogies for a moment as a coection of deontoogies, each individua methodoogy specifying its own pan of action, the acts themseves and the consistent if not rationa order in which actions have to be performed. The inevitabe question is to what degree this deontoogica nature is free of normativity. Who decides on the appropriateness of the order of acts, their causaity, their ogic if not their appropriateness? We stumbe upon a more phiosophica discussion regarding the ontoogica nature of methodoogy. There is no need to eaborate any further here. Just be aware that any methodoogy is not natura but driven by (historicay) driven beiefs about acting. When finay defending your work this wi be a key decisive factor at east impicity but amost certainy expicity. A.1.10 Finay: The Roe of the Researcher Given the refections above it shoud be cear that conceptuaising a probem is not ony a craft it is aso an art entaiing the researcher to navigate between a kinds of theoretica, methodoogica, phiosophica and other booby-traps and diemmas. Any probem addressed in an organisation is a temporary vaid construction of just a fraction of that specific reaity. It is naïve and probaby incorrect if the researcher is convinced he aone has the knowedge to carify the nature and meaning of the probem at hand, be it at the start of the research or we underway. The researcher s most vaid contribution is to conduct carefu research into the nature, size, impact and meaning of a particuar probem by means of various methodoogica approaches. Any research therefore shoud be conducted departing from if not focusing on the situation and peope that create the situation. If we recognise and accept the nature of the question this in itsef is aready a compass. To proceed in

79 References 63 either a quantitative or quaitative way or a combination of both is eaborated in the foowing two chapters and Interude II. References Bonjour, L. (1985). The Structure of Empirica Knowedge, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Baikie, N. (1993). Approaches to socia enquiry, Cambridge: Poity Press. Buock, A., Trombey, S. (1999). The New Dictionary of Modern Thought, London: HarperCoins. Chishom, R. (1989). Theory of Knowedge, Cambrige: Harvard University Press. Craig, E. (eds.) (2005). The Shorter Encycopedia of Phiosophy, London: Routedge. Griseri, P. (2002). Management Knowedge: a critica view, New York: Pagrave. Johnson, P., Duberey, J. (2000). Understanding management research: an introduction to epistemoogy, London: Sage.n.

80 Chapter 4 Quantitative Research Observing Through the Eyes of the Researcher Using a Cosed Research Question Abstract By means of the previousy introduced Research Pyramid this chapter provides a concise overview of the quantitative research approach. The essence of quantitative research is to use a theory to frame and thus understand the probem at hand. Its starting point if not focus can be to contribute to the deveopment of theory. It is grounded in the basic attitude that knowedge about reaity can aso be obtained through the eyes of the researcher. It is he who eaborates theory based on findings. In order to make this happen theory is most often transated into a conceptua mode and eaborated predominanty by means of hypotheses. For the researcher conducting quantitative research impies carefuy operationaising a theory and subsequenty measuring it by means of variabes and questions. He needs to justify the way in which he has designed and operationaised the research methodoogicay and technicay Introduction Conducting research on the basis of a quantitative method or methodoogy has a ong tradition. This tradition can be traced back historicay to natura science. It is based on the postuation that knowedge about reaity can ony be obtained through the eyes of the researcher. Quantitative roughy means in terms of quantities impying the extent to which something either does or does not occur in terms of amount, number, frequency etc. A cassica (quaity) mantra such as to measure is to know originates from this rich tradition. Anyone who conducts quantitative research, wants to know the degree to which something (a phenomenon, a specific kind of behaviour, such as the number of cups of coffee drunk during a day, the 1 The tone of the current and foowing chapter is a bit matter-of-fact if not staccato. The aim is to provide an overview of the essence of both methodoogica approaches, not to repeat what has been written aready. Both chapters concude by formuating some criticism towards the outined approach. J. Jonker and B. Pennink, The Essence of Research Methodoogy, DOI / _4, # Springer-Verag Berin Heideberg

81 66 4 Quantitative Research duration of meeting in reation to the number of decisions etc.) occurs or not and if it does, to what degree. In other words quantitative research entais putting a theoretica construct to the test. The term quantity aso refers to measuring and counting. Typica questions for quantitative research are: How often does this occur? How many peope use this service? How many compaints did we receive in the ast quarter? Or: What do our customers perceive as our Unique Seing Points (USPs) and which of these is the most important to them? No wonder this approach contains a preference for working with numerica data, figures and statistics. Quantitative research is initiaised by means of a cosed question that resuts in a probem definition appearing at the start of the research. The eaboration of the question is based on a reevant amagam of existing theories. After this eaboration the probem is more or ess definite and most of the time eaborated in a conceptua mode. 2 The researcher carefuy focuses on the methodoogica and technica transation of the probem into research instruments (techniques) of which the most we know is the questionnaire foowed by a structured and detaied interview guide. The way he goes about accompishing this transation is amost fuy determined in advance. The researcher departs from a fixed methodoogica approach that wi offer him the technica support needed. This wi aso enabe him to be aware of the stage of the research at amost any time and what he is to do next. A set of stabe and reiabe requirements and criteria has been deveoped over time to assess the quaity of a quantitative research. These criteria mainy aim at monitoring the way the researcher has designed and executed the research. The quantitative research approach is based upon an empirica cyce that has a deductive 3 nature. Box 4.1: Exampes of Cosed Questions (a) To what extent do visitors of our petro station need an extension of our services? (b) To what extent is the emotiona negect in the organisation caused by the nature of our products? (c) The Box of Bricks: Cosed Question Quantitative research is based on a cosed question. Once the question has been eaborated into a probem definition it wi not change again during the course of research. Once some preiminary steps have been taken in the preparation of 2 Pease note that research based on a cosed question can aso start with an aready existing mode with a specific academic discipine. Based on this mode often combined with the work of others new questions are formuated and tested. 3 Deductive means: a method of reasoning where concusions are deduced ogicay from other things that are aready known or... a form of reasoning in which concusions are formuated about particuars from genera or universa premises.

82 4.2 The Box of Bricks: Cosed Question 67 quantitative research it might be usefu to appy the foowing checkist. This checkist addresses five key criteria that together define the quaity of the probem definition. Firsty: is it researchabe? Is the subject accessibe? Wi peope be wiing to participate? One can dream of doing a project in which secret dreams about new markets of managers are being compared, but you might run into some probems here. Secondy: is it reevant? What might be the possibe outcome, the product of the research and for whom has this outcome a specific vaue? Pease aways remember that what might be reevant for one stakehoder is not necessariy reevant for another! You need to define this reevance and communicate it. Thirdy: is the project informative? Does the research generate new and fresh findings or does is just regenerate what we aready know. You can write a perfect synopsis of existing iterature which is certainy not without vaue but does it reay te us something new? Fourthy: is it reiabe? Is the work consistent and does it generate the same resuts when it is repeated? Consistency aso heps us to know whether we can rey on the outcomes. Do they represent what reay is the matter? Reiabiity is maybe the most important criterion in judging quantitative research. Finay: is it effective? This effectiveness has two meanings. It can either appy to the way the research is being carried out, or it can appy to whether the research provides an effective answer to the origina question. Assessing the effectiveness finay tes us something about the baance between means invested (time, money) and resuts obtained. It is deemed handy to go through this checkist once some initia work has been done and sove any doubts before continuing. Once a cear definition of the probem is avaiabe, more detaied research is possibe with the hep of the conceptua mode described in Chap. 3. That mode consists of: An outine of research eements; i.e., what does and what does not beong to the research A seection of characteristics (variabes) of these eements A description of the nature of the reationships between the variabes The formuation of hypotheses and suppositions based on the above (Fig. 4.1) Researcher test a theory Formuating hypothesis Transating concepts into variabes Fig. 4.1 Empirica cyce: deductive Coecting data to test the hypothesis

83 68 4 Quantitative Research probem description probem soution mode/theory operationaization/ measurement focus on vaidity and reiabiity data anaysis data coection research question design set up and execution research answer Fig. 4.2 The box of bricks: cosed question In quantitative research that is guided by a cosed question, hypotheses pay an important roe. Hypotheses are expressed theoretica expectations that wi be confronted with the empirica resuts gathered during the research activities. The research process can be described as an empirica cyce focused on deduction. The basic outine concerns a theory being tested by the researcher, a theory eaborated in terms of hypotheses deducted from theory. Hypotheses are operationaised in terms of variabes and questions that can be traced back directy to the theory. Finay, the researcher uses specific instruments to measure the variabes. This genera outine has been transated in the box of bricks guided by a cosed question (Fig. 4.2). A cosed question eaborated with the hep of the box of bricks provides a simiar pattern. Actuay hypotheses are not tested in a research pertaining from a cosed question, but this approach is often used. Research activities focus on the probem description, soution, research question and research answer (objective). Furthermore it is necessary to check whether important preconditions (time, money, access etc.) that are required for the project, are fufied. The research activities consist of the search for theory and the formuation of a (conceptua) mode. The notions used for a particuar mode need to be made operationa and measurabe. Subsequenty, data are coected, for instance by means of questionnaires or highy structured interviews. These data wi need to be anaysed in the ight of testing hypotheses. Obviousy, each of the distinctive research activities can be assessed in terms of reiabiity and vaidity, as can the outcome.

84 4.3 Quantitative Paradigm 69 Box 4.2: Reevance for Whom? The genera question about reevance is an important one. This becomes cear if we aso consider with whom and in which way discussions about reevance have taken pace. Was there a rea diaogue or was one powerfu stakehoder imposing his view of reevance? This doesn t mean that it is aways necessary to have a diaogue in every case. Yet in every project the question whether it is necessary to have a diaogue shoud be addressed. Besides investigating practica impications aways the issue of theoretica reevance must be raised. Box 4.3: Checkist of a Probem Definition Yes Doubt No Researchabe ( ) ( ) ( ) Reevance ( ) ( ) ( ) Informative ( ) ( ) ( ) Reiabe ( ) ( ) ( ) Effectiveness ( ) ( ) ( ) Fi in and check. In case of doubts pease go back to your research design, improve and check again. Box 4.4: Start of Quantitative Research Yes No Probem image ( ) ( ) Research question ( ) ( ) Research objective ( ) ( ) Preconditions ( ) ( ) When a four questions can be answered with yes, the research can start! This might mean buiding a conceptua mode. 4.3 Quantitative Paradigm Quantitative research is based on the basic approach that knowedge about reaity can be obtained through the eyes of the researcher. It is common to ca this the expert approach. It is the researcher who from behind his desk creates an image of the phenomenon to be examined. This is done by means of a carefu and consistent study of iterature, accepted concepts and current findings by others,

85 70 4 Quantitative Research which are then used to hep formuate the probem definition, research objective and research question. This approach can be expressed in severa fundamentas: At the start of the research it is the researcher that formuates a theory about the reaity he is going to examine The researcher is an expert regarding the subject as we as its content The researcher conducts research in the reaity (the empirica situation to be examined) by means of carefuy chosen instruments The chosen respectivey especiay deveoped instruments form the primary source for numerica data The researcher observes through his own eyes, in other words, by designing and reaising the research he determines what is observed or measured and what is eft out The researcher attempts to test the theoretica constructs as represented by the mode he has deveoped The researcher pays great attention to methods and techniques; this care determines to a great extent the quaity of the research The attitude of the quantitative researcher, as described above, impies that he tries to be an objective (or: neutra) observer. He is not personay invoved in the phenomena that are being examined and wi strive to be as objective and independent as possibe in the research at a times. It is crucia to carefuy justify how and why he has examined the question in the way he has, why he has chosen the underying theory, how it reates to the deveoped variabes and so forth. The choices wi need to be made in such a way that if any other researcher repeats the research, he wi make simiar choices. When appying these fundamentas to drawing up a research design it wi show that the researcher: Preferaby operates on the basis of a cosed and reativey structured research design that precisey matches the subject being examined Carefuy and deiberatey deveops theory and reated concepts as soon as possibe Uses an empirica cyce that is deductive by nature Utiises a sma spectrum of deiberatey generated (numerica) data sources, of which the most important ones originate from surveys Opts for structured data coections within a precisey determined sampe in a ceary outined target popuation Systematicay cassifies and anayses the generated data, for exampe using the computer (SPSS) Eventuay aocates meaning to the research resuts on the basis of anayses and subsequenty transates them for the cient The impication of these fundamentas for the course of research is that: Activities are based on a fixed methodoogy that, with sma exceptions, is determined in advance

86 4.4 Quantitative Methodoogy 71 Existing theory and theoretica insights are coected and processed at the beginning as they form the future basis for the eaboration of the research Phases or steps in the research are consecutive and mosty inear The researcher needs the resuts of previous steps in his research in order to outine the next step The questions of a survey are inked to variabes, which are inked to a conceptua mode that is directy deduced from theory In order to justify his eaboration of the research in terms of measuring instruments, the researcher wi constanty focus on consistency between the various steps The researcher initiay operates by means of a set of data he has generated with his instruments The set of data represents the reaity and consists of objective facts A sharp distinction can be made between the facts the researcher is working with and the way he interprets them Any other researcher who conducts the same research wi principay generate simiar facts and resuts The outcome of quantitative research is the testing of a theory or theoretica insights in a predetermined reaity. Depending on the points of departure used the research can be repeated in a different situation using a combination of quantitative and quaitative methods and techniques. Contradictory resuts can indicate questions for future research. It might aso be possibe to deveop some sensitising concepts (see Chap. 5) that may provide the start of pure quaitative research. In this respect, quaitative and quantitative research can be put to use in a compementary way (aso see Interude II). Box 4.5: The Fow of Quantitative Research 1. Start: unprocessed probem 2. Probem definition, research objective and research question 3. Search for reevant theory 4. Deveopment of a conceptua mode 5. Creation of a research design 6. Data coection and data processing 7. Interpretation 8. Reporting 4.4 Quantitative Methodoogy In quantitative methodoogies a distinction is often made between research aimed at testing hypotheses afterwards (ex post facto research) versus research conducted experimentay. The most important distinction between both approaches is the degree to which the researcher is abe to intervene in the research fied. In ex post

87 72 4 Quantitative Research facto research the researcher is not abe to intervene, whereas in experimenta research the researcher can intervene. Pure experiments comprise a contro group, an experimenta group and a random cassification of those invoved with the research. Both groups then need to be compared before (zero measurement) and after a treatment (post measurement). This is hardy feasibe in business situations. Ex post facto research is widespread. Most research in a business situation is characterised as a case study. This means nothing more than observing during or after certain events s; the researcher is not abe to intervene intentionay and to determine the possibe effect of that intervention. In order to be abe to make predictions about possibe effects the researcher wi need to compare his resuts. This remains a compicated and often biased affair. The researcher can choose between the possibiities such as a norm or another existing case or a theory. When the researcher has made his choice (on soid grounds) he wi consoidate his research activities into specific quantitative methods. 4.5 Quantitative Methods and Techniques It is impossibe to provide a brief overview of quantitative methods; the iterature in this area is too abundant (see Jupp 2006). Therefore, the exampes beow shoud be viewed as a sma seection intended simpy to iustrate the range of what is avaiabe. Firsty, et us ook at the approach described by Tacq (1997). This approach invoves an anaysis of the research question to estabish reevant concepts and how they are reated to one another. Let s say that the research question contains two concepts and a simpe reationship connecting them. For exampe the concepts coud be the eve of the reward and the satisfaction of empoyees and the reationship: the higher the reward the more satisfaction. When the constructs are operationaised (see Chap. 3) into variabes the measurement eve has to be decided. It then becomes appropriate to decide which statistica technique coud be used. In essence this approach is ooking for underying concepts and their connections. It then compares these with the predetermined reations in specific statistica techniques. A mutipe regression anaysis for exampe incudes compex reations between the variabes that have to fit with the suggested hypothesis within the research question. This specific technique stresses the importance of ooking for a ogica connection between the research question and statistica modes. (see aso Box 4.6) However, this specific technique requires the researcher to coect a substantia amount of data from a arge number of empoyees in the organisation. A second more simpified exampe concerns the construction of an anaytica pan. This means that a researcher constructs a pan in which he describes in what way and with what kind of statistica techniques and computer modes the data wi be anaysed. In the context of quantitative research it is aso possibe to point at the use of case studies in a specific way. As a third exampe here, Yin (2003) points out the necessity to choose a so-caed critica case. The researcher seects such a case

88 4.6 Quantitative Research Criticised 73 to find out if it meets certain (pre-formuated) expectations that are derived from an existing theory. If these expectations are not met, then the theory wi be rejected. The researcher shoud try to seect his case as criticay as possibe. These three exampes concern anaytica methods. In genera, the data coection process is highy structured. Questionnaires are pre-coded, observations are structured and interviews are standardized. This way a ot of data wi be comparabe. The most frequenty used method to generate data is the questionnaire, foowed by the coection of existing data materia from the organisation (e.g., annua reports, financia reports and so forth). In a imited number of cases observations are aso used but often as an addition to the mainstream research (see Trianguation). Box 4.6: Exampes of Statistica Techniques It is beyond the scope of this book to treat the statistica techniques but to name some reay good pubications we start with Siege s Non parametric statistics (1956). It is a book that goes into detai with respect to the possibe reations between variabes on ow eve of measurement. If the variabes are at east on the interva eve then an exceent book wi be Horton s The genera inear mode (1978). And if the dependent variabe is on a ow measurement eve and the independent on at east interva, then Winer s Statistica principes in experimenta design (1971) is a good choice. See aso the references at the end of this chapter. 4.6 Quantitative Research Criticised The previous section indicates that the quantitative research method has a ong and rich tradition that is aso supported by a wide choice of methodoogica, methodica and instrumenta possibiities. Conducting research in this way provides the researcher with an approach that adheres to the academic, respectivey scientific tradition and wi therefore be widey recognised. Since the fina research justification (see Chaps. 6 and 8) often takes pace in front of a so-caed academic forum that is famiiar with this approach, the researcher can be fairy sure provided that he has worked accuratey that the research is sound. Nevertheess, it cannot be denied that this approach aso has potentia weaknesses. Important points of criticism are that the researcher: Works on the basic assumption that theory can represent the reaity of the probem as it occurs within a certain context Examines a reaity that is detached from the one in which rea peope ive Meticuousy adheres to a strict methodica approach that does not eave any margin for unexpected deveopments in the fied Works with a conceptua mode that is methodicay and technicay sound, but does not provide information about the actua phenomenon

89 74 4 Quantitative Research Pays excessive attention to the technica detais of the research and in particuar to measuring techniques and procedures Shows excessive respect to figures that are generated intentionay perceived as objective facts Has ony apparent or instrumenta neutraity Aways impies to interpret the generated data before they become meaningfu again figures do not speak for themseves Has to have his resuts transated by the organisation invoved in order to make them reevant if not appicabe 4.7 Chapter Summary This chapter has briefy described the quantitative research approach by means of the underpinning paradigm, methodoogy, method and techniques. The essence of quantitative research is that the researcher tests theory by means of a conceptua mode. Quantitative research has a cear starting and finishing point. The quantitative researcher is as objective as possibe regarding the research that needs to be conducted in order to strive for maxima objectivity. Quantitative research is based on a strict methodica approach through which it is possibe to determine whether the researcher has operated accuratey. In this type of research predominanty numerica data are used. The systematic anaysis of data is done using statistica methods that are supported by computer programmes (SPSS in particuar). Interpreting the resuts of quantitative research generay occurs on the basis of the researcher s interpretation. The transation of research resuts into appication possibiities is the underdog of this kind of research. References Aen, M. J. & Yen, W. M. (2001). Introduction to measurement theory. Pacific Groove: Brooks Coe. Boen, K. A. (1989). Structura equations with atent variabes. New York: Wiey. Box, G. E. P., Hunter, J. S., & Hunter, W. G. (2005). Statistics for experimenters. New Jersey: Wiey. Buckingham, A. & Saunders, P. (2004). The survey methods handbook. Cambridge: Poity Press. Crano, W. D. & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Principes and methods of socia research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates Pubishers. Dewberry, C. (2004). Statistica methods for organizationa research: theory and practice. London: Routedge. Du, J. & Hak, T. (2007). Case study methodoogy in business research. Oxford (UK): Butterworth-Heinemann/Esevier Science.

90 References 75 Hair, J. F., Back, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Mutivariate data anaysis. New Jersey: Prentice Ha. Ho, R. (2006). Handbook of univariate and mutivariate data anaysis and interpretation with SPSS. Forida: Chapman and Ha. Horton, R. L. (1978). The genera inear mode: data anaysis in the socia and behaviora sciences. London: McGraw-Hi. Johnson, R. A. & Wichern, D. W. (2002). Appied mutivariate statistica anaysis (5th ed.). Upper Sadd: Tice Ha. Jupp, V. (ed). (2006). The sage dictionary of socia research methods. London: Sage. Keer, G. (2005). Statistics for management and economics. Caifornia: Thomson Brooks. Morrison, D. F. (2005). Mutivariate statistica methods. Caifornia: Thomson Brooks. Siege, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behaviora sciences. New York: McGraw-Hi. Tacq, J. J. A. (1997). Mutivariate anaysis in socia sciences research. London: Sage. Winer, B. J. C. (1962). Statistica principes in experimenta design. Tokyo: McGraw-Hi. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Bevery His: Sage.

91 Chapter 5 Quaitative Research Observing Through the Eyes of Someone Ese Using an Open Research Question Abstract The essence of quaitative research is to identify the characteristics and structure of phenomena and events examined in their natura context. Subsequenty, these characteristics are brought together to form a mini theory or a conceptua mode. Conducting quaitative research requires an open attitude in order to understand how others experience their situation. As in the previous chapter, this chapter provides a concise overview of quaitative methodoogy, methods and techniques. The demonstration of the various methods is done on the basis of grounded theory, in accordance with the chain reasoning of Toumin and action research. This chapter finishes again with some critica anaysis and a summary. 5.1 Introduction The term quaity in this context refers to the way in which knowedge can be deveoped, the corresponding attitude and behaviour of the researcher, as we as the chosen methodoogy and kind of data. It is research in which the researcher makes an attempt to understand a specific organisationa reaity and occurring phenomena from the perspective of those invoved. He tries to grasp it from the inside out contrariy to from the outside in which was fundamenta to quantitative methodoogy. The researcher does not start his research by means of theoretica notions, or a mode or concepts that needs to be tested, but with severa sensitising concepts. Sensitising concepts are pre-theoretica by nature and serve to steer observations. Impicity, this supposes that theoretica knowedge about a specific phenomenon is incompete, insufficient or ineffective at the start of a research project. The researcher s basic attitude needs to be as unprejudiced as possibe (some say even: as bank as a white sheet of paper) in an attempt to achieve fu and amost pure understanding of peope s behaviour in certain situations. The essence is: a systematic search for the unknown. In order to achieve this, the researcher wi try to become one with the situation that is being examined. During the research, he wi respect the situation of those invoved as much as possibe, not J. Jonker and B. Pennink, The Essence of Research Methodoogy, DOI / _5, # Springer-Verag Berin Heideberg

92 78 5 Quaitative Research ony by observing the working situation, but aso by partaking in other activities such as chatting at the coffee machine or having unch in the canteen, so that he becomes fuy integrated into the organisation. In this approach research is a continuous process. For exampe, the messages on the notice board in a company may provide vauabe data, or the amount of graffiti in the car park or the tabe order during specific meetings. In order to steer his research activities and justify the resuts, a researcher may opt for either a certain methodoogy or combination of methodoogies (so-caed muti-method approach see the next Interude). The objective of quaitative research is to search for and deveop a theory or as one author writes,...shoud be theoreticay driven rather than deformed by technica considerations (What can be measured? What can be samped?). These theoretica notions may possiby ead to a mini-theory. A mini-theory is a theory that is appicabe for one particuar situation. It sti needs to prove its genera vaidity. By repeating the research the mini-theory may deveop into a theory that is usefu in various situations and at particuar times: a grand theory (see Strauss and Corbin 1990). Once theoretica insights have been deveoped, they wi need to be understood by, and be usefu to, those invoved. In many cases this impies that the peope examined participate in the research in one way or another. 5.2 The Box of Bricks: Open Question Quaitative research is characterised by the fact that the researcher works on the basis of an open question. In the course of research this question can (and wi) change. It may take a whie before the exact interpretation of the formuated question, its boundaries and meaning becomes cear. The process in which the question obtains its definite shape occurs on the basis of an empirica cyce which is inductive by nature and aways reates to the word of those invoved (Fig. 5.1). Researcher deveops a theory Researcher ooks for reations between catogories Researcher creates categories Researcher asks questions Fig. 5.1 Empirica cyce: Inductive Researcher is gathering data

93 5.2 The Box of Bricks: Open Question 79 probem description use of mode/ theory search using sensitising concepts probem soution execution of search strategy reaization of repeatabiity research question combining data coection and anaysing research answer Fig. 5.2 The box of bricks: open question Contrary to the empirica cyce in the previous chapter, which resuts in the confirmation or rejection of a theory, the inductive cyce resuts in new theory or eements that coud ead to a theory. Statements are deduced from a kinds of data with the objective of obtaining theoretica insights. These insights may be tested in a next empirica cyce, this time deductivey instead of inductivey (Fig. 5.2). The box of bricks can be designed with an open question in mind. Once again, the probem description, research questions, research answers and possibe soutions form the core of research activities. The activities based on an open question differ from those for a box of bricks with a cosed question. In order to make both boxes comparabe, the theory (and) (or) mode represent a key component. Yet, combined with the sensitising concepts, theory ony pays a different and often modest roe. It is a starting point, but no more than that. The systematic search for new insights is centra to the research activities. Data coection and anaysis wi take pace simutaneousy. In the evauation of a inductive research project transparency and comprehensiveness are important. Reiabiity in such a project wi be hardy subject for discussion. What is more important here is whether those invoved and being investigated are aowed and abe to give meaning to the findings. Box 5.1: Exampes of Open Questions (a) What do peope do when they communicate with each other? (b) Why is it that our meetings aways take pace in a disordery fashion? (c) How do we shape our reationships with our suppiers? (d) How come there has been such a grumpy atmosphere atey? (e) What is the key issue in our manageria decision processes?

94 80 5 Quaitative Research 5.3 Quaitative Paradigm Quaitative research is based on the fact that knowedge about reaity can ony be obtained through the eyes of someone ese. It is common to ca this the actor approach. This basic attitude is expressed in severa fundamentas: Deveoping a theory about the reaity of a particuar situation without interactions about this theory with the peope who are part of the investigated reaity is something the researcher wi try to avoid as much as possibe The researcher is not an expert but an exporer he hopes to find The researcher does not conduct the research in a specific reaity (empirica situation), but within a specific context This context is the primary data source The researcher wi try to ook through the eyes of someone ese or at east make a systematic attempt to understand and respect the actors perspective The researcher wi try to deveop insight into and understanding of actions and meanings within a certain socia context whie paying attention to time and process The researcher wi act with respect for the phenomenon that he is examining, based on the assumption that the peope invoved attach meaning to the phenomenon This basic approach impies that the researcher cannot be an objective outsider. As a person, the researcher is invoved with both his own research and the phenomena that are being examined. At the same time, he wi need to justify how he conducted the research, why he chose this particuar approach, how the research process took pace and what the reasons were for his choices in carrying out the project. In such a situation, operating and making choices cannot be done without direct persona invovement. These fundamentas have the foowing impications for the research design. They mean Working with reativey open and unstructured research designs that connect to the examined phenomenon The use of the inductive cyce rather than the deductive cyce Utiising a broad spectrum of possibe data sources of which the most important ones are observation, informa conversation and in-depth interviews A preference for unstructured data coection Avoiding the use of theory and concepts during the eary stages of research Data shoud be coected and anaysed systematicay, yet quantification pays a minor roe As regards the course of research these fundamentas impy that: Existing theoretica insights can be used at different moments in time or in different ways during the research Different phases of research infuence and interact with each other they are often cycic rather than inear

95 5.4 Quaitative Methodoogy 81 In order to be abe to provide the reasons for his different considerations and choices afterwards, the researcher wi use a journa or diary The researcher wi search (repeatedy) through different data sources (trianguation principe 1 ), unti the data coection is compete (so-caed saturation) It is difficut to make a cear distinction between objective facts and individua interpretations. In order to avoid this difficut distinction the researcher coud make use of the distinction between first order data: the so-caed objective data such as saes figures or other figures; second order data: information from the peope invoved and, finay, third order data: the use of his own information. This distinction into sorts of data appears in the appendix of one of Morgan s most we-known books (1993) It is often difficut to make a cear-cut distinction between interpretations by the researcher or by the peope invoved The resut of quaitative research the deveopment of a mini theory with oca vaidity can form the basis for a subsequent quaitative (and) (or) quantitative research. The research can be repeated using the same methods and techniques in different situations. It is aso possibe to test the deveoped mini-theory by means of quantitative methods. In this way, quaitative and quantitative research are compementary and not opposites (see Interude II). Box 5.2: The Fow of Quaitative Research 1. Start: unprocessed and open probem 2. Instrument(s) for data coection (various sources) 3. Transcription of data 4. First cassification of data 5. Narrowing down the anaysis 6. Further anaysis (possiby with new data) 7. Reporting and writing Adapted from Wester et a. (2000) 5.4 Quaitative Methodoogy Different methodoogies are distinguishabe in the quaitative research approach. A common cassification is according to ethnography, ethnomethodoogy and phenomenoogy. It is aso possibe to make a cassification on the basis of the extent to which the researcher does or does not participate in daiy affairs: the so-caed nonparticipating observation strategies or the participating observation strategies. 1 The trianguation principe concerns the use of different techniques and methods in the same study to coect data so as to verify the vaidity of any findings enhancing their robustness. Trianguation can take pace on different eves and have different meanings depending on the paradigmatic choice. We expand on the atter in Interude II.

96 82 5 Quaitative Research Regardess of the cassification chosen, it remains difficut to distinguish sharpy between the different methodoogies. An important point is the fact that different methodoogies have been deveoped for different contexts with various scientific purposes in mind. As a resut, a specific methodoogy has its own framework of assumptions, professiona anguage, approach and rues. The researcher is free depending on the question, sensitising concepts and context to choose an appropriate methodoogy for his quaitative research. Sti, when examined more cosey, it appears that different methodoogies have more in common than was originay thought. In Mies and Hubermans tree diagram this becomes ceary visibe (see Fig. 5.3). Carefu studying and consideration of avaiabe methodoogies is necessary in order to avoid getting confused when making a choice for the research design. Therefore, the foowing criteria shoud be taken into account: The nature of the phenomenon to be examined The research direction indicated by the question Possibe existing sensitising concepts The nature of the data The researcher s persona preference Ethnoogy Community study Anthropoogica ife history Microethnography Ethnography of communication Conversation anaysis Ethnography Ethnomethodoogy Phenomenoogy Poststructuraism Connoisseurship Human othoogy Nonreactive (unobtrusive) research Observer study Fied study Participant observation strategies Nonparticipant observation strategies Investigative journaism Interview strategies Ora history Archiva strategies Biography History Content anaysis Literary criticism Phiosophy EVERYDAY Experiencing Enquiring LIFE Examining Fig. 5.3 Quaitative research strategies. Mies and Huberman (1994)

97 5.5 Quaitative Methods 83 It can aso be the case that after thorough consideration the researcher starts using a specific methodoogy and then graduay refines it. This may impy that observing in a certain situation marks the start of the research. The resuts of these observations may for instance ead to a refinement into ethno-methodoogy that makes it possibe to focus on anaysing communication patterns. Regardess which methodoogy is chosen, it is important to take into account that the search behaviour does not confict with the fundamentas that have been formuated in advance. When this is the case, the researcher shoud report and eaborate it. After a, it may be possibe these moments ead to new insights. Yin (2003) has aso to be referred to here. In the context of quaitative research Yin has made an important contribution to quaitative methodoogy by focusing on case-study design. Case study research is in his terms: Using a imited number of units of anaysis within their natura conditions. In choosing the cases the researcher shoud use arguments that are reated to the topic under research. There shoud be enough diversity and richness in the samping to aow for the construction of theory. This is generay caed theoretica samping. In studying the cases a researcher shoud take into consideration whether he studies each case as a whoe or if he ony studies certain aspects of the case. Here there is a cear reation with the systems-theoretica concept of embeddedness and the zooming in and out effect (see Chap. 3). Yin uses a cross-tabuation of two dimensions: studying one case versus a few cases and studying on the eve of the whoe versus studying specific aspects of a particuar case. Box 5.3: The Focus of a Case Study Use the two dimensions described in the text to construct the suggested crosstabuation. Imagine how you woud fi in the ces in your own research. 5.5 Quaitative Methods Athough initiay the distinction between methodoogy and method seems to be cear, when quaitative research is put into practice this may not to be the case. What is more, these terms are often used with the term instrument in one and the same breath, which can cause confusion. For instance, what one author may ca methodoogy seems, when examined more cosey, to be a method (e.g. see Strauss and Corbin 1990). It aso appears that a methodoogy ony provides goba instructions, whie it hardy deserves to be caed a method. Nevertheess, it is usefu to maintain the distinction between both terms for as ong and as consistenty as possibe so that the researcher is abe to justify his actions. During the course of his work, the researcher wi give his own interpretation to the use of a specific method and deveop a cear preference for it. Nonetheess, anyone who is careess in the use of these methods may end up messing around and, thus, wasting time eading to improper resuts. Three exampes of quaitative methods are outined beow. These are: the grounded theory approach (GT), the chain reasoning

98 84 5 Quaitative Research approach, according to Toumin, and action research. Each exampe wi be described briefy Exampe 1: Grounded Theory (GT) The primary goa of GT is the deveopment of a theory that is grounded in practice. Theory is deveoped during data coecting and subsequenty coding the materia. The data materia is used to search for categories, characteristics of these categories and reationships between them. This is based on the principe of continuous comparison. Various authors have deveoped different phases. Wester (1987) recommends the foowing phases: 1. Exporation: to identify terms 2. Specification: to deveop terms 3. Reduction: to determine the centra term 4. Integration: to eaborate the theory Centra to grounded theory is the deveopment of a theory that is grounded in the oca reaity of the situation that wi be investigated. With the hep of the sensitising concepts (see Chap. 3) at the start and the method of continuous comparison, the researcher tries to deveop the sensitising concepts into concepts fied with eements that are emerging from the data (in this sense the grounding deveops). In practice the researcher starts with open coding. In this phase the researcher deveops categories appearing in the materia. He then tries to find more proof in the materia to further support that category or to refine others. In the second phase after finishing the refinement of the categories, the researcher tries to find reations between the categories. This is what Strauss and Corbin (1990) ca the axia coding process. In the different phases of coding the researcher shoud keep the idea in mind that he systematicay writes down and uses his own refections and considerations in the research process as a source of data. On the whoe, the researcher shoud keep in mind the foowing points: The GT Instructions Keep a diary and note down a reevant activities from the start Work on the basis of memos (theoretica notions in deveopment) Constanty compare and integrate Appy pura data sources (trianguation) Use the existing theory of notions at different moments during the research Continue unti the point of saturation has been reached. It is difficut to indicate this point but you know that you have reached it when new findings do not produce any new insights

99 5.5 Quaitative Methods Exampe 2: Chain Reasoning According to Toumin Toumin et a. (1979) has deveoped a method that resuts in the construction of chain reasoning. The chain s vaue resides in making arguments and concusions expicit. It makes cear which data and caims were used for the ine of reasoning. The resuts make it possibe to ask carifying questions. The method of chain reasoning consists of three steps: Composing a first triad (basic reasoning); this takes pace on the basis of caims, grounds and warrants The second step is the introduction of support (using backing) The third step is the invovement of probabiities in the reasoning using rebuttas and moda quaifiers in the terms of Toumin The Instructions of Chain Reasoning In order to compose a correct chain of reasoning, six eements can be used, which are: Caim Data or grounds Warrants Backing Rebuttas or reservations Moda quaifier With the hep of this basic order the researcher can construct a cear view of the arguments that can be deduced from the anaysed text and the way they can be arranged. For a fuer description of how this works, pease refer to Bromey (1986) (Fig. 5.4). Data Caim Fig. 5.4 Chain reasoning: data versus caim. Toumin et a. (1979) Warrant Backing Reservation Quaifier

100 86 5 Quaitative Research Exampe 3: Action Research The researcher deveops insight into an organisationa reaity by cooperating in that reaity and, where necessary or reevant, sympathising with those invoved. By participating in the word of the peope invoved and supporting the introduction of changes, the researcher wi be abe to deveop his own observations of the probem aong the way. In this respect, the essence of the methodoogy is sharing and exchanging views and ideas during the task at hand, whie at the same time reporting and registering everything that happens (aso see Whitehead and Mcniff 2006) Guideines for Action Research Guideines for action research are aimed predominanty at the researcher s attitude. He wi need to adopt an attitude simiar to someone who is directy invoved. Moreover, he wi need to take sides and describe reaity from within that position. It goes without saying that action research bares the danger of strong subjectivity. Creating the change becomes the primary target instead of deveoping a thorough understanding of a specific situation. If you notice that your research project is turning into a form of action research pease register why and when this is happening and discuss it with you supervisor and the peope invoved. Some peope consider action research as no research at a! The three different methods 2 exampes have been chosen deiberatey in order to show the extensive range and content of quaitative methods. During a quaitative research project different methods can if expedient be used together or consecutivey. This requires carefu consideration and justification by the researcher: With regard to the objectives that need to be achieved With regard to the (theoretica) vaues that different methods are presumed to produce Taking practica aspects into account (time and energy) When combining the (resuts of) different methods The review of a specific research design as a whoe (justification) In addition to the above the researcher shoud aso take the choice and appication of (quaitative) techniques into account. 2 Pease reaise that methods and methodoogies are one and the same in this context. This observation eads to a rather fundamenta debate that you might stumbe upon when writing your Master Thesis or PhD. Pease be aware!

101 5.6 Quaitative Techniques Quaitative Techniques Predominanty inguistic data wi be used in a quaitative research approach. Conversation (in different forms) is the most frequent instrument to generate data, foowed by observations by the researcher. These instruments can be considered as a form of visua data. Usuay, this invoves conversations (whether or not deiberatey hed) being recorded. The resuts are then cassified and anaysed. Cassification impies that the researcher indicates how he wi divide the avaiabe materia into usabe pieces or chunks. For instance, conversations can be cut into sentences, in turns or into mini paragraphs. Whatever the chosen units of data are, they shoud aways contain a meaning either brought to them by the researcher or by the respondents. It is aso possibe to choose to cassify consecutivey a statements respectivey sentences of one respondent. The choice for a certain cassification strongy depends on the form of anaysis chosen. Is the researcher concerned about discovering notions and categories? Is his attention focused on the way peope communicate with each other during a conversation? Does the probem revove around the interaction patterns during group meetings? Each of these choices forces a particuar cassification. Pease note that there are many eectronic aids that have been deveoped to faciitate the cassification and anaysis of these kinds of data. However, these wi not be discussed here. Box 5.4: Cassifying Conversations You have a conversation with three different peope in an organisation. In your view each person makes a vauabe contribution to the research. How wi you justify this opinion? How wi you carify this? How are going to show this?

102 88 5 Quaitative Research Box 5.5: Anaysing a Simpe Conversation (1) Examine the text beow; it concerns a transcription of a conversation within an organisation. She says, I cannot work with this program. He says, What is the matter? She says, I cannot cope. He says, You said you woud ask a professiona? She says, He says he can t ook at it for a whie. He says, Sha I have a ook at it? She says, Pease, if you woud. He says, A right, I wi have a quick ook. Research questions: With the above text in mind, try answering the foowing questions: 1. What is the matter in this situation? What is the matter here? What s the probem? Does everybody share the same opinion? 2. How coud you gain insight into what exacty is happening? What kind of approach woud you use to obtain this insight? Pease try to be expicit. Box 5.6: Interview Processing In order to coect the data you need, you decide to conduct five interviews. Apart from the question as to how you wi carry out these interviews, it aso important to estabish how you wi process them. What are you going to do with the data afterwards (condensed summary, fu transcription, etc.)? How are you going to draw up the reports? Which techniques wi you use? Have you considered asking for feedback from the interviewees once you have done the processing? This opens up a kind of questions that can be hepfu. 5.7 Quaitative Research Criticised From the above, it becomes obvious that the quaitative research approach comprises a rich range of methodoogica, methodica and instrumenta possibiities. Conducting such research makes it easier to reate the approach to the phenomena in the organisation. This approach is aso open to some criticism. The most important criticism is: The frayed outine of the initia research question; working with an open question means working with uncertainty An often poor distinction between diagnosis, design and change

103 5.8 Chapter Summary 89 The ack of an expicit theoretica framework, concept or mode at the start of the research The often probematic reationship with a cassica research design, whether or not in the form of a case study The character of quaitative data difficut to revise and the great variety of data aternatives The expicit acknowedgement of the researcher s subjectivity; he is not an outsider but someone who is invoved The poor distinction between methodoogies and methods and the fact that simiar instruments are appicabe The poor distinction between facts and interpretations The open end character of the course of research The ow repeatabiity of a research approach that has ony been conducted once The impossibiity to precisey describe resuts in advance The ow appicabiity of cassica methodoogica criteria in order to assess resuts This criticism is ony vaid if the quaitative research approach is assessed soey on the basis of those standards that are appicabe in we-conducted quaitative research (see Chap. 5). Nevertheess, it woud be advisabe to assess a specific type of (business) research either quantitative or quaitative primariy with regard to criteria which have been deveoped specificay for this intention. Research designs, in which inspiration has been gained from both anges, require highy precise reasoning to justify the assessment and criteria used. Yet, this is more of a chaenge than a probem (see Interude II) Box 5.7: Anaysing a Simpe Conversation (2) Look back at box 5.6 and take a coser ook at the conversation. What woud happen if the researcher knew what the he thinks and what the she thinks or what both fee? And what consequences coud this have for the anayses. 5.8 Chapter Summary This chapter has briefy described the quaitative research approach, outining the paradigm, methodoogy, method and techniques. The essence of quaitative research is the researcher who tries to understand (and to expain) how peope experience their (work) situation. Quaitative research is aimed at discovering characteristics in a particuar situation and is initiated by an open question. Each quaitative research project wi have to justify the roe of those invoved in the research activities.

104 90 5 Quaitative Research The quaitative researcher is competey invoved in his research; this can easiy resut in uncontroabe subjectivity. Quaitative research offers the researcher the freedom to contribute his own interpretation to the methodoogica eaboration of his research. The most important source of data is inguistic (conversations, interview, etc.) combined with observations and memo s. The systematic anaysis (transcription, cassification, coding and interpretation) is generay given itte attention in this type of research. Given the open character, it is often difficut to indicate the starting and finishing point; the researcher does not know when the research is finished. The quaitative research approach is particuary usefu in conducting research within organisations. The resuts of quaitative research can be tested by means of a quantitative research approach; in this way both are compementary instead of contradictory. References Bromey, D. B. (1986). The case study in psychoogy and reated discipine. Chichester: Wiey. Coghan, D. & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your own organization. London: Sage. Creswe, J. (2008). Quaitative inquiry and research design. London: Sage. David, M. (ed). (2006). Case study research. London: Sage. Du, J. & Hak, T. (2007). Case study methodoogy in business research. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann. Fick, U. (2006). An introduction to quaitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Gummesson, E. (1999). Quaitative methods in management research. London: Sage. Jupp, V. (ed). (2006). The Sage dictionary of socia research methods. London: Sage. Lawrence George, A. & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory deveopment in the socia sciences. Cambridge: MIT. Mason, J. (2005). Quaitative researching. London: Sage. Maxwe, J. A. (2005). Quaitative research design: an interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McNei, P. & Chapman, S. (2005). Research methods. London: Routedge. Mies, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook. Quaitative data anaysis. London: Sage. Miar, G. & Dingwa, R. (eds). (1997). Context and method in quaitative research. London: Sage. Morgan. (1993). Imaginization, the art of creative management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Moustakas, C. (1990). Heuristic research, design; methodoogy and appication. London: Sage. Schön, D. A. (1983). The refective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage. Stanczak, G. (2006). Visua research methods. London: Sage. Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of quaitative research; grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage. Toumin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1979). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmian. van Maanen, J. (1983). Quaitative methodoogy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wester, F. (1987). Strategieën voor Kwaitatief Onderzoek. Muiderberg: Coutinho.

105 A.1 Combining a Quaitative and Quantitative Approach in One Research Design 91 Wester, F., Smaing, A., & Muder, L. (2000). Praktijkgericht Kwaitatief Onderzoek. Bussum: Coutinho. Whitehead, J. & McNiff, J. (2006). Action research: iving theory. London: Sage. Wiis, J. (2007). Foundations of quaitative research: interpretive and critica approaches. London: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Interude II Combining a Quaitative and Quantitative Approach in One Research Design Quaitative Researcher Many peope these days are bored with their work and are... Quantitative Researcher (Interrupting) Which peope? How many of them? When do they fee this way? Where do they work? What do they do? Why are they bored? How ong have they fet this way? What are their needs? When do they fee excited? Where did they come from? What parts of their work bother them most? Which...? Quaitative Researcher Never mind. 3 A.1 Combining a Quaitative and Quantitative Approach in One Research Design This second interude advocates the combined use of a quaitative and quantitative approach. The key success factor is an aternating step-wise use of quantitative and quaitative approaches throughout the process of your research. Three different phases which permit the use of different approaches are distinguished. In each phase the chosen methodoogy shoud be supported by reevant methods and 3 This nice quote was taken from van Maanen (eds.) (1983).

106 92 5 Quaitative Research techniques. This is aso caed a muti-method approach. We touched upon this issue eary in Chap. 5 when taking about the principe of trianguation. A.1.1 Introduction It may appear somewhat bizarre to a novice in the fied of methodoogy for whom the most obvious choice might be a natura fusion of the two approaches so that their respective strengths and weaknesses can be compensated. One coud easiy caim that this doube-methodoogy approach shoud be advocated in order to achieve easiy justifiabe and usefu appied research. Carefu and aternating use of both research approaches can indeed offer vauabe insight, more opportunity for the deveopment of hypotheses, an improved comprehension of existing theoretica insights and, what is more, a direct practica benefit. Or to quote Bryman:...in the end when quantitative and quaitative research are jointy pursued, much more compete accounts of socia reaity can ensue (1988, 126). Sti one shoud bear in mind that both methodoogies come from two different traditions refecting antagonistic views about how research shoud be conducted. Even studies that show exampes of the fusion of both approaches, rarey accord them equa or neary equa weight. Most researchers primariy rey on one methodoogy and a coupe of associated methods and back-up their findings with a method (or even a technique) associated with another methodoogy. Despite this practice we are sti convinced that combining methodoogies even though difficut has added vaue. A key success factor is an aternating step-wise use of quantitative and quaitative approaches (see Chaps. 4 and 5) throughout the process of your research and the successive appication of methods, techniques and criteria. We distinguish three phases in a research process: (1) Observing and deducing, (2) Theorising and conceptuaising and (3) Interpretation and appication. Each of these phases can be designed in such a way that a particuar methodoogy is more predominant. A.1.2 Phase 1: Observing and Deducing Any researcher confronted with an organisationa probem initiay has itte knowedge of what this probem is a about. Moreover, as pointed out in the previous chapters, the way a probem is situated on the organisationa agenda is not ony determined by functiona, but aso by poitica (power) and emotiona considerations. Therefore, at the start of his research, the researcher shoud have an open attitude to the probem and the organisation. He shoud start with ony a imited number of sensitising concepts and eave any other theoretica uggage at home. This way he wi become propery acquainted with the probem as he carries out his work. For exampe, he may (if reevant) do a number of nightshifts, attend severa carefuy chosen meetings, conduct a series of (open) interviews, reguary unch at

107 A.1 Phase 2: Theorising and Conceptuaising 93 Fig. 5.5 Quantitative and quaitative research combined observation induction theory deduction testing interpretation the company s canteen or accompany saesmen in the fied for severa days. We can hardy ca it a design but choosing different data-sources (observations) at different moments in time from different peope woud fit the bi. For convenience s sake, this coud be caed the first phase of a research and can be typified as open observation. The researcher attempts to get to know the organisation and the reated probem as objectivey and extensivey as possibe. As has been shown, this phase can be eaborated into various sub-phases and diverse methods and techniques can be used to structure the coection of the predominanty quaitative data. On the basis of these findings, the researcher can formuate a probem definition together with the peope in the organisation. In theoretica-methodoogica terms this definition is based on an inductive empirica cyce. The researcher competes an entire quaitative research phase, in a period of 2 or 3 weeks (or even ess). The essentia objective remains to carry out the research in a methodoogicay justifiabe way. He wi then utiise the probem definition that he has formuated to start ooking for suitabe theoretica support. That marks the beginning of the second phase (Fig. 5.5). A.1.3 Phase 2: Theorising and Conceptuaising Theory is very usefu when cassifying a mutitude of observations: it sharpens the mind and heps to focus. It gives the research a structured framework for anaysis, provided that is that the researcher has found those theoretica components that reay hep him progress. Athough this sounds rather easy-going it demonstrates that theorising is not something that can be done in a twinking of an eye. Many researchers set out without having a cear idea in mind of how they are going to address the probem. Consequenty, theory might come second and wi often be degraded to a chapter in a report that is hardy read by anyone. For us theory is not something secondary, but a way to carify a question and put it into the right perspective. Theory can hep define why a probem occurs in an

108 94 5 Quaitative Research organisation and why it is discussed. In addition, it heps to pinpoint various aspects and their mutua reationship. It aso assists in the deveopment of aternatives for the probem and to understand its content. Moreover, it heps the researcher to confront his experiences with the experiences of others who have the same probem. Searching for theory provides ampe opportunity to tap into a body of knowedge in a specific fied. Often that is reay quite exciting. In short: theorising supports the systematic examination of a probem in order to be abe to continue researching it. On the basis of this confrontation the researcher is abe to deveop a (preiminary) conceptua mode that does not ony reate to the theory invoved, but aso to the organisation concerned. If it is eaborated by means of a quantitative approach, it wi resut in sound testing. Obviousy, a methodoogica and technica rues wi need to be taken into account in order to achieve a justifiabe resut. Working in this manner wi ead to an empirica cyce that is deductive by nature. If eaborated by means of a quaitative approach it might for exampe ead to a fuy deveoped conceptua mode. It shoud be cear that once again the appropriate methodoogica rues, etc. are appicabe here. When foowing this approach the empirica cyce is inductive by nature. A.1.4 Phase 3: Interpretation and Appication Testing eads to a set of numerica data. After these data have been statisticay anaysed, it is once again the researcher who wi need to interpret them. He can choose to do this on his own. He aso has the opportunity to choose a method that invoves peope from the organisation. Such an anaytica approach can stimuate the deveopment of ideas about usefuness and appicabiity. The interpretation of data (of whatever kind) is by definition a subjective matter. Something ike objective interpretation does not exist. Data can ony be interpreted when appying theory through the eyes of those invoved. So where does it eave you as a researcher? You have the obigation to work carefuy and produce appicabe resuts. Pease reconsider the array of methodica possibiities you have at your disposa. Choose carefuy and you don t necessariy need to restrict your choice to one approach. You can anayse the same data using different approaches and then compare. Yes, this is muti-method anaysis. A.1.5 Combining the Best of Both It must be cear now that in appied research the boundary between quaitative and quantitative research is in rather thin. This ine between can be smudged even further. In Chaps. 4 and 5 we introduced two methodoogica traditions; two

109 A.1 Using the Nature of the Question for a Muti-method Approach 95 distinct different ways of doing research. However in order to be academicay buet-proof research often ought to be a combination of both. It is possibe to start the research with a quaitative approach. The resut of the first phase is a number of hypotheses. In a second phase these hypotheses are put to the test according to a quantitative tradition. Based on the outcomes of this part, the research process is then finaised with a quaitative section in which the concusions are presented in such a way that they are understandabe and actionabe by peope in the organisation. In this way both approaches suppement each other. A.1.6 Using the Nature of the Question for a Muti-method Approach In Chap. 3 we stricty combined the position of ooking through the eyes of the researcher with quantitative methods. In Chap. 4 we approached research whie ooking through the eyes of someone ese with appying quaitative research methods. The rather rigid eaboration of these two positions was done on purpose since arguing in this way aows us to ceary describe the differences of both approaches, thus providing a compact overview of the ine of reasoning and its consequences. In this Interude we have aready payed down the differences and argued that both traditions can very we be part of one and the same research design. Sti, reay appying a muti-method requires expertise on the part of the researcher. It might therefore be handy to approach the issue from a different ange and start thinking in other terms. Instead of combining method and techniques derived from different traditions we aso have the possibiity to combine the research question once we know its nature. This makes it possibe to see through somebody ese s eyes and yet sti maintain the position of ooking through the eyes Paradigm choice Looking through the eyes of the researcher Looking through the eyes of someone ese Research question format Cosed research question Ce 1 Ce 3 Open research question Ce 2 Ce 4 Fig. 5.6 Nature of the question combined

110 96 5 Quaitative Research of the researcher. What we suggest is combining an open and cosed research question (Fig. 5.6). Ce number one comprises a cosed question and ooking through the eyes of the researcher. The position seems to be the traditiona neo-positivistic position. Ce number four ooks ike the opposite: the interpretative tradition. In both ces, however, it wi be possibe to use either quantitative or quaitative methodoogies or methods or combine them. We can describe ce number two as the situation in which the researcher is ooking through his own eyes with an open research question: an inductive way of doing research eading to an exporative research. Ce number three is a position in which the researcher has decided what and how to research, yet the peope in the organisation invoved decide how to proceed (and yes, this turns into a kind of action research see Chap. 5). This cassification is a bit more compex. It can be understood best by studying the difference between quantitative and quaitative research first. Otherwise you might get ost. Athough fundamentay different, quaitative and quantitative research are not opposites we do not support that academic debate. When it comes to appied research they are even compementary. Just one itte quote from another source: One of the most obvious senses in which this may occur (is): quaitative research may act as a source of hunches or hypotheses to be tested by quantitative research. (Bryman 1988, p. 134). Of course, it is the researcher s responsibiity to consider the possibiities that a combined use of these two approaches offer. In making this assessment he shoud aso take into consideration his own competencies, research experiences and any other important conditions (e.g. time, money, access). The above presented ine of reasoning which can be summarised as inductive deductive inductive briefy show that in essence each research project makes use of both the quaitative and quantitative approach. Deiberatey using these approaches in an aternating way improves the quaity. References Brewer, J. & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of muti-method research: synthesizing styes. London: Sage. Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quaity in socia research. London: Routedge. Creswe, J. W. (2008). Research design, quaitative & quantitative approaches. London: Sage. Jick, T. D. (1983). Mixing quaitative and quantitative methods: trianguation in action. In J van Maanen (Ed.) Quaitative methodoogy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Murray, T. & Murray Thomas, R. (2003). Bending quaitative and quantitative methods in theses and dissertations. London: Sage.

111 Chapter 6 Assessing Your Research Working with Requirements that Determine the Quaity of the Appied Methodoogy(ies) Abstract Thorough research needs to meet certain criteria. We define what these criteria are, what they reate to and what roe they pay in the different phases of a research. The ensembe of these criteria is outined in this chapter. After carifying the nature of these criteria and requirements, a further distinction wi be made between quaitative and quantitative research. Finay, the question wi be answered as to who uses which criteria when and what this means to the researcher and his project. 6.1 Introduction An introduction about research methodoogy is not compete without discussing the requirements or criteria the research wi need to compy with. This sounds amost sef-evident but when taking a tour in the methodoogy section of the nearest (academic) ibrary you wi soon discover that a neat overview of criteria et aone some form of comparison is hard to find. The question as to what are the right (appropriate) criteria and how these shoud be deat with initiay seems again simper than it actuay is. One coud say that the proper appication of suitabe criteria is a requirement, 1 a prerequisite for any decent research. Using these 1 Requirements are: need, wish, demand, want, necessity, essentia, prerequisite or stipuation. It regards an action, abiity, or quaity as due from (someone) by virtue of their position. So requirements are inked to a person and how he acts. This has to do with issue such as professionaism and integrity. Criteria are: a principe or standard by which something or someone may be judged or deciding upon. It iteray means means for judging (see for these definitions any decent dictionary). Criteria can formay be seen as independent from the actua research acts of a researcher. Athough a this hods through in practice, the distinction between the two is a bit more burred as you wi notice when reading this chapter. J. Jonker and B. Pennink, The Essence of Research Methodoogy, DOI / _6, # Springer-Verag Berin Heideberg

112 98 6 Assessing Your Research requirements and criteria enabes the researcher to justify 2 the reasons for choosing a particuar methodoogy and subsequent methods and techniques for his research. This justification can take pace at three moments during the actua research process: (a) at the start of the research or (b) during the research and (c) after the research. In addition, a researcher wi amost certainy have to justify his resuts to different stakehoders: the externa cient being for exampe (a group of) peope who have to work with the outcomes of the research and the scientific community or interna cient, such as the supervisor or feow students. Conducting proper research impies the carefu choice and appication of criteria which reate to the nature of the research and therefore provide information about its quaity. To put it simpy: research shoud be conducted thoroughy. This impies it must be efficient, methodoogicay justifiabe, produce usefu resuts, as we as respond to the cient s needs and extend his knowedge and his possibiities to act. A this can be detaied in an endess ist of a sorts of possibe criteria, many of which the researcher (just starting out) wi be unaware, et aone abe to choose between or appy. In order to keep things workabe this ist of requirements is reduced to two main streams : scientific and practica requirements. Beow a shortist of criteria for each of these two streams can be found. The above overview is not compete, but it is sufficient to show that there are criteria and requirements of many sorts, coours and sizes. Choosing criteria is obviousy not something that shoud be done when the research is finished. In the remainder of this chapter we focus the attention on what these criteria are, to what and how they are reated and how they pay a roe in the (different phases of) research. By means of the distinction made between quaitative and quantitative research, guideines wi be provided as to the choice of criteria given a specific methodoogica approach. The bottom-ine of the chapter is to demonstrate how these criteria steer the research design and -process. Box 6.1: Criteria for Judging Research Scientific criteria: truth, testabiity, controabiity, objectivity, precision, consistency, reiabiity, repeatabiity, vaidity, the way terms are being made operationa, etc. Practica criteria: reevancy, grounded in practice, comprehensiveness, in time, affordabe, considering sensitivities and interests, competeness as far as the described probems are concerned, usabiity, etc. 2 To justify is show or prove to be right or reasonabe. A justification provides grounds, reason, basis, rationae, premise, rationaization, vindication, expanation; defense, argument, apoogia, apoogy, case (see same source and aso Chap. 8).

113 6.2 Jugging with Requirements and Criteria Jugging with Requirements and Criteria Let s start with an everyday exampe. Anyone who is driving a car can constanty monitor the speed by ooking at the speedometer. The speedometer measures how fast the car is moving in reation to the road. The criterion that enabes this measurement to be made is the road that is (obviousy) not moving. In addition, there are the traffic reguations that indicate the maximum speed which is aowed in certain situations (e.g., 50 km within a housing area). The driver of a four-wheeed motorised vehice is authorised to drive the car, as he proved that he is abe to hande this criterion by attending a driving schoo and passing the driving test successfuy. In short, he fits the requirements. This is a recognisabe situation. Yet, what this exampe does not carify is that athough the driver may maintain the speed imit of 50 km per hour, there is an characteristic of the situation which remains unknown: the condition of the road, street, or district (in brief, the context) in which he drives. When there are chidren paying in the streets, cycists passing by, a market going on or whatever, it is fooish or even dangerous to keep to the authorised speed. Any sensibe person knows that. It simpy means that a criterion ony functions when it is used wisey, in other words, a criterion has a functiona and context-bound pace in the research. This requires from the researcher the abiity to appy a criterion at the right time, the right pace and in a proper manner. This is determined by, among other things, the nature of the question ( open or cosed ), the nature of the (initiay chosen) methodoogy and the phase of research at that moment. What is more, capabe appication aso provides information about the way the researcher is handing the research and thus about the quaity of the researcher s research actions Cassification of Criteria After the previous expanation, it shoud be cear that requirements and criteria are not something just attached to research, a kind of add-on appicabe at any moment in time. Whie the criteria te us something about the actua research, the way criteria and requirements are handed are indicative for the eve of professionaism of the researcher. What compicates the matter here is that they can pay a different roe at different moments during the process of research. Therefore, deaing with criteria demands cassification. Such cassification is made here by distinguishing three stages in the research: (a) in advance, (b) during or (c) after the research. Exampes of criteria for each of these stages are given beow In Advance If the research starts with a cosed question, the researcher deveops a conceptua mode (see Chap. 3), which is then operationaised. During the conceptuaisation

114 100 6 Assessing Your Research and operationaisation of the mode, it is common to check with regard to various forms of vaidity: the degree to which the conceptua mode accuratey refects the specific theoretica concept(s) that the researcher is attempting to measure (aso see Gossary). In ine with many others we ca this construct vaidity. Construct vaidity is one-to-one inked to content or theoretica vaidity: are the theoretica notions and concepts used providing an accurate and truthfu representation of the dedicated body of knowedge in a particuar domain. Pease bear in mind that construct and content vaidity both appy to a kind of a-priori thinking; it tes us something about how the researcher creates a construct of the probematic reaity. As such it does not te much about how the actua research is carried out if this is done in a vaid way. If the research project starts with an open question, a particuar methodoogy is chosen in which both peope in the organisation and the researcher find appropriate ways to carry out the research together. The research starts with severa sensitising concepts: theoretica notions that guide the way of observing reaity (see Chap. 5). To carry out vaid research it is highy important that the participating peope are not ony famiiar with these notions but that they are aso meaningfu to them. They need to meet what are commony caed the requirements of comprehensibiity and traceabiity and communicabiity. Are the introduced notions described in such a way that they can be readiy understood? For whose benefit have they been deveoped? It goes without saying that choosing the proper anguage is vita here it is a in the words. This paces quite a different emphasis on the capabiities of the researcher. Here he is required to ink into the organisationa vocabuary and discourse without osing the aim of the research. Box 6.2: Exercise Regarding Market Opportunities Look at the foowing question: Does the market of do-it-yoursef toos offer an opportunity to introduce...? (Fi in something you think is appicabe). Answer the foowing: (a) which requirements do you think the (externa) cient wi make? and (b) which requirements do you think that the tutor of an undergraduate project wi make? Discuss, formuate and expain: Which requirements wi you make as a researcher? To what extent do they coincide (or not) with one of the two (or both) stakehoders above? During The researcher wi design and appy a measuring instrument for his cosed question (for exampe a questionnaire). It is with this instrument that he wi, sooner or ater, measure the phenomenon to be examined. Therefore, it is important that the instrument is abe to measure what it is supposed to measure. Specific quaity requirements monitor the standard of the instruments the researcher appies.

115 6.2 Jugging with Requirements and Criteria 101 Again we tak about construct vaidity but now it appies to the construction of the instrument. At the same time, it becomes important to account for the way the researcher empoys the instrument. How wi he choose the research popuation (samping?) and approach his respondents? This differs from an open research question. After the researcher has dug up a bit of information about the organisation he is researching, the first resuts wi foow in the form of some initia ines of thoughts, some observations (maybe even taken from different sources) a this supported by various (organisationa) documents. It is the researcher who wi seect a form in which he can communicate these initia resuts to the peope invoved. The researcher can, for instance, choose from techniques such as a workshop, a brainstorm session or a kind of group session in which a peope invoved have the opportunity to work on one and the same document (so-caed Dephi method). If that is to be the case it becomes important that the researcher can ensure that peope can say what they need to say in a anguage (or another form) that suits them? His behaviour and the criteria he empoys wi be refected in the process and techniques he chooses and pay a steering roe in achieving transparency, understanding or appicabiity for exampe Afterwards A researcher who started his research with a cosed question has in the meantime received two hundred of the three hundred questionnaires that he had sent out. Initiay, he is content as he has a response rate of over 60%. That promises to provide a good start in terms of reiabiity and vaidity. Yet, on further consideration it appears that more than haf of the respondents have not fuy competed the questionnaire. How wi the researcher dea with this data deficiency? If N ¼ 200 at the start, decreases to N ¼ 50 owing to the incompete questionnaires, is the researcher sti abe to make any statements about the popuation? What woud this mean for generaisabiity when associated with vaidity? Further anaysis of the questionnaires shows that there is one dominant sub-popuation within the origina target popuation that has answered most of the questions and sent back, proportionay, most of the questionnaires. What do these resuts signify and how wi the researcher justify this? As the exampe shows, one can easiy run into a kind of probems here, many of which coud have not been tacked in advance. Soving them during the actua research process is not ony a matter of competence and experience but aso of means such as time, money and avaiabiity of aternatives. What aso might happen is that the probems which arise are not surmountabe in a technica sense. This means the researcher is confronted with a diemma he has to sove one way or the other. After severa months of demanding research at a company that had contracted him to investigate a particuar matter (with an open question), our hypothetica researcher has to finaise the work by summarising his findings in a report. During

116 102 6 Assessing Your Research the research he has received every possibe support. Now it is a matter of formuating some neat concusions, making appropriate recommendations and putting everything in a readabe format. The most usefu and fastest way (namey, with a view to finishing the graduation project as soon as possibe) is to take a the materia and to write the report without any interference from third parties. However, during the research, the researcher has made a great effort to invove peope in the organisation. How can he reaise this invovement in the ast phase of his project as we? How wi he ensure that the resuts are formuated ceary, understandaby and reevanty, and the report is not written in an overy academic stye? The previous exampes show that there are different criteria and requirements at different moments. Moreover, they can change in the course of research. Criteria concern the deiberate actions in research, the instruments the researcher uses and the way he deas with them and the outcomes. It shoud by now aso be apparent that criteria depend on the methodoogy chosen and may differ substantiay from each other or, sometimes, even cash. Anyone who strives for comprehensibiity for those invoved can easiy become entanged with some form of vaidity or generaisibiity! Both the researcher who starts with an open question and the researcher who starts with a cosed question can strive for reiabiity. Nevertheess the significance of the term reiabiity can take a competey different meaning once research is underway. Generay, the requirements of sound research are cassified according to quaitative and quantitative research (see Chaps 4 and 5). This cassification has been used impicity up ti now. Beow a more succinct overview is given that refects the criteria that are usuay associated with these two research traditions. Box 6.3: Diemmas of Conducting Research From your previous research it has been shown that in the popuation examined there is one specific dominant subpopuation. During the research it became repeatedy obvious that the cient attaches great importance to the invovement of this particuar group in the impementation of possibe changes resuting from the project you are conducting. As a researcher, how wi you dea with this wish, knowing that you have a chance to get an appeaing job in the organisation if you carry out the research thoroughy? Box 6.4: Reiabiity? Look again at the research question beow and consider what the criterion reiabiity reay means here. Opt for an open or a cosed approach. We woud ike to research how workoad is experienced in our hospita. Present and discuss the resuts of your eaboration.

117 6.4 Quaitative Requirements Quantitative Requirements We think there are four foca questions when it comes to centra criteria for this ine of research: (a) What woud happen if you did the research a over again? (b) Did you achieve what you wanted to achieve? (c) Are the research resuts appicabe in the reevant situation? (d) Did you make a contribution to the body of knowedge, i.e., (existing) theory? This raises the issues of reiabiity and vaidity. Research is ony reiabe if it can provide simiar resuts a second time round. In order to enhance the reiabiity and subsequenty to demonstrate it, trianguation is used. The essence of trianguation is the appication and combination of various data sources or methods in order to show that simiar resuts can be achieved. Trianguation can be achieved by using different kinds of data (video images, interview reports, and observationa data). Trianguation can aso be accompished by etting other researchers participate (for instance severa interviews) and (or) by using different ways to ask the same (therefore different methods). Finay, through trianguation it is possibe to examine a phenomenon in reaity by means of different theories. When you measure what you intend to measure the research is presumed to be vaid. However, the question regarding vaidity comprises more than soey a judgement about the way of measuring. Vaidity aso concerns research as a whoe. Vaidity is based on an integra assessment of the extent to which empirica findings and theoretica considerations support the adequacy of the argumentation (Thomas 2006). There are many kinds of vaidity, such as vaidity of notions, construct vaidity, content vaidity, interna vaidity and externa vaidity. Vaidity of notions: the notions empoyed in statements regarding the theoretica framework wi need to be a correct interpretation of the (empirica) phenomena for which they are used. Interna vaidity: the semantic reationships that are presumed between the notions in statements of the conceptua mode have to be a correct interpretation of coherences between the examined phenomena that were found in reaity. Externa vaidity concerns generaisibiity in terms of time, pace and popuation. Obviousy, research shoud be controabe. We ike to ca this transparency. For this purpose, the researcher wi have to make the data avaiabe and accessibe to the assessors or other stakehoders if necessary. In business research this can be a compicated and even tricky criterion considering the possibe accessibiity, confidentiaity and, thus, reiabiity of some data. If the utiity comes into focus not ony reevance is important, but aso accuracy pays an essentia roe. The researcher shoud not forget for whom these resuts are reevant? 6.4 Quaitative Requirements Research that is focused on finding answers to an open question has sighty different requirements. The researcher wi continuousy have to consider whether the answers he has found provide the information needed to eaborate his question.

118 104 6 Assessing Your Research Yet, he is not the ony one who provides answers. The peope who are invoved in the research wi aso answer that question but might come up with different outcomes. They must at east understand which concusions have been drawn. The vaue of quaitative research further increases when the researcher succeeds in making perceptibe how and where he has conducted research (transparency again). Thus communicating intermediate resuts is essentia. What is at east as important, in comparison to the quantitative research approach, is the reiabiity of the researcher himsef. With a cosed quantitative approach the researcher s roe is considered to be neutra some woud even say instrumenta. In fact, the researcher wi need to be invisibe. With an open quaitative approach the researcher s roe is not neutra per se. The researcher s interpretation can actuay contribute to the search process but can aso bias through his behaviour. This is why the researcher s reiabiity is expicity emphasised. Trianguation gets a different character in this approach. The essence of trianguation is the utiisation, incusion and combination of different (data) sources in order to carify a number of aspects of reaity at the same time. A compicated criterion in this approach is when to actuay stop searching? In the iterature this is cassified under the denominator of saturation. Transated freey, saturation impies the moment in the research process when you reaise that you are not hearing anything new. It is possibe to expain this to the assessors of your research by means of trianguation techniques and subsequent data. When there are no aspects eft to eucidate the point of saturation has been reached. This may sound a bit funny when you read it for the first time but that is reay how it happens in practice. Obviousy, in this rather open and quaitative approach utiity pays a roe, as do transferabiity and communicabiity in the critica appraisa of the research. The peope who are invoved in the research wi have to understand the resuts and the researcher wi need to be abe to transfer these to them. Box 6.5: Research Criteria: Quaitative and Quantitative Listed beow you wi find an overview of the criteria of both quantitative and quaitative research. We eft out transparency and trianguation since both approaches have these in common athough with different connotations. Focus in particuar on the differences in the nature of these requirements and consider how you wi dea with these differences in your own research. Quantitative Reiabiity Vaidity Controabiity Repeatabiity Testabiity Accuracy Generaisabiity Quaitative Saturation Traceabiity Transferabiity Understandabiity Utiity Reiabiity Communaity

119 6.5 Responsibiity Assessment Responsibiity Assessment As indicated earier in this chapter, earning how to make deiberate and carefu use of these criteria and requirements can be difficut. Assessing what is good research is irrevocaby a job that is carried out by three parties : the researcher, the externa cient (company, externa supervisor of a graduation project etc.) and the interna cient (tutor of a graduation project etc.). Formuated in this way, it seems as if judging the research is a matter of an appraisa game with three (un) equa parties. Unfortunatey, this is not the case. The interna cient often has the experience (or even substantia experience) in guiding research projects and has, therefore, deveoped his own preferences about what he discerns to be good research. This impies that at the start of the research, once the question has been defined, the interna cient wi aready have a fairy compete idea of how the research shoud be put together and carried out, incuding its requirements. The researcher who has not yet had time to define the research question wi not know how to put together the research, which requirements are invoved and what these wi mean for his work. On the other hand, there is the externa cient. Once the question has been assigned, there is ony one dominant criterion that occurs at different moments (particuary towards the ending of a graduation project): What can we do with it? Can we use it? Wi it produce something that is vauabe? Of course, the externa cient aso attaches great importance to a thorough reaisation of the research. However, this is based on the assumption that possibe resuts wi need to be presented to the interna probem owners. In this respect, the term thorough research has a poitica meaning and pays a roe in actuay impementing the resuts ( We were abe to conduct thorough research thanks to by... (fi-in name of the institution); this is the resut and we have to use it somehow. We cannot ignore it. ) The researcher moves between those two parties armed with his own expectations, knowedge, ambition and interpretations. Sometimes he agrees with both parties, sometimes he doesn t and wants to stick to his own ine of reasoning. What can aso happen is that one of the two parties is extremey dominant. This may ead to the diemma of whom to respond to. Whatever the situation, conducting research is not simpe. In many cases it forms the end of a study and often is a first intense (professiona) confrontation with organisationa practice. And above a the research needs to be of such a quaity that it is possibe to compete the thesis or dissertation on time. It shoud come as no surprise that many students wi experience difficuties in deaing with these issues at times. Sometimes the externa cient provides such an attractive environment that the researcher becomes totay absorbed in the company. The student may be offered a job before he has graduated and subsequenty the research changes from a main priority to a side issue. Graduating fast then becomes a phrase that is often used. Yet, the bottom ine is that the externa cient does not assess the academic quaity. In the end, it is the interna cient who determines whether the research project is of sufficient quaity whether individuay, with his coeagues, or via a board of examiners or another

120 106 6 Assessing Your Research institution that monitors quaity. It is the interna cient who hods the power to grant permission to get the certificate or dipoma. What shoud the researcher do? How can he dea with the predicament in a practica way when he sti probaby acks experience? We, for starters by constanty asking questions and carefuy istening to the answers. Who defines the various requirements and are both cients aware of what these requirements impy? Have they discussed their requirements with each other and have they reached an agreement about them? If not, the researcher can stimuate it. Besides, the researcher can ook into the requirements that accompany the question and everything that has been previousy said about it in terms of methodoogy, method and technique taking his persona preference and basic attitude into account. It wi invove serious investigation using the reevant iterature and aso conversations with the interna and externa cient throughout the research project. These conversations shoud be deiberatey aimed at discussing the requirements and its possibe changes. It is the expicit responsibiity of the researcher to encourage such taks, to make notes about different perspectives at different moments in time in the form of memos, to confer with other undergraduates, or ask for the opinion of other tutors (regardess of whether they are directy invoved with the work or not). Such exchanges offers opportunities to shape and document the search process and hep to deiberatey appy the requirements and criteria that the research demands from the researcher. Actuay acting upon such findings is a part of conducting thorough research. Box 6.6: Changing Requirements During your Research On the basis of a cosed question you have started to work on a conceptua mode for a research project. The more you deve into the subject, the more you discover that you are not at a cear about where the content is going, et aone if you are in a position to eaborate it as it shoud be. The further you go, the more you have your doubts about the nature of the initia question. Your externa and interna cients are convinced that the probem definition that has been jointy estabished wi enabe you to design a research approach that eads to a questionnaire. How wi you hande this? Are you not making a serious mistake yoursef? Are you observing the situation propery? How wi you hande this diemma? 6.6 Criticism It shoud in the meantime be cear that both the quaitative and quantitative research approaches comprise a tremendous variety of requirements that are not aways easiy combined. Conducting accurate research based on one or both traditions (see Interude II) is not simpe. Combined with the demands of the interna or externa cient the researcher coud soon find himsef in a methodoogica minefied. These criteria aso provoke some criticism (see aso points of criticism at the end of Chaps 4 and 5). We ist what we think is important.

121 6.6 Criticism Quantitative Testing hypothesis. Striving for vaidity and reiabiity narrows down the reaity into something that is primariy measured by instruments such as conceptua modes eaborated into questionnaires. Questionnaires can be manipuated perfecty by the researcher, as we as by the respondents. Conceptua modes are primariy a (simpified) interpretation of a compex situation in reaity; therefore we shoud not attach too much vaue to them. Requirements of quantitative research predominanty concern the toos and their construction; the actua behaviour, thinking and intentions of peope can never be measured by means of these toos. Quantitative research eads by definition to an instrumenta and non-human approach. As a researcher you ony know if something has been impemented in a vaid way after the research has been concuded. By that time you wi be gone and have no say in the matter. Box 6.7: Communication Probems An organisation has a vivid interna communication probem. You are asked to design and conduct research into this probem. (a) Substantiate a quantitative approach and expain ceary which requirements accompany this approach. (b) Substantiate a quaitative approach and expain ceary which requirements accompany this approach. Subsequenty, compare the requirements that both approaches entai and with which you are confronted as a researcher. Provide a thorough anaysis on the basis of this comparison. Where does it ead you as a researcher? How are you going to justify your choice? Does it correspond with your known basic attitude? Quaitative Constructing hypothesis. Striving for understandabiity can cause the researcher to be accused of being subjective, so, by definition not academic. Operating on the basis of the saturation criterion provides more information about the researcher then about the coected data. Striving for appicabiity is not improved by a quaitative approach, as the researcher can hardy contribute his expertise to the research.

122 108 6 Assessing Your Research Operating on the basis of quaitative data taken from different sources makes the comparison of these data amost impossibe. Indeed, striving for a vague variation of reiabiity is the ony thing the researcher can do, for hard facts are acking. It does not take much effort to extend the points of criticism discussed above, yet this is pointess. What is important is that the researcher ceary knows that no research approach is perfect. However, it cannot be denied that in genera the scientific community has a distinct preference for quantitative research. This preference can be expained historicay and supported by what are considered to be the top-ranking journas. But does this preference sufficienty reate to a studies that focus on business in research? It is, of course, possibe to advocate a more trans- or interdiscipinary approach that is party intertwined when choosing a muti-methodoogy strategy. Yet, saying a this in, e.g., a research proposa does not automaticay impy doing as we and doing it propery. Therefore, we finish with a word of advice: Start with a restricted number of cear and manageabe criteria Appy them systematicay (and make this approach cear as we) Ony et go of them if changes in the research make it absoutey necessary In short, research shoud adhere to the KISS principe (Keep It Simpe, Stupid) 6.7 Chapter Summary This chapter discussed the criteria and requirements of sound research. A distinction has been made between scientific requirements and practica requirements ; appied research deas with both. Criteria have been distinguished according to the different phases of research (in advance, during and afterwards). This distinction makes it cear that there are different criteria at different times and these can actuay change during the course of research. Requirements may concern what the researcher is doing, the instruments he uses and the way he deas with the resuts competencies, experience and degree of professionaism have to be mentioned here. Criteria and requirements may differ or in certain situations even cash depending on the methodoogy, methods and techniques chosen. Subsequenty, an overview was provided of the criteria for quaitative or quantitative research. Whatever the chosen approach, transparency and trianguation are aways part of it. Finay, detais were provided regarding the parties invoved in the appraisa of the (conducted) research: the researcher, the externa cient and the interna cient. The chapter concuded with a critica discussion of criteria and requirements that reate to both quaitative and quantitative research.

123 References 109 References Arbnor, I. & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodoogy for creating business knowedge. London: Sage. Brewer, J. & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of muti-method research: synthesizing styes. London: Sage. Cois, J. & Hussey, R. (2009). Business research: a practica guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students (3rd ed.). New York: Pagrave McMian. de Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodoogy: foundations of inferences and research in the behaviora science. The Hague: Mouton. Miar, G. & Dingwa, R. (eds). (1997). Context and method in quaitative research. London: Sage. Robson, C. (2002). Rea word research. Oxford: Backwe Pubishers. Thomas, A. B. (2004). Research skis for management studies. London: Routedge. Thomas, A. B. (2006). Research concepts for management studies. London: Routedge.

124 Chapter 7 Acting and Organising A Theoretica Exporation of Methodoogy as a Specific Form of Action Abstract In the preceding chapters a description was provided of how to proceed in designing and conducting appied research in an organisation. By means of the fundamenta distinction observing through the eyes of the researcher or observing through the eyes of someone ese two principay different research paradigms have been set out. These paradigms comprise a huge diversity of research methodoogies and methods, as we as techniques, as has been demonstrated. However, the question as to what is methodoogy has ony been answered in part. To make up for this deiberate omission so far this chapter contains a theoretica exporation of the notion methodoogy. Therefore, we wi introduce two additiona famiies of methodoogy namey design- and intervention methodoogy. Together with the described approaches to research methodoogy this wi offer a more eaborate view. Furthermore, this view wi be connected with the notion of acting on the one hand and organising on the other. 7.1 Introduction Unti now, this book has focused on methodoogies needed for conducting research. In this respect, the question as to what methodoogy is seems to have been answered; methodoogy is associated with a specific kind of behaviour (in terms of thinking and acting) we ca research. An obvious and aready provided meaning is an expicit way of structuring one s thinking and actions in terms of research (see Gossary). A research methodoogy based on a specific way of perceiving reaity indicates the assumptions, criteria, rues and requirements the researcher needs to choose from and compy with in order to produce resuts that are obtained in a transparent way. We then ca these resuts reiabe and vaid. How the researcher makes his choices, his ine of reasoning, what he eaves out, and how he handes specific issues a ead to a contextuaised research design. Methodoogy can aso be understood as creating an action protoco or doctrine based on how the researcher does (or does not) do certain things, the order in which J. Jonker and B. Pennink, The Essence of Research Methodoogy, DOI / _7, # Springer-Verag Berin Heideberg

125 112 7 Acting and Organising these things have to be conducted a associated with requirements and criteria steering the actua process of research. Criteria can be used in order to make justifiabe statements about the nature and the quaity of actions and resuts (see aso Chap. 8). In this way, the action protoco in research prescribes which research activities in which order may ead to a specific desired (research) resut. This assumes causaity 1 in one s actions. As ong as the researcher within the framework of a chosen methodoogy, etc. makes use of the appropriate methods and techniques the resut wi be vaid fundamenta or appied knowedge. Using specific methodoogies for varying purposes is as norma to any science domain as seeping, eating and breathing for humans. Therefore, methodoogy shoud be considered the centre of (any) scientific action. Everything that does not pass the test of methodoogy wi be deemed unscientific and can be disregarded. In this respect, knowedge that has been generated in a methodoogicay justifiabe way wi be given the quaification scientific approva. Apart from being deiberatey naïve, the above description of methodoogy is a highy simpe and incorrect perspective of matters. It is naïve, as it narrows down the meaning and by that the scope of methodoogy to one specific form of action that is soey focused on conducting research. Impicity this assumes that there is ony one (sometimes even dominant) methodoogy a kind of one size fits a approach. In the preceding chapters it has been demonstrated that this is not to be the case. Fiing down methodoogy to a contextuaised research design shows the freedom to act of the researcher. This freedom to act becomes especiay discernibe within the framework of research acting from a muti-methodica perspective (see Interude II). Moreover, the assumption that methodoogy is ony focused on conducting research is incorrect in as far as it pushes the essentia meaning of methodoogy being a guideine for action to the background. From a broader ange methodoogy shoud be seen as the systematic anaysis and understanding of different kinds, different famiies of action. More specificay, thinking about methodoogy in a broader sense expores the why, the how and the wherefore of a particuar question or questions, as we as the aims and means of a particuar methodoogy or even a schoo of thought. Defined in this way it is infinitey richer in terms of scope and depth than at first thought. Adapted from a sentence by Foey (2005). This chapter considers methodoogy from this broader perspective athough we sti imit ourseves to organisations. It shoud be cear that we think methodoogy does not aways form the excusive responsibiity universe of the researcher but incudes structuring, respectivey changing actions of peope in organisations. In this way, methodoogy is expicity considered to be a theory of action 2 focused 1 Causaity refers to the assumption between a certain cause and its effect. Most common is the causaity where there is an assumed strict inearity between the act itsef and the (desired) effect taking pace over time. This sighty naïve way of thinking can be compemented with causaity in a reversed order, across time, by incident (serendipity) and so forth. 2 For those interested in this ine of thinking there is a highy sophisticated coection of Engish artices edited by Afred R. Mee caed The Phiosophy of Action pubished by Oxford University Press, 1997 (reprinted 2003). If you master French you can take a ook at Entre

126 7.2 Acting 113 here on organising. This expended perspective on methodoogy may we invove conducting proper research in different organisationa settings, but it may aso provide the principes, prescriptions, reguations and instruments to shape and design an organisation (in part or as a whoe) or carry out specific interventions 3 in that situation with the intention to improve or change. We think a kind of threeway perspective exists in which the additiona perspectives are indicated tentativey as (a) design methodoogy and (b) intervention methodoogy in addition to (c) research methodoogy. In order to be abe to further eaborate this perspective, it is usefu to start making some comments on acting. Box 7.1: A Simpe Exercise Regarding Everyday Acting Which actions are necessary to fry an egg propery? Carefuy describe the necessary actions and the proper order of things to achieve the desired resut (which is determined by your criteria). If necessary, make a diagram of the different steps and ook at the compeing order of the steps. And no, it is not possibe to fry an egg if the pan is not paced on the gas yet, regardess whether you have it the gas or not! 7.2 Acting It is impossibe for humans not to act. Laying, sitting, standing or waking, taking or being sti, opening doors or cosing them, ooking or not trying to ook: you are aways doing something since it is impossibe to do nothing. When acting is understood in the sense of organising and change, in processes that aso impicate the actions of others, then humans act from the beginning to the end, day in day out with a certain intention 4 in mind. One has to decide to act aso when the decision is not to act. Acting impies: intentionay intervening in the fow of events with which the actor (e.g. researcher, advisor, empoyee, housewife, manager, and Dire et Faire a coection of essays written by Danie Sibony, pubished in 1989 by Grasset (Paris). Both works are to be considered for the advanced reader though. 3 Intervention, iteray meaning coming in between, refers to the deiberate act or series of consecutive acts of someone in a specific situation with the intention to ater that situation according to e.g. an overa pan, concept, mode, norm or anything ese. Intervening changes the course of events and, conversey, the course changes the action. By intervening differences are reaised. Any intervention is by definition normative. Interventions can be reaised through (dedicated) instruments previousy referred to as methods and techniques. Acts are, therefore, instrumenta. 4 The notion of intention points at the assumption that when an act is deiberate this deiberateness is based upon the act itsef and a supposed effect. This is one to one inked to the notion of causaity. Yet, when introducing intention it assumes that the actor has the knowedge (the socaed savoir-faire ) to choose an act and either have himsef or others act upon this chosen act with a specific goa the origina intention in mind.

127 114 7 Acting and Organising author) the one who acts is confronted. By acting, actors bend...this fow to their wi (Hoekstra 1992). Acting takes pace in a specific socia context we ca organisations; one that is (re) produced by and through actions. The most probematic here are the acts themseves since acting can take different forms and shapes and aso because deiberate non-acting is aso a manifestation of acting. Peope (re) construct and (re)produce their own (socia) environment in and through their actions and interactions 5 with others. The environment is created as a co-production of peope and their actions. Human interaction runs the risk of becoming incomprehensibe if one assumes the context to be stabe, ambiguous and not socia by nature. Any socia environment is ambiguous, pura and above a socia-dynamic. Acting is an intentiona attempt to organise that environment, to exert infuence on it in order to obtain, e.g. infuence or a desired order. Organising from a research methodoogy perspective comprises observing, examining, assessing and intervening in those organisations that we produce and (re)discover as assignments, ambitions or probems in and by our acting. The organising itsef seen as a bunde of acts and interactions based on intentions can take pace from an individua or (deiberatey chosen) coective perspective. Observed from this perspective organising wi continuousy change and is subject to constant change as a resut of its fundamenta socia-dynamic character. 6 Organising never stands sti. The path that shoud be taken when organising demands paying attention to certain things such as infuence (cause-resut assumption), effect (impact), durabiity, time and overa coherence. At the same time, this requires and assumes a form of conceptuaising of the individua s own roe and position. Making deiberate choices is something typicay human. Choosing means doing things and not doing other things. It entais acting with a certain intention. In this way, not choosing can aso be considered a certain form of choosing. Making a choice for a specific direction or a goa requires insight into one s own infuence in order to distinguish the intention of one s own action in creating and maintaining what is being organised. This is organising that does not ony need to concern the organisation and its functiona requirements, but aso more broady speaking take into consideration the taents, capabiities and abiities of each person. From this perspective, the process of deveoping and earning, acquiring new knowedge and skis, can be considered as the deveopment of a persona action repertoire. It is in the act of acting that peope earn mosty through tria and error and, thus, 5 Again we touch upon an intriguing notion here. Interaction can be defined as the (ongoing) acts or actions between actors based on those acts. It is in the stream of ongoing events that actors act and interact on the basis of each other s acts. For those interested: Kar Weick (1979) has written a andmark book on the phenomenon of organisationa interactions (see references at the end of this chapter). 6 As can be observed we take the expicit view here that organisations are fundamentay socia by nature. They are created and exist because peope have done so intentionay. There are of course other views on the on ontoogica nature of organisations. See for an exceent overview: Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization, London: Sage Pubications.

128 7.2 Acting 115 discover the imits of their own capabiities and actions and subsequenty their own (imited) infuence on the (re)construction of a certain environment within or outside organisations. Box 7.2: The Nature of Acting Discuss one or more of the foowing statements preferaby in a group. Pease note: there are no right or wrong answers. What do peope do when they act in organisations? Can you provide exampes? And one step further... How is acting aimed at designing distinguished from acting aimed at organising? How is it expressed? How is acting aimed at change distinguished from norma organisationa acting? And who conducts it? Box 7.3: Manageria Acting: Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurs have to dea with many uncertainties. They a have their own strategy and phiosophy, their own cuture when trying to hande these uncertainties. Moreover, they became an entrepreneur, by reying on their intuition; that is what they are good at. With a purey forma system this is not feasibe. So coud it be that true entrepreneurship is the art of handing uncertainties? Accepting that viewpoint woud make quite a few MBAs redundant. Box 7.4: The Rationaity of Thinking What occupies me is the idea that you think that you are thinking. You think that you steer your ife by thinking. However, this is sef-deception. Thinking does not exist....what you think in hindsight to be a rationa reasoning, in reaity is an emotiona structure that you need for the occasion. Quoted from: De Harde Kern and Frida Voges (1994) Action Repertoire A capabiity to act is expressed in one (or more) acting repertoire(s). Such a repertoire provides a (pre-programmed) set of instructions about how to act in certain situations: what to do, what to say and what not to do. This is not ony very handy but aso mandatory to survive since no one coud cross a busy street without such a dedicated repertoire. Methodicay eaborated an action repertoire is

129 116 7 Acting and Organising an individua s coection of methods and techniques that are deemed usefu to retain either on the basis of experience or cognitive conviction. If I do it this way, I know I wi get the desired resut, or I have earned to do it in this way are expressions of this individua repertoire. Athough the owner of the repertoire probaby thinks that he is unique in his doing, it appears that such repertoires are expicity shaped on the basis of (socia) norms and other forms of societa conditioning and discipine. A considerabe part of the individua and coective earning processes is empoyed to produce, compete, accentuate and earn how to combine these repertoires. We frequenty ca this sociaisation or with a sight twist of meaning institutionaisation. These processes can be considered as forms of discipine: earning what is aowed and what not. Once again it comes in very handy to know how to act in a specific organisation what the hidden rues are. In this process of discipine, copying and demonstrating pay important roes. Therefore, the transfer of a specific action repertoire is something that has to be earned. In the course of time, we appear to have earned naturay how to act in a certain situation. Questions such as how to get up in the morning, what to do next or which words to use in a common encounter can be answered immediatey by appeaing to the appropriate action repertoire. This repertoire is saved in causa maps or in screens. A we-baanced and broad action repertoire ready to impy in a variety of situations is thus very usefu. Time and again it gives cear indications of how to act not ony intentionay but aso purposefuy. Conducting research concerns a specific form of acting besides organising, eating, seeping, driving, cooking, cherishing, changing, rebuiding, coecting, gardening, aying bricks and ooking and demands a specific action repertoire. It sounds sef-evident, but it is not Refecting Humans have the advantage that they are abe to refect on their actions and that of others maybe it is that particuar taent that distinguishes man from other iving creates. Did I hande that we? or Shoud I dea with that differenty next time? These are questions that pertain to refection. Refection can take pace in advance or in hindsight and incudes the menta or visua act of assessing actions. It goes without saying that one can refect on one s own action and on those performed by others. Because a great part of our actions takes pace seemingy automaticay, 7 it is desirabe or even wise to refect on one s own actions every once and a whie. Aso because actions tend to be sef-evident there is a natura incination to prefer a specific kind within the (potentia) action repertoire, because it fees famiiar, it is usefu, it gives a secure feeing and it is amost certain to work. We tend to stick to 7 Just imagine for one moment that you have to (re)construct from scratch a the actions invoved in getting up in the morning and preparing for casses.

130 7.2 Acting 117 what we know works. Over time we deveop our persona preferences nothing wrong with that. Yet, the resut comes down to a tight set of a possibe actions. However, there is another reason to refect criticay and frequenty on the avaiabiity or usefuness of (your own or somebody ese s) action repertoire. Anyone who wants to do something wi (intentionay or unintentionay) make a pan in advance. Anyone who wants to go shopping wi make a ist (even if ony in his head). Prior to taking action it is apparenty possibe to refect on the way you wi act in a particuar situation. In your mind you can visuaise your action in the future and assess its effect beforehand: in this way, you are making a future oriented action pan. Conducting research aso requires carefu refection of your own actions (in advance, during and afterwards) and requires that you pan the research activities. Doing research is not a form of spontaneous or intuitive action or (especiay at the beginning) a form of acting according to routine. Conducting research is a highy specific way of acting. Action panning within the context of research resuts in a (suitabe) design (methodoogy, methods, etc.), reasoned by the researcher (and) (or) others invoved by taking into account the nature of the research question nature and context in which it occurs. This panning concerns taking specific actions in research and tries to anticipate probems and possiby eiminate them by appeaing to (potentia) soutions from compementary action repertoires. It aso indicates (finay) how the researcher wi try to achieve them. Action panning that has been we prepared wi resut in a research action pan. In this pan the researcher indicates his intentions, his interventions and the causaity of steps over time a this to achieve a desired resut. When methodoogy is described in this way, it becomes apparent that action reading, action repertoire and action panning are a in ine with each other. Moreover, it seems as if methodoogy not ony provides the path aong which to act but aso to refect on this action. 8 Impicity it aso becomes cear that acting within the context of organising actuay comprises specific groups of activities such as anaysing, organising, designing and changing. 9 8 Learning as a resut of research can take pace through the systematic use of memos (see Chap. 5) in itsef a technique. This is a fine practica exampe of how the individua researcher can keep track of his own ine of reasoning during the process of carrying out his research. The actua earning appears over time when reading back through these memos. A of a sudden dominant themes, preoccupations and patterns wi appear. That is rea earning in action. 9 Throughout this paragraph we have deiberatey omitted to touch upon two schoary debates. One concerns defining the nature of the act itsef. When is an action an action? Are actions ony physica or is taking aso an action? The second debate concerns the question as to when actions are say generic everyday common actions or organisationa. Peope bring common actions to any organisationa setting (they drink coffee, have unch and tak about the weather). Where the boundary ies between those actions and specific organisationa actions is hard to determine. When you meet the boss in the corridor an tak briefy about you common hobby, what kind of action is that?

131 118 7 Acting and Organising Box 7.5: Discussion Regarding Everyday Acting Draw up a ist of a (or most) possibe kinds of action that you can do in a norma day (for instance, think about making coffee, taking a shower, cycing and eating). When you compete the ist, check to see if you can subdivide it into different criteria such as work, hygiene, earning, etc. Make sure your criteria are cear. Subsequenty, discuss each other s ist, criteria and cassification (in arge or sma groups). Box 7.6: Some Definitions of Acting Acting Intentiona intervention in the fow of events with which the researcher the person who acts is confronted. Action Repertoire A compex (pre-programmed) set of instructions expaining how to hande a specific situation, saved in causa maps or frames of reference. Action Pan A pan in which the researcher outines the individua steps that wi be taken at different moments in order to achieve a specific resut. 7.3 Norma Organisationa Actions in Reation to Research Action Based on the previous section the inevitabe question is how norma organisationa action differs from the kind of activity that has been previousy indicated as research action. After a, in both cases it is a matter of a dedicated action repertoire, panning and execution. We ike to fie down the distinction between norma and research action to two core eements Knowing Anyone who is conducting research aims to find some answers. Why do Eskimos greet each other with their noses? And why do the French greet each other with three kisses? Why do the Spanish take siestas? Why do the Engish eat kippers for breakfast? Why do peope keep driving cars despite the omnipresent traffic congestion in The Netherands? Finding the appropriate answers to questions unanswered before the start of the research resuts in knowedge. This knowedge can be empoyed, for instance by presenting soutions, suggesting changes or by drawing

132 7.3 Norma Organisationa Actions in Reation to Research Action 119 up an impementation pan. 10 The product of research is a kind of knowedge (which may ead to actions) that is created on the basis of actions that are subjected to their own rues of the game. The fact that knowing can be expressed in different ways or may contain various meanings for different parties tends to compicate the issue. Knowing may directy concern improving an existing oca action repertoire ( If we adjust this procedure in this way, we wi have fewer accidents in the future ), but it may aso concern a certain organisation-bound thinking technique for instance: The research carifies how we think about this subject. What is more, knowing may resut in a coective and individua meaning that may sti entai differences: I did not know that we thought so differenty about it. This shows that the reationship between knowing and acting is definitey not one and the same Justifying Justifying concerns knowedge of a competey different kind. It is being abe to prove how you obtained a particuar piece of knowedge. In other words, you are abe to justify the way that you obtained this knowedge. This is justification you provide to the cient (the organisation that presents the probem) or to the tutor of your undergraduate project (the organisation that sees to it that you conduct your research propery). The justification assuming that there is a probem definition, a research objective and a research question is provided by drawing up a research pan that expains how you wi take on the research, giving detais of the path you wish to foow and how you wi draw up and reaise your research. Depending on the question s nature (open or cosed) you wi know this at the start of the research project. To be abe to justify your research requires deiberate choices with regard to the way the research has been panned; it requires methodoogy, methods and techniques that suit the research. It demands requirements and criteria in order to check whether panned actions match the actions that actuay took pace. It requires standards in order to determine the simiarities or deviations and to answer the question as to whether these are sti within the margins. Knowing that you have deiberatey deveoped knowedge in a justifiabe way is one of the most distinct features that distinguish common organisationa acting from what we have been caed research acting. As such, it ceary can be seen as a specific form of action. 10 Action pans are intentionay created designs to bring about change no matter the nature of that change. What we do in such an impementation pan is to transate a-priori knowedge represented by views, opinions, modes and norms into interventions creating a desired (new) situation. The change aid down in this impementation pan is mainy driven by the criterion of improvement, the centra assumption being that change can be instrumentaised.

133 120 7 Acting and Organising Box 7.7: Discussion: Methodoogy and Action Discuss to what extent (and why) the statement(s) is (are) justifiabe that methodoogy is simiar to action or that action is simiar to methodoogy. In preparing these statements think about a those forms of action (and acting) that have not yet been discussed. It may be usefu to mention some of them in order to underine your argument Acting and Organising If research can be defined as a specia form of acting, then it is obvious that this is aso possibe for the notion organising. In the previous sections a number of reated notions have been discussed that are appicabe here, too. For instance, organising is determined by intentionaity, which when transated into business jargon is repaced by the term purposefuness. Organising is truy socia by nature, which is expressed by the continuous interaction processes between peope as we as the fact that it is shaped on the basis of agreements (for the sake of carity we wi eave the term emotion aside). Just as research is a process activity, so is organising. Moreover, an organisation can be perfecty described by referring to the set of (oca) action repertoires and action pans. So, at first inspection organising and research have a ot in common. A coser ook reveas that organisations often have their own specific action repertoire that is expressed in, for instance, behaviour, concepts, anguage and habits that are typica for one specific organisation. Typica for this repertoire is that it oses significance outside the organisation. Understanding why and how such a contextuaised repertoire has been created and is maintained is an exciting fied of study for a vast number of peope. As a resut, organising can be defined as the creation and continuous reguation of organising processes that are aimed at a variety of goas inside and outside the organisation, individua or coective. Organising thus becomes structuring interactions and is constanty in fux. Therefore, organising invoves deiberatey working on change. What is more, organising creates a permanent form of change. It impies changing in the sense of creating organising processes that take pace on the basis of conventions about what is common here, expressed in sets of action repertoires. Box 7.8: Discussing the Nature of Organising Just as there are a variety of research methodoogies, one coud advocate the creation of an organisation or organising methodoogy. It woud be interesting to know whether such a methodoogica point of view woud produce additiona vaue (and insights) for the way peope think about organisations and/or organising, or whether it woud soey resut in the deveopment of new terminoogy. What do you think?

134 7.4 Design and Change 121 Box 7.9: Discussing a Methodoogy of Organising Jointy choose a specific theory or concept about organisations respectivey organising that is famiiar to everyone, for exampe a mechanistic concept. Subsequenty, discuss whether you can imagine the concept of an organising methodoogy and what it entais. 7.4 Design and Change What we have brought about is a perspective on organisations in which change is an integrated part of organising. Change and organising are two sides of the same coin. The moment one starts to organise it impies creating deiberate change. This ine of reasoning is certainy not common. For decades thinking about how to structure an organisation and then how to bring about change were two distinct discipinary fieds. In fact this rather artificia distinction can sti be found in many educationa programmes or consutancy practices. It shoud come as no surprise that over a ong period of time, many different methods have been deveoped either to guide the process of structuring or bring about change. 11 Changing an organisation is based on a number of impicit or expicit assumptions and reated interventions about the most effective way of organising. They again underine a specific methodoogy, i.e. one that entais intervention. Creating change in organisations demands a suitabe intervention methodoogy, one that takes the socia and technica side of any enterprise into account. Acting on purpose here abeed as intervening on the basis of these assumptions impies a dedicated methodoogy based on its own body of knowedge expressed in methods, toos and techniques. The term change as used academicay and in daiy (organisationa) anguage is characterised by pura meanings that often resut in a vague form of not being determined. Nevertheess, many artices, reports and books write about change and its creation as if every coeague, consutant and manager knows exacty what it impies. This is often preceded by an amost aways incompete and symptomatic ist of factors, respectivey deveopments that boosted the need for change, for instance gobaisation, digitaisation, transformation and so forth. Subsequenty, the author presents his prescription for change without any form of theoretica expanation et aone justification. Often his recipe has been deveoped on the 11 Athough tempting we refrain here from reay touching upon iterature in the fied of organisationa change. For those interested take a ook at for exampe: Cummings, T. G. en Worey, C. G., (2001) Essentias of Organization Deveopment & Change, South-Western Coege Pubishing, Cincinnati, Ohio (VS); Huczynski, A., (1987) Encycopaedia of Organizationa Change Methods, Gower (GB) or Jonker, J., (1995) Toobook for Organizationa Change: A practica approach for managers, Van Gorcum, Assen just to name a few pubications.

135 122 7 Acting and Organising basis of a imited number of case studies and mixed with his seasoned experience and authority. The accompanying argumentation supporting his resuts is often aong the ines: This has succeeded in practice; it is effective and therefore you coud appy it as we. Yet, in the huge amount of iterature that has been produced about organisationa change the meaning of terms such as changing and change remain theoreticay minimay founded. It is appeaing to provide a critica anaysis of the existence and nature of the often-impicit methodoogy upon which the changing of organisations is based. Such a methodoogy works on the supposition that there are actors who deiberatey want to or have to intervene in organisations. Changing intentionay is aso based on impicit or expicit notions about the way to be foowed in brief: on methodoogica assumptions. This methodoogy is based on a sense of order to intervene and the subsequent use of an appropriate methodoogy. It is common to describe the intervention itsef the actua infuencing act (Van Beugen 1981, p. 25) in terms of intervening or interventions. Taken together, the term intervention methodoogy consists of: the way in which a user of this methodoogy is abe to reaise changes intentionay by making use of interventions. This is an intervention methodoogy that may concern the hard as we as the soft aspects of an organisation. It is based on both physica and socia technoogy and instruments that are derived from it. Schoary debates about change, its fundamenta reation to organising and the cear methodoogy that has resuted are even harder to find. When considering for a moment the Research Pyramid introduced earier as a Change Pyramid even the advanced reader wi find it hard to find academic readings focussing on the methodoogy of change and underying paradigms. Hoekstra wrote: It seems as if the theoretica issue of change is carefuy eft in the midde or is possiby even avoided. (1992, p. 112). Twenty-five years ater this situation has hardy changed Patriarch Lewin Change in organisations is based on the ideas of Lewin (1951) since the Second Word War. Lewin designed a rather mechanistic approach of the stages for change in terms of a quasi-stationary baance between factors that are stimuating and those that are sowing down. A specific quasi-stationary baance (or: steady state) can be changed by (1) unfreezing the baance (unfreezing), (2) reaising the desired changes (moving) in order to (3) freeze the newy achieved state of baance (refreezing). Innumerabe methods and techniques and variants have been deveoped in order to reaise this basic pattern. Lewin s anaysis describes, from a specific amost mechanistic perspective, the behaviour of peope in organisations and how to approach desired change but does not anayse the change itsef (aso see for exampe Hoekstra 1992, p. 112). Change is no more than a phase in a process, but what happens there and how it happens remains hidden in a back box.

136 7.4 Design and Change Criticism It is remarkabe that precisey this naïve method of Lewin, this basic pattern, erroneousy aso caed mode, forms the basis for approximatey nine of the ten changes. The same content can be found in organisationa pans such as Vision 2000, Tracks towards change or Customer First. The evauation of the resuts attained using this method aways shows the same pattern: seven out of every ten change projects are not reaised; if they do get off the ground they fater, get bogged down or what frequenty occurs are caught up by new deveopments that require a different approach or new changes. Despite a the methodoogica probems attached to research into the success or faiure of change processes, it may be worth questioning whether this popuar method and the methodoogy behind it, reate to the nature of change issues peope face when organising. On coser anaysis, the intervention methodoogy for bringing about change is predominanty grounded in an instrumenta soution to a fundamentay socia issue; no wonder that each approach based on this perspective faces resistance. The current intervention methodoogy is deveoped from a natura science concept based upon a mechanica order of reaity. Subsequenty the structure of being abe to know what we know and how we know it eads to a cear approach for deveoping knowedge about reaity. In this approach a distinction into two basic attitudes is assumed: an expert approach versus a deveopment approach. It is possibe that the ast 100 years of business research have actuay ony served to show that (a) there is a tension between those two approaches, (b) how this tension can be moreor-ess reduced respectivey soved from different perspectives and (c) that the socia component of this (hybrid) construction is harder than structura or process aspects. Changing effectivey presumes (a) a dedicated theory about action, (b) a paradigmatic concept about what organising is and (c) an (intervention) methodoogy that corresponds to (a) and (b). The question is how to define a suitabe methodoogy, which eements shoud be taken into account and how to transfer or use these eements. This requires some serious critica refection in order to achieve different ways of thinking in methodoogica terms Action and Designing Just as one can refect on the reationship between organising, change and action, it is aso possibe to refect on designing organisations. Designing makes what needs to be organised visibe. If making organisationa choices is interpreted broady, it invoves estabishing those sets of coherent actions that given the nature of the product or service to be produced are most appropriate. We tend to ca this efficient (and) (or) effective. The way this is done and the accompanying presumptions and suppositions that pay an important roe can in a simiar way, when taken together, be considered as a design methodoogy. A design methodoogy concerns

137 124 7 Acting and Organising the way peope think about shaping organisations. Designing can be defined as structuring actions on the basis of norms and criteria (for exampe efficiency and effectiveness) in ight of certain efforts. Two basic attitudes can be distinguished: a functiona design approach and a socia construction approach. 12 However, this book does not expicity dea with designing and structuring organisations, as there are aready exceent pubications in this fied. Briefy, however, what comes to ight is that thinking about methodoogy for designing again touches upon the previousy described genera methodoogica point of reference. Moreover, it possiby underines the fact that the researcher shoud be abe to deiberatey say what kind of methodoogy he is working with in order to do justice to the usefuness requirement of appied research. The chosen cassification of methodoogies is definitey not common. Whereas research methodoogy has a ong tradition embedded in scientific theoretica deveopments, this is definitey not the case for design and intervention methodoogy. Design methodoogy has a tradition dating back about 100 years. On coser examination, it becomes cear that for about 70 years during this period the prevaiing question was how to achieve efficient and effective functiona designs. Intervention methodoogy has been an issue of considerabe interest since the Second Word War and aigned with mainstream concepts about designing organisations has been centred around the question of controabe change. What both traditions have in common, however, is a strong focus on technique or techniques as we as instruments. 7.5 Methodoogy and Technique In a particuar design change materiaises thanks to the use of techniques by an actor (advisor, researcher, manager, etc.). Certainy, one can question once more whether the nature of these techniques is taken into consideration by the actor and aso if these techniques have been chosen in ine with a corresponding methodoogy and method. As a technique can be used within discriminating designs, techniques do tend to deveop a ife of their own. Having these techniques at your disposa wi not naturay ead to sound designs respectivey successfu changes. Techniques are instrumenta means. They wi steer the action with a more or ess precise description of how it shoud be done. 13 Appying a specific technique is not a key to deaing 12 Those who are interested to better understand these two approaches are advised to read Mintzberg s andmark book caed Structuring in Five s first, then reed the aready referred to work of Kar Weick and finay, to understand the scope of structuring possibiities between those two perspectives one coud read Morgan s Images of Organization. These three pubications as a whoe wi most probaby serve as an adequate introduction. 13 Techniques can be seen as a condensed form of know-how and subsequent know-what. As such, they are recipes for action transferring certain savoir-faire.

138 7.5 Methodoogy and Technique 125 propery with methodoogy; the choice of a specific technique is predominanty chosen on the basis of assumed causaity. As a resut the acting is graduay instrumentionaised whereas the technique becomes a form of socia technoogy that may invove a particuar way of thinking and action. Especiay in the consutancy practice, it can be repeatedy observed that this socia technoogy is sod with attractive packaging as the panacea to many organisationa- and change probems. The choice for suitabe socia technoogy is moreover steered by the way in which parties that are invoved probematise their situation. A consequence of this practice is that deaing with probems is graduay narrowed down to buying respectivey seing the socia technoogy that appears to fit a specific situation on the basis of who is abeing best. Simiar to the introduced distinction between different sorts of methodoogy, it is aso possibe to make a distinction between design techniques and intervention techniques. For instance, design techniques are techniques that concern the (re-) structure of (organisationa) processes such as Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) or the construction of a management system ike ISO Intervention techniques are those techniques that a researcher or advisor can use in order to change or improve a certain situation. Random exampes are: brainstorm sessions, confrontationa meetings, distributing posters, instaing a buddy system, creating a top-hundred meeting and so forth. This cassification is neither watertight nor excusive. For instance, research techniques can be used as intervention techniques as we (for exampe the use of a group discussion technique to go over a certain probem). Moreover, the way in which a design technique can be used may uncover more information (e.g. empoyees describing the processes in which they are invoved within the framework of redesigning them). If and how these techniques are empoyed depends on the method and underying methodoogy, but aso on the (intentiona) choices that the researcher and/or advisor makes with regard to the goa he wants to achieve. Box 7.10: Techniques Revisited Look for a number of frequenty appied techniques in (professiona) iterature. For instance, think about a SWOT anaysis, a Life-Cyce Anaysis (LCA) or the protoco for a brainstorm session (but there are tons more!). Discuss the nature of the technique and what can be said about it from the perspective of its method. Box 7.11: Reating Techniques to a Methodoogy Check whether some of the techniques you frequenty use can be attributed to one (or more) of the previousy described methodoogies. Do you interchange them? Have you ever considered doing so?

139 126 7 Acting and Organising 7.6 Chapter Summary This chapter again ooked at what methodoogy is. Its goas were not ony to ook at anaysing probems in organisations, but aso to methodoogies reated to (re) designing or changing organisations. The essence has been to underine the fact that methodoogy is both usefu in daiy ife and in working in organisations (in whatever roe). Subsequenty, a distinction has been introduced between three types of methodoogy: research methodoogy, design methodoogy and intervention methodoogy. Furthermore, centra notions such as action, intervention and organising where introduced, eaborated and inked to each other. The chapter as a whoe provided some critica thinking in the fied of methodoogy, on the one hand, and on organisations and change on the other. References Bassaa, G. (2001). The evoution of technoogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoekstra, M. H. R. (1992). Doen en aten; handeingstheorie van organiseren en veranderen. Muiderberg: Coutinho. Lewin, K. (1951). Fied theory in socia science. New York: Harper. Weick, K. E. (1979). The socia psychoogy of organizing. London: Addison Wesey. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage.

140 Chapter 8 Eaborating Your Own Research Design Writing a Proposa, Hepfu Questions and a Fina Checkist Abstract This ast chapter summarises the preceding seven chapters by providing questions and checkists that can be used to prepare and conduct (individua) research. Therefore, it does not add any new knowedge or insights that have not been discussed in the previous chapters. Anyone who has imited time avaiabe to study the content of this book is advised to read the first and second chapter and depending on the nature of the research either the fourth or fifth chapter. Then, take a quick ook at the sixth chapter and this ast one. The chapters and interudes inbetween mainy serve to consoidate the different perspectives that are being discussed. Chapter seven can be read as a kind of bonus and contains a theoretica examination of the reationship between action and methodoogy within an organisationa context. 8.1 Introduction Conducting sound research is no sinecure. It comprises various (theoretica and methodoogica) pitfas you can identify in advance. But once you think that you are on the right track a kinds of unexpected things might happen that force you to revise your pans. Moreover, different stakehoders (interna or externa) make different demands that wi not aways coincide with each other. Assuming an open or cosed question eaborated into a research strategy and design for quaitative or quantitative research the actua research can sti be structured in fundamentay different ways. Which choices are made party depend on features such as the persona preferences of the researcher, the time avaiabe, the requirements that are inked to the resuts and a considerabe number of other things. Appropriate methods and techniques have to be seected carefuy and consciousy. It is not sufficient to just write a questionnaire or carry out some semi-structured interviews. Yet, even after carefu consideration once started it may aso be necessary to change the approach that has been chosen on the basis of provisiona resuts. J. Jonker and B. Pennink, The Essence of Research Methodoogy, DOI / _8, # Springer-Verag Berin Heideberg

141 128 8 Eaborating Your Own Research Design Taken as a whoe conducting research is ike a Chinese jugger baancing ten pates on turning sticks. No wonder some students confronted with designing and conducting a thorough piece of research during their studies often appear unabe to see the wood for the trees. Yet here the German proverb appies: Übung macht der Meister meaning that it is ony through exercise through doing research one earns to know how to hande things propery. In preceding chapters a concise attempt has been made to describe the essence of (research) methodoogy. With the exception of Chap. 7 which contains a theoretica refection about action, organising and methodoogy this book has focused on a the eements and considerations that pay an important roe in conducting sound research. The deiberatey chosen brevity does entai the risk that ess time has been spent on certain subjects than they actuay deserve. Fortunatey, there is a weath of existing (methodoogica) iterature that can rectify this faw. It is with this in mind that a ist of references has been incuded at the end of each chapter to enabe an in-depth study of these subjects. In concusion, a eements (considerations, parts, questions, criteria etc.) that pay a roe in designing and conducting research wi be isted here in the form of questions. These questions wi be accompanied by a brief expanation and supported by a fina checkist. Anyone who experiences troube answering these questions or who wants to find out what is behind the question can return to the reevant chapters that are mentioned after each question. The questions have been deiberatey numbered, in order to faciitate the task of identifying or tracing back the questions to the reevant chapter. However, this does not mean that the questions have to be answered in that seemingy compeing order. It is usefu way to proceed, but not mandatory. You are free to choose the order of answering the questions in your own way. But, before moving to these questions and the fina checkist, we start with an outine of a research proposa. 8.2 The Research Proposa 1 Many academic institutes require students to write a research proposa before they actuay start their research. The foowing remarks provide a generic guide to structure the content of your research proposa. Working tite Describe the topic using a tite and subtite. Generay the (main) tite is meant to attract attention whie the subtite provides an indication of the approach to the topic often making a reference to the methodoogy being used a this in one (!) sentence. 1 This research proposa outine was taken from the book written by Chris Hart (1998) caed Doing a Literature Review. Hart has written a coupe of highy practica books for students when it comes to searching and anaysing iterature. We have made our own adaptation of one of the appendices he is providing.

142 8.2 The Research Proposa 129 Abstract Introduction Scope Aims Objectives Justification Literature Methodoogy Snappy summary of the research topic, stating the centra probem, issue or phenomenon and where the gap ays for the research you want to undertake together with an indication of what and how you want to achieve. Pease be aware that writing a high quaity abstract is a though job. Limit yoursef to a maximum of 350 words (one page A4). Provides a brief yet ivey introduction to the subject/probem, its context, important theoretica notions, major methodoogica approach, the reevance and expected resuts. Someone who has read your introduction shoud know what this research is a about and how you intend to approach it in terms of theory and methodoogy. Spend a paragraph on the exact area of your research for exampe period of time, anguage (when it comes, e.g., to a iterature review), subject, discipines invoved, samping, unit of anaysis (e.g., poicy, programmes, activities, actua behaviours etc.). Make cear in what way and to what extend caims for generaisabiity can be made or what the imits are. Genera statements about the intent, direction or goas of the research where is it you want to go. Pease try to specify in terms of theoretica, practica and methodoogica aims. Are you going to achieve resuts in a three domains or one or two? Specific, cear and to the point statements of intended outcomes from the research you wi undertake, for exampe: search and review of iterature regarding a specific topic (e.g., The Godfathers of Management at the turn of the ast Century ) or a particuar debate (e.g., Who are the stakehoders and their stakes in the debate on Corporate Socia Responsibiity in Europe ). Provide the rationae for doing the research on the specified topic, why research needs to be done on this particuar topic or probem, what the particuar ange and substance is you bring to either the fied of the existing body of knowedge. Make cear references to existing iterature, show gaps in knowedge, the potentia usefuness of a methodoogy you have in mind, possibe benefits of outcomes (understanding, practice, poicy, theory etc.) and for whom. Provide a imited number of key references to support your case and aso in order to demonstrate that you are aware of the existing body of knowedge regarding the topic you want to research. Describe briefy the history of the topic identifying andmark studies and pubications indicating centra arguments (pro and con) made. Demonstrate the major issues with respect to your subject or centra practica probems identifying the gap you intend to ook at in your research. Then indicate what wi be some ikey research questions (for quaitative research) or possibe hypothesis (for a quantitative research). Pease remember the nature of the question you introduce here. If necessary provide a imited number of key terms; why they are important, how they are defined and wi be used (sometimes this can aso be done in a Gossary or Thesaurus). Aim to identify what the contribution of your research wi be to the existing body of knowedge as it appears through eading pubications. A concise justification for the methodoogica approach (methodoogy and methods) you intend to empoy and which data coection (one or more) and anaytica technique(s) you wi use. There is no need to justify and describe the methodoogy in-depth but justify at east the foowing: specify whether quaitative or quantitative and provide arguments reated to the nature of the question, use of an existing approach (methodoogica repication), expanation why aternative methods were rejected or not, the use of specific techniques for

143 130 8 Eaborating Your Own Research Design Ethics Provisiona schedue Resources Bibiography Reated materias data coection and anaysis, anticipation of possibe issues and probems and how you intend to address them. Indicate if you think you might encounter any ethica issues during the research project. Think of: access to data, invovement of peope in the organisation, use (of pubications), and confidentiaity incuding agreements with corroborating organisations. Who owns the resuts of your research? Is it necessary to protect data and or peope invoved and what wi you do to make sure this is covered? Provide a genera timetabe for competing the research. Ideay, this shoud be broken down into manageabe segments based on intermediate outcomes, indicating the task necessary to compete each assuming you wi have ony norma probems. Pease incude spare time you need to sit back and think things over. Identify any (specia) equipment you wi need for exampe computers, software, access to (specia) ibraries, the use of third-party databases, cost of fied visits, anguage editing, room renta etc. Pease put the cacuations for your resource requirements in an appendix. Indicate how you intend to obtain necessary funding (e.g., university, organisation, foundation). This is the (brief) bibiography of a works cited in your proposa. It may incude works not cited that wi be foowed up in the main research. Pease note that there are different ways of citing references. The most commony used presentation for socia sciences is APA referencing, see beow for hepfu sites: edu/newhep/res_strategy/citing/apa.htm henrichsen/apa/apa01.htm These incude any reevant materia supporting your proposa and/or justifying your argument for doing this research. Incude in this section etters from corroborating institutions and or organisations that wi provide access to the fied of research, peope, materias etc. Pease check with your supervisor or your institute as to whether there are any other (specific) requirements you have to take into consideration. Make sure you are aware of the timetabe and deadines. Some fina down-to-earth advice: pease start writing the proposa as soon as you can. It is in the process of writing that the actua structure wi appear not when you are just thinking about it. 8.3 A Summary in the Form of Questions In this second paragraph we assume that you have written a proposa and have started executing the research. We wi bring to the fore a number of questions that wi faciitate the structure and ogic of your research. Our assumption here is that most research ony reay starts to become schoary when you are in the actua process of execution. The first three questions centre on the research question. The first two not ony ook at the nature of the question, but aso at researcher s attitude, an important factor when conducting research. The third question aims at the context of the research question and researcher.

144 8.3 A Summary in the Form of Questions 131 Question 1: What is the nature of the question? Chap. 1 What is the probem, who has the probem, who decides whether it actuay is a probem? Is the presented probem actuay the probem or is there another hidden probem? Is the question open or cosed? The question s nature is directive in the course of research. Question 2: What is the researcher s basic attitude? Chap. 2 Research approach ( open versus cosed ike searching versus testing). Examine as an outsider (keep your distance). Engage in conversation with your subject(s) of research (interfere disturb intervene). Through whose eyes are you going to observe and why? How and in which steps are you going to observe and why? What data wi it produce? Are you aware of the different kind of data you might use or generate? How are you going to interpret this data? Any specific techniques in mind? Check whether the answers on these four questions fit. Are they consistent, ogica, do they make sense? Question 3: Which roe does the context pay? Chaps. 1 and 2 What is the context in which the question occurs? How important is the context for the research you have in mind? Are there specific eements or conditions in the context you shoud take into consideration? Is the context static or dynamic? Assuming that it wi probaby be dynamic, how are you going to keep track of the deveopments that might have an impact on your research? In each research project, theory pays an essentia roe. Without theory we cannot see what is happening. However, there are distinct differences between research with a cosed question and research with an open question. Nevertheess, in both approaches theory serves to carify how the researcher perceives and describes the reaity being examined. This is expressed in the fourth question. Question 4: What is the roe of theory? Chap. 3 Carification of notions and assumptions. How are these notions specified, in terms of sensitising concepts, or are they being operationaised in measurabe entities? Wi you deveop a conceptua mode and use that mode as a framework to eaborate your design?

145 132 8 Eaborating Your Own Research Design Is the focus on knowedge deveopment or a kind of change, be it radica or incrementa? Are instruments being deveoped and for what purpose are they being deveoped? How are these instruments appied? Do you have a specific purpose in mind? The foowing three questions (five to eight) concern the resuts of research. At the start of research it can aso be advantageous to reaise what kind of resuts are possibe and who wi or wi not benefit from it. Question 5: What shoud be the resut of this research? Chaps. 4 and 5, Interude I A (tested?) conceptua mode? A theoretica framework? A (mini) theory? Instruments? Question 6: What wi (probaby) be the purpose of the resuts of this research? Chap. 7 There is no purpose. New research. Improve the current situation. Change. (Re)design. Question 7: Who wi use the resuts? Chaps. 1 and 7 An externa cient. The peope in the organisation where the research was conducted. Third parties (e.g., externa advisors). What wi be the requirements of the resuts that the user (or users) wi put forward? Question 8 11 focus on the data. How wi the data be coected and anaysed, and who wi be invoved in the anaysis? Question 8: Which data sources wi be used in this research? Chaps. 4 and 5 The (quaitative) data wi contain different stories about the perceived reaity (or reaities ). Nature of data sources: inguistic, visua, numerica. Muti-method (observation, interview, iterature).

146 8.3 A Summary in the Form of Questions 133 Question 9: How wi the anaysis of data sources take pace? Chaps. 4 and 5 Interpretation in advance or afterwards. Unit of anayse with regard to of sentences (whoe-parts-whoe). Revise and/or anayse data sources: party quantitative (counting) and party quaitative (interpretation). Comparing different forms of data and/or comparing the same kind of data (across time, across different situations). Question 10: Who is (primariy) responsibe for the interpretation of data? Chap. 6 Aocating meaning (interpretation) by the researcher, other actors and outsiders. Consensus (group process). By means of which hypotheses (whose?). By means of a hermeneutica cyce (process method). Question 11: How wi the interpretation of data be arranged? Chaps. 4, 5 and 6 In a standardised way? In advance (or) afterwards? Who wi participate and why? Assessing research is often compicated. Questions draw the researcher s attention to severa important aspects. The appraisa criteria for research depend on whether it is an open or cosed question. The criteria for the way in which peope are invoved in the research may possiby pay an important roe. Question 12: Which criteria pay a roe in the justification of this interpretation? Chap. 6 Open/cosed question: different criteria. Criteria that may possiby ater. Question 13: To whom wi you have to give reasons for the design and reaisation of the research? Chaps. 1 and 8 Those invoved in the research. Probem owners, hoders, sponsors. Question 14: What is the nature of the justification with regard to the design and reaisation of the research? Chap. 7 Process reconstruction and choices (expanation of research actions). Expaining the appied theoretica view. Persona preference of the researcher (private passion).

147 134 8 Eaborating Your Own Research Design Question 15: Which criteria pay an (important) part in the justification? Chaps. 6 and 7 Action repertoire. Action pan. Question 16: How wi the testing of criteria take pace? Chap. 6 Based on the context of discovery (actors). Based on hypotheses. Based on (data) sources. Confronting aternative reaities (inductive and deductive). Trianguation (different data sources, different researchers). Testing against iterature. Representative. 8.4 Checkist for Assessing a Master Thesis or Dissertation In addition to the previous paragraphs in which the methodoogica justification of the research design has been discussed through questions this paragraph provides a brief checkist that can be empoyed when assessing a compete thesis or dissertation project Tite and Structure 1. Does the thesis contain a cear, appeaing tite and an abbreviated subtite that refects the essence of the content in one short sentence? 2. Does the book cover bear the name of the author(s) and if reevant the name of the cient together with other necessary information (education, period covered, status etc.)? 3. Does the thesis start with a preface (this is not the same as a summary!) in which the author(s) informs the reader, for instance, about the reasons for the project and the peope who have assisted etc.? 4. Does the thesis contain a we-structured index? In other words, is the reader abe to comprehend immediatey what the thesis is about by scanning the various tites of the chapters? 5. Does the index contain a ogica category in paragraphs so that it is cear how each chapter is composed? 6. Does the index inform the reader where the (iterature) references are paced and (if reevant) if there is a thesaurus, index and information about the author?

148 8.4 Checkist for Assessing a Master Thesis or Dissertation Does the index expain if there are any appendices attached to the thesis and if so where these can be found? 8. Does the thesis contain a summary? Readabiity 1. Is the report easy to read? Is it attractive? Do you take the reader into the word of your research? 2. Does the whoe fit together in such a way that each sentence and paragraph contributes to the compete report? 3. Does the thesis contain a ceary recognisabe conceptua structure; in other words, does the author discuss the various issues within a cear framework? 4. Are the subjects discussed thoroughy and are the arguments we-founded? 5. Does the report contain a cear thread? Is the reader aware of which part he is reading and why is he supposed to read it? 6. Has the author chosen a specific tone (e.g., popuar, scientific etc.) or stye (e.g., we, I, neuter) and is it appied consistenty? 7. Are the headines of the various chapters, iustrations, tabes and other figures used effectivey; in other words do they have a cear added vaue? 8. Are iustrations and tabes discussed in the text as we or wi the reader need to guess where they beong? Justification 1. Is it absoutey cear which criteria and requirements were used to justify the concusions and recommendations? 2. Does the author carify his own point of view (in a justifiabe way)? 3. Is it cear what the cient can do with the resuts of the research? 4. Does the report contain recommendations for further research, and if so, are these reevant? Maintenance 1. Is the project professionay finished (cover, binding, type page, page numbering etc.)? 2. Are the iterature references reported correcty and unambiguousy in the reference stye that has been agreed on? 3. Is the report written in correct Dutch or Engish and have typing mistakes been removed? 4. Does the report contain the necessary appendices and are they accessibe through the index etc.?

149 136 8 Eaborating Your Own Research Design 8.5 Epiogue The 16 questions that have been formuated as a resut of the preceding chapters are intended to hep the researcher design and carry out research. It is probaby cear that these questions wi have to be answered over and over again whie carrying out the research project. There is no such thing as a research or methodoogy cookbook. Students doing a research project for the first time may find this compicated. However, you coud view this differenty. Precisey because there are no standard recipes avaiabe you have the exciting opportunity to pursue your own path. The most important precondition is that this path is carefuy considered. How to systematicay justify these choices has been the subject of this book throughout. References Be, J. (2005). Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researches in education, heath and socia science. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a iterature review. London: Sage Pubications. Soan Devin, A. (2006). Research methods: panning, conducting and presenting research. London: Thomson Learning. Stinchcombe, A. L. (2005). The Logic of socia research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Stace, R. D. & Griffin, D. (2005). A compexity perspective on researching organizations: taking experience seriousy. London: Routedge. Tharenou, P., Donohue, R., & Cooper, B. (2007). Management research methods. New York: Cambridge University Press.

150 Chapter 9 Comparative Gossary Accuracy A term used in survey research to refer to the match between the target popuation and the sampe. Copyright # Coorado State University, guides/research/gossary/ Action earning A form of management deveopment, which, in essence, invoves earning to earn-by-doing with and from others who are aso eaning-to-earn by doing (Revans 1980, p. 288). The process is inductive rather than deductive as managers asked to sove actua organizationa probems. It cruciay depends upon the group as a vehice for earning by its members to faciitate progress. Its variants in situations throughout the word are described by Revans (1980), Gi and Johnson (1991, p. 164). Action research Simutaneousy bringing about change in the project situation (the action) whie earning from the process of deriving the change (the research) (Greenwood and Levin 1998, p. 68). Action Research is a term for describing a spectrum of activities that focus on research, panning, theorizing, earning, and deveopment. It describes a continuous process of research and earning in the researchers ong-term reationship with a probem (Cunningham 1993, p. 161). Action research chaenges the caims of neutraity and objectivity of traditiona socia science and seeks fu coaborative inquiry by a participants, often to engage in sustained change in organizationa, community, or institutiona contexts (Marsha and Rossman 1999, p. 5). Action research is one particuary exciting method that can be adopted when working with case research. Here the researchers take on the roe of active consutants and infuence a process under study (Gummesson 1991, p. 2). Action research can be described as a famiy of research methodoogies, which pursue action (or change) and research (or understanding) at the same time. In most of its forms it does this by: (a) using a cycic or spira process which aternates between action and critica refection and (b) in the ater cyces, continuousy refining methods, data and interpretation in the ight of the understanding deveoped in the earier cyces. It is thus an emergent process which takes shape as understanding increases; it is an iterative process which converges towards a better understanding of what happens. In most of its forms it is aso participative (among other reasons, change is usuay easier to achieve when those affected by the change are invoved) and quaitative. edu.au/schoos/gcm/ar/arhome.htm There is no singe type of action research but broady it can be defined as an approach in which the action researcher and a cient coaborate in the diagnosis of probem and in the deveopment of a soution based on the diagnosis (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 303). Anaysis The processes by which a phenomenon (e.g. a manageria probem) is conceptuaized so that it is separated into its component parts and the interreationships between those parts, and their contribution to the whoe, eucidated (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 164). J. Jonker and B. Pennink, The Essence of Research Methodoogy, DOI / _9, # Springer-Verag Berin Heideberg

151 138 9 Comparative Gossary The working of thought processes (Schatzman and Strauss 1973, p. 109). A method of inquiry in which one seeks to assess compex systems of thought by anaysing them into simper eements whose reationships are thereby brought into focus (Backburn 1996). Anaytic frames Systematic, detaied sketches of ideas (or socia theories) that a researcher deveops in order to aid the examination of a specific phenomenon. In effect, an anaytic frame articuates an idea in a way that makes it usefu in research. The process of anaytica framing is primariy but not entirey deductive (Ragin 1994, p. 183). Anaytic induction A research methodoogy concerned with the inductive deveopment and testing of theory (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 164). Originay, the term had a very strict meaning and was identified with the search for universas in socia ife. Universas are properties that are invariant. Today, however, anaytic induction is often used to refer to any systematic examination of simiarities that seeks to deveop concepts or ideas. Rather than seeing anaytic induction as a search for universas, a search that is ikey to fai, it is better to see it as a research strategy that directs investigators to pay cose attention to evidence that chaenges of disconfirms whatever images they are deveoping. As researchers accumuate evidence, they compare incidents or cases that appear to be in the same genera category with each other. These comparisons estabish simiarities and differences among incidents or cases that appear to be in the same genera category with each other. These comparisons estabish simiarities and differences among incidents and thus hep to define categories and concepts. Evidence that chaenges or refutes images that the researcher is constructing from evidence provides important cues for how to ater concepts or shift categories (Ragin 1994, p. 93). Anaytic induction is an approach to the anaysis of data in which the researcher seeks universa expanations of phenomena by pursuing the coection of data unti no cases that are inconsistent with a hypothetica expanation (deviant or negative cases) of a phenomenon are found (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 426). Appicabiity How can one determine the extent to which the findings of a particuar inquiry have appicabiity in other contexts or which other subjects (respondents)? Management research has to be in part judged by what impact it has on management practice (Griseri 2002, p. 17). Appied research has a practica probem-soving emphasis athough the probem soving process is not aways generated by a negative circumstance (Cooper and Schinder 2003, p. 14). Approach A theoreticay sustained vantage point for anayzing a subject matter. An approach is more encompassing (but generay ess precise) than a conceptua framework: it determines the sets of concepts, questions and perspectives of an inquiry. An approach may aso be seen as a quasi-theory or as a pre-theory, a path to theory (Sartori 1984, p. 73). Assumptions If you make an assumption, you accept that something is true athough you have no rea proof to it (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 76). Assumptions are often agreed to by various peope who are associated with a probem. These assumptions may be estabished and reaffirmed over history, rather then being chaenged or assessed. Assumptions can be continuay chaenged by asking the question why? (Cunningham 1993, p. 57). Axioogica Reating to the study of the nature of vaues and vaue judgment (WordNet Dictionary 2003). Bias In socia research is used primariy to describe aspects of a specific research design that may skew findings in some way. Biased measures don t do a good job of measuring the things they are purported to measure and therefore ack vaidity; biased sampes are not representative of the reevant popuation or set of cases; and so on (Ragin 1994, p. 183). Bias is the distortion of responses in one direction (Cooper and Schinder 2003, p. 372). Case study (genera) The researcher expores a singe entity or phenomenon bounded by time and activity and coects detaied information by using a variety of data coection procedures during a sustained period of time (Creswe 1994, p. 12).

152 9 Comparative Gossary 139 Reports of research on a specific organization, program, or process are often caed case studies (Marsha and Rossman 1999, p. 159). A case study, by contrast, is, or shoud be, designed as a earning vehice with specific educationa objectives in mind (Easton 1992, p. 1). The coection and presentation of detaied information about a particuar participant or sma group, frequenty incuding the accounts of subjects themseves. Copyright # Coorado State University, Case studies pace emphasis on a fu contextua anaysis of fewer events or conditions and their interreations for a singe subject or respondent. Athough hypotheses are often used, the reiance on quaitative data makes support or rejection more difficut (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 137). A research design that entais the detaied and intensive anaysis of a singe case. The term is sometimes extended to incude the study of just two or three cases for comparative purposes (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 53). Case study (embedded) A case study invoves more than one unit of anaysis. In a singe case aso attention is given to a subunit or subunits. These subunits are then referred to as the embedded units (Yin 2003, p. 42, 43). Category A concept unifying a number of observations have some characteristics in common (Dey 1993, p. 275). Categories must have two aspects, an interna they must be meaningfu in reation to the data and an externa aspect they must be meaningfu in reation to the other categories (Dey 1993, p. 96). Causa reationship The reationship estabished that shows that an independent variabe, and nothing ese, causes a change in a dependent variabe. Estabishes, aso, how much of a change is shown in the dependent variabe. Copyright # Coorado State University, writing.coostate.edu/guides/research/gossary/ Cassification A process of organizing data into categories or casses and identifying forma connections between them (Dey 1993, p. 275). Sartori adds: A cassification requires a singe criterion which serves as the basis of division. When mutipe criteria or dimensions are invoved, we have a typoogy and/or taxonomy (Sartori 1984, p. 73). Coding Initia indexing, referred to as coding, proceeds by means of the tentative abeing of the phenomena which the knowedge engineer perceives in a specified piece of text and which he or she considers to be of potentia reevance to the knowedge domain (Pidgeon 1991, p. 161). In quantitative research, codes act as tags that are paced on data about peope or other units of anaysis. The aim is to assign the data reating to each variabe to groups, each of which is considered to be a category of the variabe in question. Numbers are then assigned to each category to aow the information to be processed by the computer. In quaitative research, coding is the process whereby data are broken down in component parts, which are given names (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 157). Assigning numbers or other symbos to answers so that responses can be taied and grouped into a imited number of casses or categories (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 424) Coding (open) The process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptuaizing and categorizing data (Strauss and Corbin 1990, p. 61). This process of coding yieds concepts, which are ater to be grouped and turned into categories (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 429).

153 140 9 Comparative Gossary Coding (axia) A set of procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways after open coding, by making connections between categories. (Strauss and Corbin 1990, p. 96). This is done by inking codes to contexts, to consequences, to patterns of interaction, and to causes (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 429). Coding (seective) The procedure of seecting the core category, systematicay reating it to other categories, vaidating those reationships, and fiing in categories that need further refinement and deveopment (Strauss and Corbin 1990, p. 116). A core category is the centra issue or focus around which a other categories are integrated. It is what Strauss and Corbin ca the storyine that frames your account (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 429). Comparative method The famiy of techniques empoyed in comparative poitica research. (Martin and Shaun 1998, p. 12). We not ony speak of comparing incident to incident to cassify them, but we aso make use of what we ca theoretica comparisons (Strauss and Corbin 1998, p. 78). Theoretica comparisons are toos (a ist of properties) for ooking at something somewhat objectivey rather than naming or cassifying without a thorough examination of the object at the property and dimensiona eves (Strauss and Corbin 1998, p. 80). Concept A concept is an idea or abstract principe, which reates to a particuar subject or to a particuar view of that subject (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 288). A concept is a abeed phenomenon. It is an abstract representation of an event, object, or action/interaction that a researcher identifies as being significant in the data (Strauss and Corbin 1998, p. 103). A concept is used to indicate the meaning of a word, a constituency of thoughts, and a way of thinking about an object (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 153). Abstractions, which aow us to order, out our impressions of the word by enabing us to identify simiarities and differences in phenomena and thereby cassify them (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 164). A concept is simpy an abstract way of thinking about a situation. It is a summary of some phenomenon that you have data on (Easton 1992, p. 48). A genera idea which stands for a cass of concepts (Dey 1993, p. 275). A name given to a category that organizes observations and ideas by virtue of their possessing common features (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 71). A bunde of meanings or characteristics associated with certain events, objects, conditions, or situations (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 39). Conceptua Conceptua means reated to the idea of concepts formed in the mind (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 288). Conceptua schema If research utimatey shows the concepts and constructs and if the propositions that specify the connections can be supported, the researcher wi have the beginning of a conceptua scheme (Cooper and Schinder 2003, p. 45). Conceptua traveing and stretching The terms refect the concern in the probem of appying categories across diverse contexts. Conceptua traveing means the appication of concepts to new cases. Conceptua stretching refects the distortion that occurs when a concept does not fit the new cases. Sartori encourages the schoar to be attentive to context, but without abandoning broad comparison (Sartori 1984). Confirmabiity Objectivity; the findings of the study coud be confirmed by another person conducting the same study. Copyright # Coorado State University, coostate.edu/guides/research/gossary/

154 9 Comparative Gossary 141 Constant comparison Inductive category coding and simutaneous comparing of units of meaning across categories. Constant comparison is the exporation of simiarities and differences across incidents in the data. By comparing where the facts are simiar of different the researcher can generate concepts and concept properties based on recurring patterns of behaviour. Consistency How can one determine whether the findings of an inquiry woud be repeated if the inquiry were repicated with the same (or simiar) subjects (respondents) in the same (of simiar) context? Compatibiity or harmony between things, acts or statements (Websters Comprehensive Dictionary 1996, p. 278). Constructivism The beief that knowedge is made up argey of socia interpretations rather than the awareness of an externa reaity (Stake 1995, p. 170). Constructivism provides a fruitfu theoretica framework for understanding and describing knowedge-use in human activity systems (Casse and Symon 1994, p. 73). Constructivism is an ontoogica position (often aso referred to as constructionism) that asserts that socia phenomena and their meanings are continuay being accompished by socia actors. It impies that socia phenomena and categories are not ony produced through socia interaction but that they are in a constant state of revision (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 20). Context The context of something consists of the ideas, situation, events, or information that reate to it and make it possibe to understand it fuy (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 305). Contro group In experimentation, a group of subjects to whom no experimenta stimuus is administrate and who shoud resembe the experimenta group in a other respects. The comparison of the contro group and the experimenta group at the end of the experiment points to the effect of the experimenta stimuus (Babbie 1998). Co-operative Inquiry Can be seen as cycing through the phases of refection and action. Agreement on focus of inquiry and deveop together a set of questions or propositions (propositiona knowing). Co-researchers and co-objects engage in action and observe and record the process and outcomes of their own and each other s experience (practica knowing). The touchstone of the approach is that any practica skis or theoretica propositions, which emerge, can be said to derive from and be congruent with this experience. Co-operative inquiry is an inquiry strategy in which a those invoved in the research endeavour are both co-researchers, whose thinking and decision-making contributes to generating ideas, designing and managing the project, and drawing concusions from the experience; and aso co-subjects, participating in the activity which is being researched. Co-operative inquiry is a way of working with other peope who have simiar concerns and interests to your sef, in order to: (a) Understand your word, make sense of your ife and deveop new and creative ways of ooking at things; (b) Learn how to act to change things you may want to change and find out how to do things better. Co-operative Inquiry is a systematic approach to deveoping understanding and action (Reason 1999, p. 207). Credibiity A researcher s abiity to demonstrate that the object of a study is accuratey identified and described based on the way in which the study was conducted. Copyright # Coorado State University, Critica case The idea here is that if a proposition can be shown to work when conditions are east favourabe for its vaidity, it is ikey to be vaid in a other circumstances as we. If democracies are now consoidating in countries, which have no previous experience of that form of rue, we can be sure that the modern move toward democracy is significant. Aternativey, a

155 142 9 Comparative Gossary proposition, which fais to work even in the most favourabe conditions, can quicky be dismissed. If post-materia vaues are nowhere to be found among graduates in the weathiest countries, then the theory of post-materiaism is no good. Depending on expectations, we can set out either to support a theory by showing its vaue in unfavourabe conditions (a east favourabe design) or to disprove a theory be showing it fais even in favourabe circumstances (a most favourabe design) (Hague et a. 1998). Data (anaysis) Processing observations to draw out their meanings (Stake 1995, p. 170). Editing and reducing accumuated data to a manageabe size, deveoping summaries, ooking for patterns, and appying statistica techniques (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 82). We define data anaysis as consisting of three concurrent fows of activity: data reduction, data dispay, and concusion drawing/verification. The anaysis is a continuous, iterative enterprise. Data reduction refers to the process of seecting, simpifying, abstracting, and transforming the data that appear in written-up fied notes or transcriptions. A data dispay is an organized, compressed assemby of information that permits concusion drawing and action (Mies and Huberman 1994, p. 10). Data (coection) The finding and gathering (or generating) of materias that the researcher wi then anayse (Straus 1987, p. 20). Data (genera) Data is information, usuay in the form of facts or statistics that you can anayse, or that you can use to do further cacuation (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 357). Recorded observations, usuay in numeric or textua form. Copyright # Coorado State University, Facts (attitudes, behaviour, motivations, etc.) coected from respondents or observations (mechanica or direct) pus pubished information; categorized as primary and secondary (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 82). Data (Quaitative) Data, which deas with numbers rather than meanings (Dey 1993, p. 276). This data is often referred to as being rich, since it captures the richness of detai and nuance of the phenomena being studied (Hussey and Hussey 1997, p. 56). Data (nature) Data can be cassified based on its nature. A distinction can be made between inguistic data (e.g. transcription of a conversation), numerica (in figures) data (e.g. a company s profit and oss account) and visua data (e.g. drawings, pictures, photos, rich pictures etc.). Deconstruction It is a method of conducting an interna critique of texts. In essence, a deconstructive approach of textua anaysis aims at exposing what is conceaed within or has eft out of a text (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2006, p. 292). Ideas need to be understood in historica context, and hence is bound to socia practice. There are unarticuated foundations of ideas in every historica context. Deduction The deduction of particuar instances from genera inferences, it entais the deveopment of a conceptua and theoretica structure, which is then tested by observation (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 164). The process of driving more specific ideas or propositions from genera ideas, knowedge, or theories and working out their impications for a specific set of evidence or specific kinds of evidence (Ragin 1994, p. 186). The forming of concusions by appying the rues of ogic to a premise (Encarta 2004). An approach to the reationship between theory and research in which the atter is conducted with reference to hypotheses and ideas inferred from the former (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 10). A form of inference in which the concusion must necessariy foow from the reasons given; a deduction is vaid if it is impossibe for the concusion to be fase if the premises are true (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 34).

156 9 Comparative Gossary 143 Deductive Is used to describe a method of reasoning where concusions are deduced ogicay from other things that are aready known (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 366). Based on ogica or reasonabe deduction (Encarta Word Engish Dictionary 2004). A form of reasoning in which concusions are formuated about particuars from genera or universa premises. Copyright # Coorado State University, edu/guides/research/gossary/ Dependabiity Being abe to account for changes in the design of the study and the changing conditions surrounding what was studied. Copyright # Coorado State University, Dependent variabe The aspect or attribute of cases or observations that the investigators hope to expain or in some way account for (Ragin 1994, p. 186). The phenomenon whose variation the researcher is trying to expain or understand (Gi and Johnson 2002, p. 226). Descriptive statistics Statistica computations describing either the characteristics of a sampe or the reationship among variabes in a sampe. It merey summarizes a set of sampe observations, whereas inferentia statistics move beyond the description of a specific observation to make inferences about the arger popuation from which the sampe observations were drawn (Babbie 1998, p. G2). Design fexibiity A quaity of an observationa study that aows researchers to pursue inquiries on new topics or questions that emerges from initia research. Copyright # Coorado State University, Dichotomous variabe A variabe having ony two categories. Aso caed binomia and/or binary variabe (Babbie 1998). A variabe said to have ony two vaues: the presence or absence of a property/construct (Cooper and Schinder 2003, p. 47). Discourse community A community of schoars and researchers in a given fied who respond to and communicate to each other through pubished artices in the community s journas and presentations at conventions. A members of the discourse community adhere to certain conventions for the presentation of their theories and research. Copyright # Coorado State University, Dispay Something intended to communicate a particuar impression (WordNet 2003). Emic A form of expanation of its situation or events that reies upon eucidation of actor s interna ogics or subjectivity (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 164). The research strategy that focuses on oca expanations and criteria of significance (Kottak 2004, p. 338). Empirica Knowedge, study, reies on practica experience rather than theories. Coins Cobuid Dictionary (1987, p. 462). Points to testing subjective beiefs against objective reaity (Cooper and Schinder 2003, p. 13). If a scientist beieves something is so, he must somehow or other put his beief to a test outside himsef. Subjective beieve, in other words, must be checked against objective reaity (Keringer 1973, p. 11). Empiricism The idea that vaid knowedge is directy derived from sense data and experience (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 165). An approach to the study of reaity that suggests that ony knowedge gained through experience and the senses is acceptabe (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 9).

157 144 9 Comparative Gossary Observations and propositions based on sense experience and/or derived from such experience by methods of inductive ogic, incuding mathematics and statistics (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 31). Epistemoogy The phiosophica theory of knowedge, which seeks to define it, distinguishes its principa varieties, identify its sources, and estabish its imits (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 279). The branch of phiosophy concerned with the study of the criteria by which we determine what does and does not constitute warranted or vaid knowedge (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 165). That department of phiosophy, which investigates criticay the nature, grounds, imits, and criteria, or vaidity of human knowedge (Webster s Comprehensive Dictionary 1996, p. 428). An epistemoogica issue concerns the question of what is (or shoud be) regarded as acceptabe knowedge in a discipine (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 13). The branch of phiosophy concerned with the study of the criteria by which we determine (i.e. know) what does and does not constitute warranted or vaid knowedge (Gi and Johnson 2002, p. 226). Ethnography In which the researcher studies an intact cutura group in a natura setting during a proonged period of time coecting, primariy, observationa data. The research process is fexibe and typicay evoves contextuay in response to the ived reaities encountered in the fied settings (Creswe 1994, p. 11). Ethnography is both a product, a concrete text occurring within a genre of writing, and a process of gathering and thinking about data in reation to certain issues (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 286). Ethnography is the branch of anthropoogy in which different cutures are studied and described (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 480). Like participant observation, a research method in which the researcher immerses him- or hersef in a socia setting for an extended period of time, observing behaviour, istening to what is said in conversations both between others and with the fiedworker, and asking questions. However, the term has a more incusive sense than participant observation, which seems to emphasize the observationa component. Aso, the term an ethnography is frequenty used to refer to the written output of ethnographic research (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 316). Ethno-methodoogy A form of ethnography that studies activities of group members to see how they make sense of their surroundings. Copyright # Coorado State University, writing.coostate.edu/guides/research/gossary/ Ethno-methodoogy draws on the phenomenoogica perspective and is reated to phenomenoogy in that both focus on the process whereby individuas understand and give sense of order to the word in which they ive. Ethno-methodoogy was popuarized as a perspective in the fied of socioogy in the 1960s through the work of Harod Garfinke (1967), Hess-Biber and Leavy (2006, p. 35). Experiment The manipuation of natura phenomena to answer practica or theoretica questions (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 299). An experiment is a scientific test which done in order to prove that a theory is true or to discover what happens to something in particuar conditions (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 494). A research design that rues out aternative expanations of findings deriving from it (i.e. possesses interna vaidity) by having at east (a) an experimenta group, which is exposed to a treatment, and a contro group, which is not, and (b) random assignment to the two groups (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 39). Expanatory research It is a study that goes beyond description and attempt to expain the reasons for the phenomenon. In an expanatory study, the researcher uses theories or at east hypothesis to account for the forces that caused a certain phenomenon to occur (Cooper and Schinder 2003, p. 11).

158 9 Comparative Gossary 145 Socioogica Research Descriptive Expanatory Non-experimenta Experimenta Theoretica caibration (Hedström, 2003). Hypothesis testing Expanatory studies Attempts to expain the reasons for the phenomenon that the descriptive study ony observed; answers why (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 13). Externa invaidity Refers to the possibiity that concusions drawn from experimenta resuts may not be generaizabe to the rea word (Babbie 1998). Externa vaidity Externa vaidity is concerned with the interaction of the experimenta treatment with other factors and the resuting impact on the abiity to generaize to (and across) times, settings, or persons (Cooper and Schinder 2003, p. 434). Fasification In this fashion, theoretica deveopment is an ongoing process in which the creators of a theory keep working to test their creation in order to destroy it and repace it with something better. (Gummesson 1991, p. 80). Focused comparisons Comparisons that concentrate on intensive study of an aspects of the cases in a sma number of cases (two-to-four cases). Comparative Methods Dictionary poi.haifa.ac.i/~evi/dictionary.htm Functionaism A paradigm that focuses on the functions served by the eements making up a whoe system or organism. Thus, one of the functions of higher education is to keep young peope out of the job market (Babbie 1998). Functiona equivaence The notion of functiona equivaence descends from the idea that every poitica system necessariy fufis certain fundamenta tasks. The same tasks may be performed however by different structures whie the same structures may fufi, in different countries, different tasks. Two institutions or processes are functionay equivaent when they fufi the same roe within the poitica system. Institutions with the same function not necessariy perform exacty the same functions; monarchs my rue with a rod of iron or just dispense medas to worthy citizens. Aso, difference processes can perform the same function; For exampe, eections and revoutions are devices for repeaing the governing eite (Dogan and Peassy 1984, pp. 5 6; Hague et a. 1998, p. 274). Generaisabiity What is the probabiity that patters observed in a sampe wi aso be present in the wider popuation from which the sampe is drawn? How ikey is it that ideas and theories generated in one setting wi aso appy in other settings? The extent to which research findings and concusions from a study conducted on a sampe popuation can be appied to the popuation at arge. Copyright # Coorado State University,

159 146 9 Comparative Gossary That quaity of a research finding that justifies the inference that it represents something more than the specific observations on which it was based. If you discover why peope commit burgaries, can you generaize that discovery to other crimes as we? (Babbie 1998) The abiity to draw inferences and concusions from data (Sakind 2000, p. 86). A concern with the externa vaidity of research findings (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 81). Grounded theory Theory that was derived from data systematicay gathered and anayzed through the research process. In this method, data coection, anaysis, and eventua theory stand in cose reationship to one another (Strauss and Corbin 1998, p. 12). The researcher attempts to derive a theory by using mutipe stages of data coection and the refinement and interreationship of categories of information (Creswe 1994, p. 12). Grounded Theory is a genera methodoogy for deveoping theory that is grounded in data systematicay gathered and anayzed (Denzin and Lincon 1994, p. 204). The outcome of inductive research, that is, theory created or discovered through the observation of particuar cases (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 165). Practice of deveoping other theories that emerge from observing a group. Theories are grounded in the group s observabe experiences, but researchers add their own insight into why those experiences exist. Copyright # Coorado State University, coostate.edu/guides/research/gossary/ An approach to the anaysis of quaitative data that aims to generate theory out of research data by achieving a cose fit between the two (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 428). Hermeneutic circe The notion that no observation or description is free from the observer s interpretation based upon his or her presuppositions and projection of his or her vaues, theories, etc. on to phenomena (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 165). Hermeneutics Hermeneutics is based on the ontoogica position that the word is objectivey given; the epistemoogica project is to make interpretations of this subjective word (Greenwood and Levin 1998, p. 68). The art, ski or theory of interpretation, of understanding the significance of human actions, utterances, products and institutions (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 389). An approach to the anaysis of texts that stresses how prior understanding and prejudices shape the interpretive process (Denzin and Lincon 1994, p. 15). Hermeneutics is concerned with interpreting and understanding the products of the human mind, which characterize the socia and cutura word (Burre and Morgan 1979, p. 235). A discipine concerned with the interpretation of iterary texts and/or meaningfu human behaviour (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 165). A term drawn from theoogy, which, when imported into the socia sciences, is concerned with the theory and method of the interpretation of human action. It emphasizes the need to understand from the perspective of the socia actor (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 421). Hoistic perspective Taking amost every action or communication of the whoe phenomenon of a certain community or cuture into account in research. Copyright # Coorado State University, A perspective on the practice of quaitative research in that it is refexive and process-driven, utimatey producing cuturay situated and theory-enmeshed knowedge through an ongoing interpay between theory and methods, researcher and researched (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2006, p. 36). Hypotheses A tentative proposa that expains and predicts the variation in a particuar phenomenon (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 165). A tentative expanation based on theory to predict a causa reationship between variabes. Copyright # Coorado State University, gossary/

160 9 Comparative Gossary 147 A specific proposition or educated guesses regarding what researchers expect to find in a body of evidence, based on their substantive and theoretica knowedge. In standard appications of the scientific method, hypotheses are tested with data specificay coected for the hypotheses (Ragin 1994, p. 187). A theoretica expanation of the behaviour of phenomena that can be tested against the facts. A hypothesis can be refuted, unike a tautoogy, which is true by definition, but it may not be possibe to prove that it is correct. Comparative Methods Dictionary, dictionary.htm A proposition formuated for empirica testing; a tentative or conjectura decarative beief or statement that describes the reationship between two or more variabes (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 47). An educated guess to be tested (Sakind 2000, p. 25). An informed specuation, which is set up to be tested, about the possibe reationship between two or more variabes (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 9). A conjectura statement of the reation between two or more variabes. Hypotheses are aways in decarative sentence form, and the reated, either generay or specificay, variabes to variabes. If a scientist beieves something is so, he must somehow or other put his beief to a test outside himsef. Subjective beieve, in other words, must be checked against objective reaity (Keringer 1973, p. 18). Idea types 1. An idea type is an anaytica construct that serves as a measuring rod for socia observers to determine the extent to which concrete socia institutions are simiar and how they differ from some defined measure. The idea type invoves determining the ogicay consistent features of a socia institution. The idea type never corresponds to concrete reaity but is a description to which we can compare reaity. Idea Capitaism, for exampe, is used extensivey in socia science iterature. According to the idea type, capitaism consists of four basic features: Private Ownership; Pursuit of Profit; Competition; Laissez Faire. In reaity, a capitaist systems deviate from the theoretica construct we ca idea capitaism. But the construct aows us to compare and contrast economic systems of various societies to this definition (Sartori 1984, p. 78). 2. In order to conceptuaized and generaized historica events and processes despite their uniqueness, Max Weber, suggested the construction of idea type : concepts that are constructed by the researchers (and thus are not rea ) and capture the basic characteristics of a series of cases. This abstract construct is caed idea type. And Sartori adds: idea types are heuristic construct that does not refect frequency or probabiity of empirica occurrence. When construed as a poar end of a continuum or of a seria order, it coincides with a poar concept. When construed as a parameter or mode (archetype) an idea type is aso caed pure type. Max Weber Home-Page; Comparative Methods Dictionary, Ideographic An approach to socia science that emphasizes that expanation of human behaviour is possibe ony through gaining access to actors subjectivity or cuture (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 165). Independent variabe Are aso known as causa variabes. When one variabe is used to expain or account for the variation in another variabe, it is caed causa or independent. Variation in eves of nutrition, for exampe, may be used as an independent variabe to account for variation in average ife expectancy across countries (Ragin 1994, p. 188). A variabe from which the vaues of other variabes are derived. Comparative Methods Dictionary, Indexicaity The probem that peope vary their behaviour according to their interpretation of the situation in which they find themseves (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 165).

161 148 9 Comparative Gossary Indicator An observation that we choose to consider as a refection of a variabe we wish to study. Thus for exampe, attending church might be considered an indicator of reigiosity (Babbie 1998, p. G3). Used within the idea of the three-eve character of concepts. Concepts can be measured by first defining the concept itsef, second by finding dimensions of the concept and third finding indicators on the empirica eve that are reated to the dimensions (Goertz 2006, p. 6). Induction Genera inferences induced from particuar instances, or the deveopment of theory from the observation of empirica reaity (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 188). The process of using evidence to formuate or reformuate a genera idea. Generay, whenever evidence is used as a basis for generating concepts, as in quaitative research, or empirica generaizations, as in quantitative research, induction has payed a part (Ragin 1994, p. 188). To draw a concusion from one of more particuar facts or pieces of evidence; the concusion expains the facts (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 35). Inductive A form of reasoning in which a generaized concusion is formuated from particuar instances. Copyright # Coorado State University, guides/research/gossary/ Reating to the process of deriving genera principes from particuar facts or instances (The American Heritage: dictionary 2000). An approach to the reationship between theory and research in which the former is generated out of the atter (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 280). Inductive anaysis A form of anaysis based on inductive reasoning; a researcher using inductive anaysis starts with answers, but forms questions throughout the research process. Copyright # Coorado State University, gossary/ Inference Is the process of using the facts we know to earn about facts we do not know. The facts we do not know are the subjects of our research questions, theories, and hypotheses. The facts we do know form our (quantitative or quaitative) data or observations. (King et a. 1994, p. 46). Comparative Methods Dictionary, Interpretation The interpretation of a particuar situation, aw, statement is the expanation of what it means (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 763). To interpret is to make action meaningfu to others, not just or even necessariy within the terms used by the actors themseves (Dey 1993, p. 39). A technica term used in connection with the eaboration mode. It represents the research outcome in which a contro variabe is discovered to be the mediating factor through which an independent variabe has its effect on a dependent variabe. (Babbie 1998). Inquiry (narrative) A quaitative research approach based on a researcher s narrative account of the investigation, not to be confused with a narrative examined by the researcher as data. Copyright # Coorado State University, gossary/ Inquiry (naturaistic) Observationa research of a group in its natura setting. Copyright # Coorado State University, Inquiry (rhetorica) entais...(1) identifying a motivationa concern, (2) posing questions, (3) engaging in a heuristic search (which in composition studies has often occurred by probing other fieds), (4) creating a new theory or hypotheses, and (5) justifying the theory (Lauer and Asher 1988, p. 5), Copyright # Coorado State University, guides/research/gossary/ Invaidity (externa) Refers to the possibiity that concusions drawn from experimenta resuts may not be generaizabe to the rea Word (Babbie 1998).

162 9 Comparative Gossary 149 Invaidity (interna) Refers to the possibiity that the concusions drawn from experimenta resuts may not accuratey refect what went on in the experiment itsef (Babbie 1998). Knowedge (experientia) Experientia knowedge may be traditiona or modern. It is frequenty specific to a oca context and is acquired through individua and coective earning. Experientia knowedge has often not been systematicay vaidated or tested but is nevertheess dynamic and is used by a of us in our daiy ives. Such knowedge must not be confused with pseudo-science, which is argey static changing ony in opposition to systematic science and has no societa benefit. ISCU report (2004). Knowedge (expicit) Knowedge that can be expressed formay using a system of symbos, and can therefore be easiy communicated or diffused (Choo 1998, p. 112). Expicit knowedge is codifiabe, objective, impersona, context independent and easy to share. Expicit knowedge is regarded objective, standing above and separate from both individua and socia vaue systems (Hisoop 2005, p. 19). Knowedge (practica) The practice-based nature of knowedge assumes that knowedge deveops through practice: peope s knowedge deveops as they conduct activities and gain expertise. Knowedge invoves the active agency of peope making decisions in ight of the specific circumstances in which they find themseves (Hisoop 2005, p. 31). Knowedge gained through habit and intuition (Baumard 1999, p. 63). Knowedge (tacit) Tacit knowedge is inexpressibe in a codifiabe form, subjective, persona, context specific and difficut to share. Tacit knowedge represents knowedge that peope possess, but which is inexpressibe (Hisop 2005, p. 19). Something we know but cannot express (Baumard 1999, p. 2). The impicit knowedge used by organizationa members to perform their work and to make sense of their words. It is knowedge that is un-codified and difficut to diffuse (Choo 1998, p. 111). Know how or inteigence (Jashapara 2004, p. 17). Meaning The meaning of a word, expression, or gesture is the thing or idea that it refers to or represents and which can be expained using other words (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 900). The customary significance attached to the use of a word, phrase, or sentence, incuding both its itera sense and its emotive associations; what is eucidated in a definition. www. phiosophypages.com There are three specific ways of interpreting meaning: meaning ¼ significance (importance); meaning ¼ purpose (orientation); meaning ¼ understanding (content) (Arbnor and Bjerke 1997, p. 33). Measure (nomina) A eve of measurement describing a variabe the different attributes of which are ony different, as distinguished from ordina, interva, or ratio measures. Gender woud be an exampe of nomina measure (Babbie 1998). Measurement Measurement is the activity or process of measuring something (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 901). Assigning numbers to empirica events in compiance with a mapping rue (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 203). Assigning of vaues to objects, events or outcomes according to rues (Sakind 2000, p. 100). Measures Impementations of variabes in a particuar set of data. Generay every variabe may be measured in a variety of ways, and researchers must justify the specific measures they use for each variabe (Ragin 1994, p. 189).

163 150 9 Comparative Gossary Memos The researchers record of anaysis, thoughts, interpretations, questions, and directions for further data coection (Strauss and Corbin 1987, p. 110). Writing, in which the researcher puts down theoretica questions, hypotheses, summary of codes, etc. A method of keeping track of coding resuts and stimuating further coding, and aso a major means for integrating the theory (Strauss 1987, p. 22). Methodoogica individuaism A methodoogica approach that hods that a description and expanation of socia phenomena shoud utimatey be in terms of individuas, their properties and their interreations in terms of their properties. And in a simiar formuation: The eementary unit of socia ife is the individua human action. To expain socia institutions and socia change is to show how they arise as the resut of the action and interaction of individuas (Estar 1989, p. 13; Franssen 1997, p. 10). Methodoogy (genera) An expicit way of structuring one s thinking and actions in terms of research. A way of thinking about and studying socia reaity (Strauss and Corbin 1998, p. 3). The study or description of the method or procedures used in some activity (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 525). The study of the methods or procedures used in a discipine so as to gain warranted knowedge (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 165). Methodoogy (quaitative) It is the theoretica perspective into the socia word. It is a way of thinking about and studying socia reaity (Straus and Corbin 1998, p. 3). Methodoogy (quantitative) An expicit way of structuring one s thinking and actions (Jayaratna 1994, p. 37). Methods A set of procedures and techniques for gathering and anaysing data (Strauss and Corbin 1998, p. 3). A particuar way of doing something (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 910). Menta modes A group or network of interreated concepts that refect conscious or subconscious perceptions of reaity. These interna menta networks of meaning are constructed as peope draw inferences and gather information about the word. Copyright # Coorado State University, Minima definition A definition that incudes the defining properties (or characteristics) and excudes the accompanying properties (Sartori 1984, p. 79). Mode A representation of something ese, designed for a specia purpose. This representation may take many forms, depending upon the purpose in hand (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 536). A mode is not a causa network but is more ike a chain of events. It is a strategy of deveoping inkages between concepts, nothing reguarities arousing one s curiosity (Cunningham 1993, p. 161). A drasticay simpified representation of the rea word endowed with strong expanatory power. Comparative Methods Dictionary, An exempary, paradigmatic, ideaized case (Sartori 1984, p. 79). A representation of a system that is constructed to study some aspect of that system or the system as a whoe (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 52). An inteectua construct, descriptive of an entity in which at east one observer has an interest. The observer may wish to reate his mode and, if appropriate, its mechanisms, to observabes in the word. When this is done it frequenty eads understandabe, but not accuratey to descriptions of the word couched in terms of modes, as if the word were identica with modes of it (Checkand 1999, p. 315).

164 9 Comparative Gossary 151 Muti-method research May often be used synonymousy with trianguation, as mutipe measurements are perhaps the muti-method strategy s most famiiar appication. However, with Brewer and Hunter (1989) we use the term muti-method research more widey, to incude its appication to a phases of the management research process (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 165). Empoying different types of methods to hep to guard against and to correct for inherent methodoogica biases either for or against certain types of theories (Brewer and Hunter 1989, p. 53). Naturaism According to the positivist schoo of thought, socia phenomena coud be researched in a simiar way as natura sciences. Any phiosophy, which sees, mind as dependent upon, incuded within, or emergent from materia nature, and not as being prior to or in some way more rea than it (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 565). The necessity to investigate human action in its natura or everyday setting and that the researcher must avoid disturbing that setting (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 165). A confusing term that has at east three distinct meanings; a commitment to adopting the principes of natura scientific method; being true to the nature of the phenomenon being investigated; and a stye of research that seeks to minimize the intrusion of artificia methods of data coection (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 36). Neutraity How can one estabish the degree to which the findings of an inquiry are determined by the subjects (respondents) and conditions of the inquiry and not by the biases, motivation, interests, or perspectives of the inquirer? Nomothetic An approach to expanation in which we seek to identify a few causa factors that generay impact cass of conditions or events. Imagine the two or three key factors that determine which coege s students choose, such as proximity, reputation, and so forth (Babbie 1998). Approaches to socia science that seek to construct a deductivey tested set of genera theories that expain and predict human behaviour. It emphasizes on the importance of basing research upon systematic protoco and technique (Gi and Johnson 2002, p. 44, 228). Normative statements Statement that is neither factua nor hypothetica (Sartori 1984, p. 79). Nu hypothesis Hypothesis that suggests there is no reationship among the variabes under study. You may concude that the variabes are reated after having statisticay rejected the nu hypothesis (Babbie 1998). This hypothesis is a statement that no difference exists between the parameter (a measure taken by a census of the popuation or a prior measurement of a sampe of the popuation) and the statistic being compared to it (a measure from a recenty drawn sampe of the popuation). A nu hypothesis is used for testing (Cooper and Schinder 2003, p. 523). Observation Observation is the process of carefuy watching someone or something, especiay in order to earn or understand something about him (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 991). The fu range of monitoring behavioura and non-behavioura activities and conditions (incuding record anaysis, physica condition anaysis, physica process anaysis, nonverba anaysis, inguistic anaysis, extra inguistic anaysis and spatia anaysis) (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 371). Ontoogy The theory of existence or, more narrowy, of what reay exists, as opposed to that which appears to exist, but does not, or to that which can propery be said to exist but ony if conceived as some compex whose constituents are the things that reay exist (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 608). The study of the essence of phenomena and the nature of their existence (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 165). A theory of the nature of socia entities (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 19).

165 152 9 Comparative Gossary Ontoogy (phiosophy) Reates to our assumptions of reaity such as whether it is externa or a construct of our minds (Jaspahara 2004, p. 93). Ontoogy (systems) Overa conceptuaization of a fied of knowedge that may not be presented in a hierarchica manner (Jaspahara 2004, p. 93). Operationa definition The concrete and specific definition of something in terms of the operations by which observations are to be categorized (Babbie 1998). An extensiona definition hinged on measurabe properties and eading to measurement operations. More broady, a definition that estabishes the meaning of the variabe in terms of observabe-measurabe indicators (Sartori 1984, p. 80). Operationaisation A theory that defines scientific concepts in terms of the actua experimenta procedures used to estabish their appicabiity (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 612). The creation of rues, which indicate when an instance of a concept has empiricay occurred (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 166). One step beyond conceptuaisation. It is the process of deveoping operationa definitions (Babbie 1998). To make a definition based on instructions for the operations that have to be done (Groot 1972, p. 232). A doctrine mainy associated with a version of physics, that emphasizes the search for operationa definitions of concepts (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 69). Ordina measure A eve of measurement describing a variabe with attributes you can rankorder aong some dimension. An exampe woud be socio-economic status as composed of the attributes of high, medium, ow. See aso, nomina, interva, or ratio measures. Gender woud be an exampe of nomina measure (Babbie 1998, p. G5). An ordina measure is a measure on ordina scae. The ordina scae incudes the possibiities of the nomina scae (measurements in groups) and aso aows ranking among the measurements, such as arger or smaer (Arbnor and Bjerke 1997, p. 230). Paradigm Paradigm is nothing more than a perspective taken toward data, another anaytic stance that heps to systematicay gather and order data in such ways that structure and process are integrated (Strauss and Corbin 1998, p. 128). Paradigm is a term, which is intended to emphasize the commonaity of perspective, which binds the work of a group of theorists together in such a way that they can be usefuy regarded as approaching socia theory within the bounds of the same probematic (Burre and Morgan 1979, p. 23). Usuay taken mean a way of ooking at some phenomenon. A Perspective from which distinctive conceptuaizations and expanations of phenomena are proposed (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 166). A paradigm may be viewed as a set of basic beiefs that deas with utimate or first principes. It represent a wordview that defines, for its hoder, the nature of the wordview that defines for its hoder, the nature of the word, the individua pace in it, and the range of possibe reationships to that word and it parts (Denzin and Lincon 1994, p. 107). In Thomas Kuhn s sense, the scientific community consensus on what constitutes the scientific procedure, and the basic axioms or findings thus resuting. More oosey, a framework that gives organization and direction to scientific investigation (Sartori 1984, p. 80). A term deriving from the history of science, where it was used to describe a custer of beiefs and dictates that for scientists in a particuar discipine infuence what shoud be studied, how research shoud be done, and how resuts shoud be interpreted (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 23). Parsimony In quantitative socia research refers to the use of as few independent variabes as possibe to expain as much of the variation in a dependent variabe as possibe (Ragin 1994, p. 189).

166 9 Comparative Gossary 153 Parsimony (in definitions) A definition that incudes ony the necessary properties of a concept. Sartori (1984, p. 81). Participative enquiry Participative enquiry is a phenomenoogica methodoogy and is about research with peope rather than research on peope. The participants in such a research study are invoved as fuy as possibe in the research, which is conducted in their own group or organization. A member of the group may even initiate the research. Participants are invoved in the data gathering and anaysis. They aso debate and determine the progress and direction of the research, thus enabing the researcher to evove questions and answers as a shred experience with a group. There are three different approaches to participative enquiry: cooperative enquiry, participatory action research and action science. The basis for a these approaches is that they see human beings as co-creating their reaity through participation, experience and action (Hussey and Hussey 1997, p. 72). Phenomenoogy Phenomenoogy is a presuppositioness phiosophy which hods consciousness to be the matrix of a phenomena to be objects of intentiona acts and treats them as essences, demands its own method, concerns itsef with predicative experience, offers itsef as the foundation of science, and comprises a phiosophy of the ife word, a defence of reason, and utimatey a critique of phiosophy (Burre and Morgan 1979, p. 232). Phenomenoogy is the study of ived experiences and the ways we understand these experiences to deveop a wordview (Marsha and Rossman 1999, p. 112). Phenomenoogy seems to be the more prevaiing approach to quaitative research in the socia sciences iterature (Gummesson 1991, p. 149). A study of how things appear to peope- how peope experience the word (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 166). A quaitative research approach concerned with understanding certain group behaviours from that group s point of view. Copyright # Coorado State University, coostate.edu/guides/research/gossary/ Positivism The view that a true knowedge is scientific, in the sense of describing the coexistence and succession of observabe phenomena (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 668). Knowedge consists of verified hypotheses that can be accepted as facts or aws (Denzin and Lincon 1994, p. 113). An approach that emphasizes the use of the methods presumed to be used in the natura sciences in the socia sciences (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 166). This research tradition is based on the statistica anaysis of data coected by means of descriptive and comparative studies and experiments (Gummeson 1991, p. 152). A term with many uses in socia science and phiosophy. At the broad end it embraces any approach, which appies scientific method to human affairs conceived as beonging to a natura order open to objective enquiry. At the narrow end, Positivism is especiay used in internationa reations to mean behaviourism so fierce it rejects a physioogica data and quaitative data (Hois 1994, p. 42). An epistemoogica position that advocates the appication of the methods of the natura sciences to the study of socia reaity and beyond (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 14). Precision One of the considerations in determining sampe vaidity: the degree to which estimates from the sampe refect the measure taken by a census; measured by the standard error of the estimate the smaer the error, the greater the precision of the estimate (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 165). Prediction The use of accumuated socia scientific knowedge about genera patterns and past events to make projections or extrapoation about the future and other nove institutions. Generay, socia researchers can make projections about rates and probabiities, but not about specific events, ike the timing of a major poitica change (Ragin 1994, pp ).

167 154 9 Comparative Gossary Probem cassification To cassify a probem in terms of the nature of the decision makers and in terms of the nature of the system(s) in which the probem is ocated (Food and Jackson 1991, p. 141). Probem (definition) The issue that exists in the iterature, theory, or practice that eads to a need for the study (Creswe 1994, p. 50). A probem is a situation or a state of affairs that causes difficuties for peope, so that they try to think of a way to dea with it (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 1143). A probem is defined as the difference between what is (or wi be) and what we woud ike the situation to be (Easton 1992, p. 13). The interpretation, (empirica) grounding and abeing of a situation, condition, phenomenon or function of the organization that is experienced as probematic by those invoved to such an extent that it requires research with regard to (possibe) soutions. The tota reasoning by means of which the researcher defines the phenomenon to be examined into a (scientific) researchabe (and reevant) research probem. Probem fieds Are the metaphorica pastures in which probems roam (Thomas 2004, p. 26). Probems (functiona and instrumenta) Instrumenta and functiona probems have a causa reation. An instrumenta probem concerns causes. Functiona probems concern the undesired effects in terms of the desired performance (Leeuw 2000, p. 288). Probems (goa) Probems that occur because the probem owner desires unfeasibe and unreaistic goas (Leeuw 2000, p. 283). Probem owners Peope who are assigned rights of ownership of a probem, vountariy or obigatory. He who has feeing of unease about a situation, either a sense of mismatch between what is and what might be or a vague feeing that things coud be better and who wishes something were done about it (Checkand 1999, p. 294). Probem identification During this stage a probem must be identified as a candidate for research and evauated to assess its suitabiity before resources are aocated to pursuing it (Thomas 2004, p. 26). In research settings, this might invove defining the probem form a number of perspectives, using different theoretica frameworks to investigate a probem, and having different and opposing viewpoints to soving probem (Cunningham 1993, p. 57). Probems (perception) Probems that (to the judgment of the investigator) can (must) be soved by changing the perception (Leeuw 2000, p. 282). Perceptions act as a fiter to information from the action word and determine what information is significant. Each person perceives reaity in different ways (Jayaratna 1994, p. 65). Probems (reaity) It is a probem, which arises in the everyday word of events and ideas, and may be perceived differenty by different peope. Such probems are not constructed by the investigators (Checkand 1999, p. 316). Probem for what the soution has to be found in changing the reaity. Reaity probems are contro probems for the probem owner (Leeuw 2000, p. 284). Probem (statements) The probem statement needs to convince the sponsor to continue reading. It contains the need for the research project. The probem is usuay represented by a management question and is foowed by a more detaied set of objectives (Cooper and Schinder 2003, p. 101, 662). Quasi-experiment In an experiment, subjects are pre-tested and then randomy assigned to a treatment group or a contro group. In a post-test, the two groups are compared to ascertain the impact of the treatment. True experiments must be constructed but comparative poitics can

168 9 Comparative Gossary 155 occasionay take advantage of naturay occurring quasi-experiments to draw inferences about the impact of a particuar variabe (for exampe, eectora reform) (Hague et a. 1998, p. 279). Questionnaire A document containing questions and other types of items designed to soicit information appropriate to anaysis. Questionnaires are used primariy in survey research and aso in experiments, fied research, and other modes of observation. Comparative Methods Dictionary, Question (cosed) A question that contains a cear outine and is therefore suitabe for further deineation. A type of measurement question that presents the respondent with a fixed set of questions (nomina, ordina, or interva data) (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 334). A question empoyed in an interview schedue or sef-competion questionnaire that presents the respondent with a set of possibe answers to choose from. Aso caed fixed-choice question and pre-coded question (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 116). Question (open) Open questions give the respondent the possibiity to answer with a persona response or opinion in his or her own words. Open questions offer the advantage that the respondents are abe to give their opinions as precisey as possibe in their own words, but they can be difficut to anayze. In a questionnaire survey, open questions may deter busy respondents from repying to the questionnaire (Hussey and Hussey 1997, p. 166). Random sampe A sampe in which every member of the popuation (simpe random sampe) or some subset of the popuation (stratified sampe) being tested has an equa chance of being incuded in the sampe. The purpose of samping is to be abe to infer, from the sampe taken, the attributes of the popuation as a whoe. Ony if the sampe is random can the probabiity be cacuated that a samped attribute appies to the popuation as a whoe. Comparative Methods Dictionary, poi.haifa.ac.i/~evi/dictionary.htm A question that concerns a broad definition of a probem that offers a opportunity for interpretation and outine. A type of measurement question in which the respondent provides the answer without the aid of an interviewer (either in phone, persona interview, or sef-administered surveys); a.k.a. unstructured or free response question (nomina, ordina or ratio data) (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 345). A question empoyed in an interview schedue or sef-competion questionnaire that does not present the respondent with a set of possibe answers to choose from (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 117). Ratio measure A eve of measurement describing a variabe the attributes of which have a the quaities of ordina, interva, or nomina measures and in addition are based on a true zero point. Age woud be an exampe of a ratio measure (Babbie 1998, p. G6). Reaism May be divided into metaphysica reaism and epistemoogica reaism. The former consider that reaity exists independenty of the cognitive structures of observers, whie the atter considers that reaity is cognitivey accessibe to observers. Much of reaism entais both views, athough some reaists woud caim that, whie reaity does exist and dependenty of our efforts to understand it, it is not cognitivey accessibe (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 166). An epistemoogica position that acknowedges a reaity independent of the senses that is accessibe to the researchers toos and theoretica specuations. It impies that the categories created by the scientists refer to rea objects in the natura or socia words (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 15). Refection A refection is something, which informs you about a particuar thing because it has simiar characteristics or because it is based on that other thing (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 1210).

169 156 9 Comparative Gossary Refexivity A term used in research methodoogy to refer to a refectiveness among socia researchers about the impications for the knowedge of the socia word they generate of their methods, vaues, biases, decisions, and mere presence in the very situations they investigate (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 529). It is the monitoring by an ethnographer of his or her impact upon the socia situation under investigation. So rather than to attempt to eiminate the effects of the researcher on the investigation, the researcher shoud attempt to understand his or her effect upon, and roe in, n the research setting and utiize this knowedge to eicit data (Gi and Johnson 2002, p. 147, 228). Refexivity is the process through which a researcher recognizes, examines, and understands how his or her own socia background and assumptions can intervene in the research process. It is sensitivity to the important situationa dynamics between the researcher and researched that can impact the creation of knowedge. Researchers can use the process of refexivity as a too to assist them with studying across difference (Heasse-Biber and Leavy 2006, p. 146). Reduction Questioning or interrogating the meanings or categories that have been deveoped. Are there any other ways of ooking at the data? Process of seecting, abstracting, from raw data to written data. Reduction (seective) The centra idea of content anaysis. Text is reduced to categories consisting of a word, set of words or phrases, on which the researcher can focus. Specific words or patterns are indicative of the research question and determine eves of anaysis and generaization. Copyright # Coorado State University, guides/research/gossary/ Reductionism Strict imitation (reduction) of the kinds of concepts to be considered reevant to the phenomenon under study (Babbie 1998). Reification The process of regarding things that are not rea as rea (Babbie 1998). The apprehension of human phenomena as if they were things, that is, in non-human or possiby supra-human terms (Berger and Luckman 1966). The apprehension of the products of human activity as if they were something ese than human products such as facts of nature, resuts of cosmic aws, or manifestations of divine wi (Berger and Luckmann 1966). Reativism The notion that how things appear to peope, and individua s judgment about truth, is reative to their particuar paradigm or frame of reference (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 166). Reiabiity Wi the measure yied the same resuts on different occasions (assuming no rea change in what is to be measured). Wi different researchers make simiar observations on different occasions? The statements have to be based on an accurate observation of reaity and shoud not have their origins in accidenta circumstances in the instruments of measurement, nor in the examined unities. The extent to which findings can be repicated, or reproduced, by another inquirer (Denzin and Lincon 1994, p. 100). A criterion that refers to the consistency of the resuts obtained in research (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 166). The extent to which a measure, procedure or instrument yieds the same resut on repeated trias. Copyright # Coorado State University, research/gossary/ That quaity of measurement method that suggests that the same data woud have been coected each time in repeated observations of the same phenomenon (Babbie 1998). The extent to which measurements yied, when repeated, simiar or confirming resuts (Sartori 1984, p. 82). Consistency in performance or prediction (Sakind 2000, p. 106). The degree to which a measure of a concept is stabe (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 76).

170 9 Comparative Gossary 157 A characteristic of measurement concerned with accuracy, precision, and consistency; a necessary but not sufficient condition for vaidity (if the measure is not reiabe, it cannot be vaid) (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 215). Reiabiity (Cronbach s apha) A commony used test of interna reiabiity. It essentiay cacuates the average of a possibe spit-haf reiabiity coefficients. A computed apha coefficient wi vary between 1 (denoting perfect interna reiabiity) and 0 (denoting no interna reiabiity). The figure 0.80 is typicay empoyed as a rue of thumb to denote an acceptabe eve of interna reiabiity (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 77). Reiabiity (stabiity) The agreement of measuring instruments over time. Copyright # Coorado State University, Repication Generay, the dupication of an experiment to expose or reduce error. It is aso a technica term used in connection with the eaboration mode, referring to the eaboration outcome in which the initiay observed reationship between two variabes persists when a contro variabe is hed constant (Babbie 1998). Research design A research design describes a fexibe set of guideines that connect theoretica paradigms to strategies of inquiry and methods for coecting empirica materia (Denzin and Lincon 1994, p. 14). A pan for coecting and anayzing evidence that wi make it possibe for the investigator to answer whatever questions he or she has posed. The design of an investigation touches amost a aspects of the research, form the minute detais of data coection to the seection of the techniques of data anaysis (Ragin 1994, p. 191). A framework for the coection and anaysis of data. A choice of research design refects decisions about the priority being given to a range of dimensions of the research process (such as causaity and generaization) (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 32). The bueprint for fufiing research objectives and answering questions (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 75). Research (empirica) The process of deveoping systematized knowedge gained from observations that are formuated to support insights and generaizations about the phenomena under study. (Lauer and Asher 1988, p. 7). Copyright # Coorado State University, Research (quaitative) Empirica research in which the researcher expores reationships using textua, rather than quantitative data. Case study, observation, and ethnography are considered forms of quaitative research. Resuts are not usuay considered generaizabe, but are often transferabe. Copyright # Coorado State University, guides/research/gossary/ A basic strategy of socia research that usuay invoves in-depth examination of a reativey sma number of cases. Cases are examined intensivey with techniques designed to faciitate the carification of theoretica concepts and empirica categories (Ragin 1994, p. 190). Research (quantitative) Empirica research in which the researcher expores reationships using numeric data. Survey is generay considered a form of quantitative research. Resuts can often be generaized, though this is not aways the case. Copyright # Coorado State University, A basic strategy of socia research that usuay invoves anaysis of patterns of co variation across a arge number of cases. This approach focuses on variabes and reationships among variabes in an effort to identify genera patterns of co-variation (Ragin 1994, p. 190). Research strategies Combine a primary research objective and a specific research method, for exampe, the use of comparative methods to study diversity. Each strategy constitutes a specific way of inking ideas and evidence to produce a representation of some aspect of socia ife (Ragin 1994, p. 191).

171 158 9 Comparative Gossary Retroduction The interpay of induction and deduction, and is centra to the process of scientific discovery. The process of constructing representations form the interaction between anaytic frames and images invoves retroduction (Ragin 1994, p. 191). Rhetoric A concern with the ways in which appeas to convince or persuade are devised (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 519). Rich picture A cartoon-ike expression, in the spirit of such representations, aows for certain issues, conficts and other probematic and interesting features to be accentuated. The rich picture expression represents the cimate of the situation (Food and Jackson 1991, p. 172). It is a graphica summary of the main factors affecting a situation (Patching 1990, p. 280). Rigor Degree to which research methods are scrupuousy and meticuousy carried out in order to recognize important infuences occurring in an experiment. Copyright # Coorado State University, Sampe The popuation researched in a particuar study. Usuay, attempts are made to seect a sampe popuation that is considered representative of groups of peope to whom resuts wi be generaized or transferred. In studies that use inferentia statistics to anayze resuts or which are designed to be generaisabe, sampe size is critica generay the arger the number in the sampe, the higher the ikeihood of a representative distribution of the popuation. Copyright # Coorado State University, Saturation Saturation is the process or state that occurs when one thing is fied so fu of another thing that no more can be added (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 1286). When additiona anaysis no onger contributes to discovering anything new about a category (Strauss 1987, p. 21). The diminishing margina contribution of each additiona case (Gummeson 1991, p. 85). Sensitising concepts A term devised by Bumer to refer to a preference for treating a concept as a guide in an investigation, so that it points in a genera way to what is reevant or important. This position contrasts with the idea of an operationa definition, in which the meaning of a concept is fixed in advance of carrying out an investigation (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 286). It gives the user a genera sense of reference and guidance in approaching empirica instances. Whereas definitive concepts provided prescriptions of what to see, sensitizing concepts merey suggest directions aong which to ook (Bumer 1954). Sensitizing Concepts are theory-embedded notions used by the researcher (f/m) when studying phenomenon in the case(s). Sensitizing Concepts are pre-theoretica by nature and guide the way of ooking. Sensitivity (context) Awareness by a quaitative researcher of factors such as vaues and beiefs that infuence cutura behaviours. Copyright # Coorado State University, writing.coostate.edu/guides/research/gossary/ Survey A research too that incudes at east one question that is either open-ended or coseended and empoys an ora or written method for asking these questions. The goa of a survey is to gain specific information about either a specific group or a representative sampe of a particuar group. Resuts are typicay used to understand the attitudes, beiefs, or knowedge of a particuar group. Copyright # Coorado State University, edu/guides/research/gossary/ Techniques A technique is a particuar method of doing an activity, usuay a method that invoves practica skis (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 1501). Teeoogy The theory that events can ony be expained, and that evauation of anything can ony be justified, by consideration of the ends towards, which they are directed (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 861).

172 9 Comparative Gossary 159 Teeoogy is the theory or beief that a natura things are designed to fufi a particuar purpose (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 1502). Greek teos, end ; ogos, discourse, in phiosophy, the science or doctrine that attempts to expain the universe in terms of ends or fina causes. Teeoogy is based on the proposition that the universe has design and purpose. In Aristoteian phiosophy, the expanation of, or justification for, a phenomenon or process is to be found not ony in the immediate purpose or cause, but aso in the fina cause the reason for which the phenomenon exists or was created. In Christian theoogy, teeoogy represents a basic argument for the existence of God, in that the order and efficiency of the natura word seem not to be accidenta. If the word design is inteigent, an utimate Designer must exist. Teeoogists oppose mechanistic interpretations of the universe that rey soey on organic deveopment or natura causation. The powerfu impact of Chares Darwin s theories of evoution, which hod that species deveop by natura seection, has greaty reduced the infuence of traditiona teeoogica arguments. Nonetheess, such arguments were sti advanced by many during the upsurge of creationist sentiment in the eary 1980s (Brown and Novick 1997). Testabiity A procedure for critica evauation; a means of determining the presence, quaity, or truth of something; a tria. The American Heritage: Dictionary (2000). Theoretica samping A deiberate seection of cases. Theoretica samping describes the process of choosing new research sites of cases to compare with one that has aready been studied. For exampe, a researcher interested in how environmenta activists in the United States maintain their poitica commitments might extend the study to (1) environmenta activists in another part of the word or perhaps to (2) another type of activist. The goa of theoretica samping is not to sampe in a way that captures a possibe variations, rather in one that aids the deveopment of concepts and deepens the understanding of research subjects (Ragin 1994, p. 98). Theory A Theory is an idea or set of ideas that is intended to expain something. It is based on evidence and carefu reasoning but it cannot be competey proved (Coins Cobuid Dictionary 1987, p. 1515). A formuation regarding the cause and effect reationship between two or more variabes, which may or may not have been tested (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 166). A system of ideas, which conceptuaises some aspect of experience (Dey 1993, p. 276). Compare with Sartori a body of systematicay reated generaizations of expanatory vaue (Sartori 1984, p. 84). A group of ogicay reated statements that expain things that have occurred in the past and predicts things that wi occur in the future (Sakind 2000, p. 3). A set of systematicay integrated concepts, definitions, and propositions that are advanced to expain or predict phenomena (facts); the generaizations we make about variabes and the reationships among variabes (Cooper 2001, p. 51). Theory: midde range theory Theorizing can be performed at severa eves of socia inquiry. The midpoint between micro-eve and macro-eve theories is where midde-range theories are ocated. Robert Merton suggested that midde-range theories represent the most constructive effort for theorizing. It is in the midde between the minor working hypotheses and the aincusive specuations were one can hope to derive a very arge number of empiricay observed uniformities of socia behaviour. Comparative Methods Dictionary, dictionary.htm Theory-aden This term refers to the way in which the prior vaues, knowedge and theories of an observer infuence what he or she sees during observation (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 166). The property of observations varying with or depending upon the theoretica commitments of the observer. Insofar as observations are theory aden, your beiefs as shaped by the theory or paradigm you accept determine what you observe, so that partisans of different theories (or paradigms) wi observe differenty (Leiber 2001).

173 160 9 Comparative Gossary Theory-testing It invoves deducing how the word shoud ook if the theory s prepositions are vaid and then setting out to obtain data to see if reaity matches expectations (Thomas 2004, p. 17). Transferabiity To aow readers to expore the extent to which the study may, or may not, have appicabiity beyond the specific context within which the data were generated; the researcher shoud report the contextua features of the study in fu. The abiity to appy the resuts of research in one context to another simiar context. Aso, the extent to which a study invites readers to make connections between eements of the study and their own experiences. Copyright # Coorado State University, guides/research/gossary/ Trianguation Trianguation is used for the appication of two or more methods on the same research probem in order to increase the reiabiity of the resuts (Gummeson 1991, p. 122). The use of different research methods in the same study to coect data so as to check vaidity of any findings. The coection of different data upon the same phenomena, something using different researchers so as to vaidity any findings. Coecting data upon the same phenomenon at different times and paces within the same study (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 166). The use of a combination of research methods in a study. An exampe of trianguation woud be a study that incorporated surveys, interviews, and observations. Copyright # Coorado State University, The use of more than one method or source of data in the study of a socia phenomenon so that findings may be cross-checked (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 291). Trianguation in quantitative research Using, invoving and combining different (data) sources in order to show that simiar resuts have been produced. Trianguation in quaitative research Using, invoving and combining different (data) sources in order to refect upon severa facts simutaneousy. There are four basic forms of trianguation: data-trianguation, researchers-trianguation and methodoogica trianguation. Typoogy The cassification of observations in terms of their attributes on two or more variabes. The cassification of newspapers as ibera-urban, ibera-rura, conservative-urban or conservative-rura woud be an exampe (Babbie 1998). Units of anaysis The what or whom being studied. In socia science research, the most typica units of anaysis are individua peope (Babbie 1998). Units of anaysis are reated to the fundamenta probem of defining what the case is. The case can be an individua or an event or entity that is ess we defined than an individua. The seection of the appropriate units of anaysis wi occur when the primary research question is accuratey specified (Yin 2003, p. 23, 24). Usabiity The quaity of a design is its usabiity. A design is usabe (reevant and vaid) if it does that what it has been made for, under the circumstances it has it has been designed for and against reasonabe costs (Leeuw 2000, p. 214). Utiity Is for the researcher after a a centra requirement, but it needs to be recognized as not a singe idea usefu for whom, and for what purpose? Additionay, utiity has its own imitations: other requirements of management research are not automaticay determined by the practicaity test (Griseri 2002, p. 56). Vaidation The process by which scientific theories become accepted. Comparative Methods Dictionary, Vaidation (communicative) A diaogue among those considered egitimate knower who may often make competing caims to knowedge buiding. The idea is that each interpretation of a given finding is open to discussion and refutation by the wider community of researchers, and

174 9 Comparative Gossary 161 sometimes this extends to community in which the research itsef was conducted (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2006, p. 64). Vaidation (expanatory) The commonest definition of vaidity is epitomized by the question: Are we measuring what we think we are measuring? (Keringer 1973, p. 457). Vaidity (concurrent) Concurrent vaidity measures the description of the present (Cooper 2003, p. 232). Vaidation (externa) The process of testing the vaidity of a measure, such as an index or scae, by examining its reationship to other, presumed indicators of the same variabe. If the index reay measures prejudice, for exampe, it shoud correate with other indicators of prejudice (Babbie 1998). Does an observed causa reationship generaize across persons, settings and times (Cooper 2003, p. 432). Vaidity (discriminate) Comparison is between measures of unreated ideas test the measure s vaidity, which is its abiity to distinguish the phenomenon it caims to measure from other phenomena to which it is supposedy irreevant (Brewer and Hunter 2006, p. 111). Vaidity (predictive) Predictive vaidity measures the prediction of the future (Cooper 2003, p. 232). How we does it predict performance on the criterion in question; this is caed predictive criterion vaidity (Robson 2002, p. 103). Vaidity (genera) The characteristics of an inference whose concusion must be true if its premises are (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 906). The degree to which a study accuratey refects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure. A method can be reiabe, consistenty measuring the same thing, but not vaid. See aso interna vaidity and externa vaidity. Copyright # Coorado State University, Describes assertions, arguments, concusions, reasons, or inteectua processes that are persuasive because they are we founded. What is vaid is based on or borne out by truth or fact or has ega force (The American Heritage: Dictionary 2000). Refers to the appropriateness of a measure does it measure what it is supposed to measure? To assess vaidity researchers must assess whether their data coection and measurement procedures work the way they caim (Ragin 1994, p. 193). A characteristic of measurement concerned that a test measures what the researcher actuay wishes to measure; that difference found with a measurement too refect true differences with among respondents drawn from a popuation (Cooper and Schinder 2001, p. 211). A concern with the integrity of the concusions that are generated from a piece of research. When used on its own, vaidity is usuay taken to refer to measurement vaidity (Bryman and Be 2003, p. 77). The truthfuness or accuracy within the score of a test or interpretation of an experiment (Sakind 2000, p. 113). Vaidity (convergent) The genera agreement among ratings, gathered independenty of one another, where measures shoud be theoreticay reated. Copyright # Coorado State University, Vaidity (discriminate) The ack of a reationship among measures which theoreticay shoud not be reated. Copyright # Coorado State University, guides/research/gossary/

175 162 9 Comparative Gossary Vaidity (construct) Do items measure hypothetica constructs or concepts? (Creswe 1994, p. 121). Seeks an agreement between a theoretica concept and a specific measuring device, such as observation. Copyright # Coorado State University, guides/research/gossary/ It is a quantitative question rather than a quaitative distinction. It can be measured by the correation between the intended independent variabe (construct) and the proxy independent variabe (indicator, sign) that is actuay used (Hunter and Schmidt 1990). Construct vaidation is invoved whenever a test is to be interpreted as a measure of some attribute or quaity, which is not operationay defined. The probem faced by the investigator is, What constructs account for variance in test performance? (Cronbach and Meeh 1955, pp ). Vaidity (Interna) The degree to which findings correcty map the phenomenon in question (Denzin and Lincon 1994, p. 100). An assessment of the degree of isomorphism between a study s findings and the rea word (Guba and Lincon 1989, p. 236). The extents to which the concusions regarding cause and effect are warranted (Denzin and Lincon 1994, p. 100). (1) The rigor with which the study was conducted (e.g. the study s design, the care taken to conduct measurements, and decisions concerning what was and wasn t measured) and (2) the extent to which the designers of a study have taken into account aternative expanations for any causa reationships they expore (Huitt 1998). In studies that do not expore causa reationships, ony the first of these definitions shoud be considered when assessing interna vaidity. Copyright # Coorado State University, The process whereby the individua items composing a composite measure are correated with the measure itsef. This provides one test of the wisdom of incuding a the items in the composite measure (Babbie 1998). Vaidity (externa) The degree to which findings can be generaized to other settings simiar to the one in which the study occurred (Denzin and Lincon 1994, p. 100). A concepts that embodies the very essence of generaiziabiity, ikewise can have itte meaning if the reaities to which one might wish to generaize exist in different vaue systems (Guba and Lincon 1989, p. 236). The extent to which the resuts of a study are generaizabe or transferabe. See aso vaidity. Copyright # Coorado State University, gossary/ Vaidity (content) Do the items measure the content they were intended to measure? (Creswe 1994, p. 121). The extent to which a measurement refects the specific intended domain of content (Carmines and Zeer 1991, p. 20). Copyright # Coorado State University, writing.coostate.edu/guides/research/gossary/ Content vaidity is concerned with sampe-popuation representativeness, i.e. the knowedge and skis covered by the test items shoud be representative to the arger domain of knowedge and skis (Cronbach 1971). Vaidity (predictive) Do scores predict a criterion measure? Creswe (1994, p. 121). Vaidity (concurrent) Do resut correate with each other? Creswe (1994, p. 121). Vaidity (face) Do the items appear to measure what the instrument purports to measure? Creswe (1994, p. 121). Face vaidity simpy means the vaidity at face vaue. As a check on face vaidity, test/survey items are sent to teachers to obtain suggestions for modification. Because of its vagueness and

176 9 Comparative Gossary 163 subjectivity, psychometricians have abandoned this concept for a ong time (Cronbach 1971). Face vaidity is concerned with how a measure or procedure appears. Does it seem ike a reasonabe way to gain the information the researchers are attempting to obtain? Does it seem we designed? Does it seem as though it wi work reiaby? Unike content vaidity, face vaidity does not depend on estabished theories for support (Fink 1995). That quaity of an indicator that makes it seems a reasonabe measure of some variabe. That the frequency of church attendance is some indication of a person s reigiosity seems to make sense without a ot of expanation. It has face vaidity (Babbie 1998, p. G3). Vaidity (popuation) The extent to which concusions might be generaized to other peope (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 166). The extent to which the resuts of a study can be generaized from the specific sampe that was studied to a arger group of subjects (Bracht and Gass 1968, pp ). Vaidity (ecoogica) The extent to which concusions might be generaized to socia contexts other than those in which data has been coected (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 166). The extent to which the resuts of an experiment can be generaized from the set of environmenta conditions created by the researcher to other environmenta conditions (settings and conditions) (Bracht and Gass 1968, pp ). Vaidity (criterion reated) Used to demonstrate the accuracy of a measuring procedure by comparing it with another procedure, which has been demonstrated to be vaid; aso referred to as instrumenta vaidity. Copyright # Coorado State University, coostate.edu/guides/research/gossary/ Variabe (genera) A concept, which varies by kind or amount (Dey 1993, p. 276). Variance A measure of the degree of dispersion of a series of numbers around their mean. The arger the variance the greater the spread of the series around its means. Comparative Methods Dictionary, The variance is the average of the squared deviation scores form the distribution s mean. It is a measure of score dispersion from the mean. The greater the dispersion of scores, the greater is the variance (Cooper and Schinder 2003, p. 475). Verification Testing the empirica vaidity of assertions, generaizations, aws and theories. Since the number of supporting instances is indefinite, a process of verification is never fina (Satori 1984, p. 85). Variabe (exogenous) A variabe whose vaue is not determined with the set of equations, or modes, estabished to make predictions or test a hypothesis. Comparative Methods Dictionary, Variabe (nomina) A variabe determined by categories, which cannot be ordered, e.g. gender and coour. Copyright # Coorado State University, guides/research/gossary/ Verstehen The vaue of subjective evidence to the vaue of evidence from the accused and the victim in a court of aw. A method of anaysis particuary suited to the investigation of socia affairs, for which the subjective meanings of events are a important (Burre and Morgan 1979, p. 83). Term used in Germany from the ate nineteenth century to denote understanding within, by means of empathy, intuition or imagination, as opposed to knowedge from without, by means of observation or cacuation (Dictionary of Modern Thought 1977, p. 908). A term used to expain the actions of subjects by understanding the subjective dimensions of their behaviour (Gi and Johnson 1991, p. 166). The vaue of subjective evidence is anaogous to the vaue of evidence from the accused and the victim in a court of aw (Vygotski 1993, p. 276).

177 Chapter 10 Epiogue Research is above a a socia activity in containing an array of ideas, concepts and instruments that can be appied in many different ways. The previous chapters have demonstrated the difficuty of constructing a sound research design given the array of possibe choices. We have caed this equifinaity. Being novices to the research fied we perfecty understand that many students find it difficut to make wereasoned choices to act upon their own basic and often ony recenty acquired (research) attitude and make methodoogica choices of which they cannot accuratey appraise the impications. It shoud come as no surprise that stimuated by the preferences of a supervisor time and again the same methodoogica set is appied often driven by a justification based on repicabiity, robustness or reiabiity. The premise that a research project marks the end of a programme that has taught the student to deveop and demonstrate his abiity to do sound research is fase. We beieve that for many students it is ony after the research project itsef that students reay come to understand what it is to engage in research, because they have discovered and experienced firsthand the methodoogica, theoretica and practica connotations. The idea that scientific research is a neutra, objective search for the truth is hardy credibe in the socia sciences at arge. Any schoary pubication eaborating on the phiosophy of knowedge the different epistemoogica debates and competing paradigms wi demonstrate this perspective. Recognising and understanding the difficuties that come with this view and knowing how to address them becomes an important component of the research itsef. It is crucia to earn how to seect and justify the appropriate mix of methodoogy, methods and techniques that support a specific approach for conducting research in a specific context. In the preceding chapter we have pieced this approach together from a variety of sources and our own experiences as teachers and researchers. The resuts are certainy not free from interna contradiction and as such open to debate. It represents what we think many students actuay ought to do as opposed to what they caim they do and in that sense forms a benchmark for judging actua practice in appied research (Ryan 1992). J. Jonker and B. Pennink, The Essence of Research Methodoogy, DOI / _10, # Springer-Verag Berin Heideberg

178 Epiogue Students in management sciences mainy conduct research in organisations addressing probems derived from others ambition to organise their organisations better. Their research generay focuses on why given a particuar situation a probem surfaces and seems to be in need of a soution. Why the organising actuay takes pace or what the underying concepts, ideas and assumptions are, is not the actua object of the research. The aim is to understand why probems emerge so that knowedge of the theory and practice of organising is essentia. Organising nowadays has moved from a functiona and rationaist approach towards one in which an infinite universe of possibe organisationa constructs are possibe. This deveopment rather transitiona in nature demands the deveopment of a corresponding body of theory. Needess to say theory deveopment for this new branch of management sciences provides chaenging opportunities. In the everyday practice of appied research, scrutinising theory, however, does not seem to be the core issue. A conceptua mode as a ready-made abstraction of reaity seems to be a more meaningfu and handy concept for students when they are earning to hande the notion of theory. As we have argued the theoretica scope of any mode is defined by its assumptions and attendant set of expanatory or predictive impications. Understanding the theoretica nature of an appied mode is essentia. Eaborating and scrutinising on that embedded theoretica body of knowedge may be even more important. This text as a whoe is rather constructivist in tone athough not naivey so. This is our phiosophica perspective of organising. Organising represents the continuous construction of interactions with the various and sometimes-conficting goas of the stakehoders in mind. Athough an array of estabished conceptua modes can be distinguished to address specific organisationa issues the actua act of organising remains fundamentay socia. Time after time, peope create what we have come to ca the organisation a reification that certainy serves its purpose but is not accurate when it comes to understanding what organising is a about. Organising has been defined as an ongoing stream of events in which peope make deiberate and intuitive choices to ater the chain of events. But what we organise when we organise often remains a ridde wrapped in an enigma. Truy understanding why a specific probem or maybe it is better to speak of a configuration of probems needs to be addressed at a specific moment remains a core issue throughout any research. The biggest pitfa here is to fix the probem at the beginning of the research and not to hande it throughout the process of the research as a capricious creature. The key to seecting and appying a specific methodoogy to dea with a particuar question ies in understanding the nature of the assumptions that come with it. Good research is determined by how the connection between data, anaysis and theory is being demonstrated and justified. We have strongy argued that meaning is given to data in terms of the theories concerned. For any set of data a number of inevitaby ambiguous reations can be created to support different theoretica concepts. This refects the fact that data can take on radicay different interpretations when viewed from different theoretica perspectives athough the peope invoved may we agree on the reiabiity of the data itsef. That is the

179 10 Epiogue 167 freedom of the researcher, yet it is a freedom that demands ucidity, cear arguments and professionaism in its appication. Learning to justify one s research actions and choices in a transparent manner seems to be the cornerstone of sound appied research. We do hope this text has contributed to this understanding.

180 References Gossary Arbnor, I. & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodoogy for creating business knowedge. London: Sage. Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of socia research. Wadsworth: G3 Pubishing Company. Barton Cunningham, J. (1993). Action research and organizationa deveopment. Westport: Greenwood Pubishing. Baumard, P. (1999). Tacit knowedge in organizations. London: Sage. Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The socia construction of reaity. New York: Anchor Books. Backburn, S. (1996). The Oxford dictionary of phiosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bracht, G. H. & Gass, G. V. (1968). The externa vaidity of experiments. American Education Research Journa, 5, Brewer, J. & Hunter, A. (1989). Muti-method research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brewer, J. & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of muti-method research, synthesizing styes. London: Sage. Brown, D. J. & McCen Novick, R. (eds). (1997). Mavericks of the mind: Conversations for the New Miennium. Freedom: Crossing Press. Bryman, A. (2004). Socia research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. & Be, E. (2003). Business research methods. New York: Oxford University Press. Buock, A. & Trombey, S. (eds). (1977). The new dictionary of modern thought. London: HarperCoins Pubishers. Burre, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Socioogica paradigms and organizationa anaysis. Hants: Gower Pubishing. Casse, C. & Symon, G. (1994). Quaitative methods in organizationa research. London: Sage. Checkand, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice. West Sussex: Wiey. Choo, C. W. (1998). The knowing organization. New York: Oxford University Press. Cobuid, C. (1987). Engish anguage dictionary. London: Harper Coins Pubishers. Conbach, L. J. & Meeh, P. E. (1955). Construct vaidity in psychoogica tests. Psychoogica Buetin, 52, Cooper, D. R. & Schinder, P. S. (2001). Business research methods. New York: McGraw-Hi. Creswe, J. W. (1994). Research design: quaitative & quantitative approaches. London: Sage. Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test vaidation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educationa measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Counci on Education. Cunningham, J. B. (1993). Action research and organizationa deveopment. Westport: Praeger Pubishers. de Groot, A. D. (1972). Methodoogie. Den Haag: Mouton and Company. de Leeuw, A. C. J. (2000). Bedrijfskundig management. Assen: Koninkijke van Gorcum and Company. 169

181 170 References Gossary Denzin, N. K. & Lincon, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of quaitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dey, I. (1993). Quaitative data anaysis. A User-Friendy guide for socia scientists. London: Routedge. Dogan, M. & Peassy, D. (1984). How to compare nations: strategies in comparative poitics. New Jersey: Chatham House Pubishers. Easton, G. (1992). Learning from case studies. London: Prentice Ha. Ester, J. (1989). Nuts and bots for the socia sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fink, A. (ed). (1995). How to measure survey reiabiity and vaidity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Food, R. L. & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative probem soving. West Sussex: Wiey. Franssen, M. (1997). Some contributions to methodoogica individuaism in the socia sciences. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Gi, J. & Johnson, P. (1991). Research methods for managers. London: Pau Chapman Pubishing. Gi, J. & Johnson, P. (2002). Research methods for managers. London: Sage. Goertz, G. (2006). Socia science concepts. A user s guide. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Greenwood, D. J. & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research; socia research for socia change. London: Sage. Griseri, P. (2002). Management knowedge, a critica view. New York: Pagrave. Guba, E. G. & Lincon, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evauation. London: Sage. Gummesson, E. (1991). Quaitative methods in management research. London: Sage. Hague, R., Harrop, M., & Bresin, S. (1998). Comparative government and poitics: an introduction (4th ed.). Basingstoke: Pagrave. Hedström, P. (2003). Generative modes and expanatory research: On the socioogy of Aage B. Sørensen. In A. L. Kaeberg et a (Eds.), Inequaity: structures, dynamics and mechanisms: essays in honor of Aage B Sørensen. Specia issue of Research in Socia Stratification and Mobiity, 21, Hesse-Biber, S. N. & Leavy, P. (2006). The practice of quaitative research. London: Sage. Hisop, D. (2005). Knowedge management in organizations. A critica introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hois, M. (1994). The phiosophy of socia science. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-anaysis: correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hussey, J. & Hussey, R. (1997). Business research: a practica guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. London: MacMian. ISCU Report (2004). Optimizing knowedge in the information society. Jashapara, A. (2004). Knowedge management. Harow: Pearson Education. Keringer, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behaviora research. Tokyo: Hot-Saunders Japan. Kottak, C. P. (2004). Anthropoogy; the exporation of human diversity. New York: Mc Graw Hi. Leiber, J. (2001). A phiosophica gossary. Houston, TX: University of Houston. Marsha, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing quaitative research. London: Sage. Mies, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Quaitative data anaysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patching, D. (1999). Practica soft systems anaysis. London: Pitman pubishing. Pidgeon, N. F., Turner, B. A., & Bockey, D. I. (1991). The use of grounded theory for conceptua anaysis in knowedge eicitation. Internationa Journa of Man-Machine Studies, 35(2), Ragin, C. (1994). Constructing socia research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reason, P. (1999). Integrating action and refection through co-operative inquiry. London: Sage. Robson, C. (2002). Rea word research. Oxford: Backwe. Sakind, N. J. (2000). Exporing research. New Jersey: Prentice Ha. Sartori, G. (1984). Socia Science concepts. London: Sage. Schatzman, L. & Strauss, A. L. (1973). Fied research. New Jersey: Prentice Ha. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage.

182 Websites 171 Strauss, A. L. (1987). Quaitative anaysis for socia scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Straus, C. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of quaitative research: techniques and procedures for deveoping grounded theory. London: Sage. The American Heritage Dictionary of the Engish Language (4 th ed.) (2000). Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin Company. Thomas, A. B. (2004). Research skis for management studies. London: Routedge. Vygotskii, L. S. (1993). Coected works of L.S. Vygotskii. Deventer: Kuwer. Websters Comprehensive Dictionary (1996). Chicago: Ferguson Pubishing Company. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage. Websites Dick, B. (1999). What is action research? Encarta Word Engish Dictionary (2004). Kemering, G. (2002). Phiosophy pages. Levi-Faur, D. (2003). Comparative methods dictionary. htm WordNet 2.0, Princeton University (2003). ( ).