I have come to my final blog entry for BUSN 8018. I really enjoyed this course and as well as doing this blog. I would like to make a few points in relation to the progress of my qualitative research project. I am analysing the interview data in addition to some documents. I can already see how ANT will provide some explanations for my results and hence 'fit' my data and research problem. It provides a language for my observed phenomena. For example, with the interview data on research teams it becomes obvious that to understand research teams they cannot be seen in isolation but must be placed within their larger network of relations. The ties with significant others helps shape and mould the success/failure of research teams. Also, the entry and exit of team members is important in shaping the direction. Their are many interrelated factors that unfold to produce the observed outcomes.
Particular aspects of ANT that I think I will draw on to explain my data include: network of relations/interactions (broader nexus of activity); the notion of performativity; and the importance of human as well as non-human actors. The key difference between these actors is that human actors have intentionality, however non-human actors do not. Therefore, while ANT advocates that non-human actors deserve the same attention as human actors, the differentiating feature of intentionality is expected to provide insight into why differences may exist between these actors. In the context of my study, particularly in the document analysis, one can argue that accounting and MCS are the non-human actors (accounting is a network effect and an interdependent actor) and that accounting is a mediator and transforms relationships. The importance of accounting as a non-human actor, performativity and employing a network perspective based on social relations and interactions are the tools that I will employ from this theoretical lens.
Based on my experience from conducting interviews with academic staff I realise that during an interview, the interviewer needs to do a lot of thinking. For example, in addition to your interview protocol you may tend to ask another question following from what an interviewee said. This shows you are listening to the interviewee and it seems more like a dialogue than simply an interview.
A preliminary document analysis reveals that the companies involved in such a coopetitive relationship attempt to implement mechanisms to cooperate during earlier parts of the value chain (research, design, development and production), however seek to compete with it comes to selling the final product to consumers. In particular, I noticed that they tend to implement mechanisms to manage the JV separately from the two organizations and that there is a strong emphasis on making sure that neither company knows the other companies marketing and sales strategies, with some separation agreements.
Overall, this course helped me to gain a deeper understanding about the practice of qualitative research, including qualitative methods and the qualitative methodology.
Tuesday 24 May 2011
Monday 23 May 2011
Writing Up
Apart from the substance of the paper, I think that the difference between a good and bad paper is the style, exposition, expression and intonation. In other words, how it is written. I know based on my experiences, even if you have the idea to begin with, it just does not come out the way you want it to immediately. Editing and re-writing is the touch that makes the paper sharper, tighter, clearer and shorter. Something that I will remember is that the clearer you can write the more confidence you show. The sign that a researcher knows their topic inside out is if they can clearly communicate it to others who do not know it.
As Kerry mentioned in class, this course has taught us the practice of qualitative research. The aim of this course was to induct a habitus in us - an understanding of how to conduct qualitative research and the implicit rules of the game. This is the practice of building a good argument that requires you construct it an argument initially to see if it works, break it down, change, swap, rework it and build a new one. Given that the process of doing qualitative research is a practice and the rules of the game in each field are tacit and evolving, is something that is learnt and continuously modified.
I have conducted my interviews with academic staff and I am now in the process of coming up with the best story I can given the data that I have. I have developed predictions/expectations based on my theory ANT and will see what argument I can best construct. Following Kerry's suggestions, I hope to find similarities, differences, surprises, and some data consistent with expectations. I think that the power of qualitative research is in showing how there are many alternative explanations for the same outcome, and also there can be many different outcomes. This diversity and variation is not a shortcoming, but rather, a strength as it would be too simplistic to believe that everything is the same and you could make sweeping generalisations or universal laws. For example, if there are some surprises it may be because the theory lacks something and must be extended, it is the wrong theory, or the data is wrong. Some data may fit one theory and other data may fit another theory.
There are two key styles to present your qualitative interview data. I am familar with the classic quote and comment and have used it previously. With this style, you can clearly see how the evidence fits with the claim. However, the analysis of a narrative has some appeal, although seems relatively more difficult. For our project I will see which style is the most appropriate to convey my argument. I need to always have in the back of my mind, do I have evidence to support my conclusions? With the interview data, you need to be true to what they say but you don't need to put everything in.
In addition, I have been looking at some documents (annual reports and media releases) on two companies and their dealings in relation to their proposed joint venture, which presents exactly the issues I am considering. I think that this source of data provides a more real life touch to my research problem.
During this course, Kerry has continually provided us with tips to help us along the way, such as
the style sheet, the difference between errors in substance and errors in communication, as well as many others which I have found very useful.
As Kerry mentioned in class, this course has taught us the practice of qualitative research. The aim of this course was to induct a habitus in us - an understanding of how to conduct qualitative research and the implicit rules of the game. This is the practice of building a good argument that requires you construct it an argument initially to see if it works, break it down, change, swap, rework it and build a new one. Given that the process of doing qualitative research is a practice and the rules of the game in each field are tacit and evolving, is something that is learnt and continuously modified.
I have conducted my interviews with academic staff and I am now in the process of coming up with the best story I can given the data that I have. I have developed predictions/expectations based on my theory ANT and will see what argument I can best construct. Following Kerry's suggestions, I hope to find similarities, differences, surprises, and some data consistent with expectations. I think that the power of qualitative research is in showing how there are many alternative explanations for the same outcome, and also there can be many different outcomes. This diversity and variation is not a shortcoming, but rather, a strength as it would be too simplistic to believe that everything is the same and you could make sweeping generalisations or universal laws. For example, if there are some surprises it may be because the theory lacks something and must be extended, it is the wrong theory, or the data is wrong. Some data may fit one theory and other data may fit another theory.
There are two key styles to present your qualitative interview data. I am familar with the classic quote and comment and have used it previously. With this style, you can clearly see how the evidence fits with the claim. However, the analysis of a narrative has some appeal, although seems relatively more difficult. For our project I will see which style is the most appropriate to convey my argument. I need to always have in the back of my mind, do I have evidence to support my conclusions? With the interview data, you need to be true to what they say but you don't need to put everything in.
In addition, I have been looking at some documents (annual reports and media releases) on two companies and their dealings in relation to their proposed joint venture, which presents exactly the issues I am considering. I think that this source of data provides a more real life touch to my research problem.
During this course, Kerry has continually provided us with tips to help us along the way, such as
the style sheet, the difference between errors in substance and errors in communication, as well as many others which I have found very useful.
Thoughst on this Reflective Blog
I have really enjoyed writing this blog because it has provided me with a relatively easy outlet to reflect on my thoughts as well as share my thoughts with others. I find it quite easy to write and usually write a lot so this blog gave the opportunity to express many of my thoughts.
I thank Kerry for suggesting that we do a blog during this course because it has helped me to develop and refine my thoughts during this learning process. It has been an interactive tool that facilitates ongoing thinking and highly recommend it to others, not only researchers but also other professionals. I also enjoyed using the mindmap software because apart from being comfortable with words and writing, I am also a graphical person and like to see pictures relating concepts to one other.
I thank Kerry for suggesting that we do a blog during this course because it has helped me to develop and refine my thoughts during this learning process. It has been an interactive tool that facilitates ongoing thinking and highly recommend it to others, not only researchers but also other professionals. I also enjoyed using the mindmap software because apart from being comfortable with words and writing, I am also a graphical person and like to see pictures relating concepts to one other.
Sociomateriality
This entry to my blog will be short compared to the others. I thought it was worth mentioning that in the process of my reading for my research I came across some papers on sociomateriality, a concept that seems to be highly relevant for my own research. A paper by Orlikowski and Scott (2008) entitled 'Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization' appeared to have a special significance given my theoretical lens of ANT. In fact, Orlikowski and Scott (2008, pg. 434) advance the view "that there is an inherent inseparability between the technical and the social...and "that a reconsideration of conventional views of technology may help us to more effectively study and understand the multiple, emergent, and dynamic sociomaterial configurations that constitute contemporary organizational practices". Technology (accounting systems) may be a principal mediator and not simply an intermediary. This paper also discusses actor-netork theory (ANT) as it is considered the most prominent body of literature concerning sociomateriality.
Another paper, Granovetter (1985) entitled 'Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness" also seems to be speaking my ANT language. Essentially this paper argues that economic activities/transactions are embedded within a network of social relations and this is the source of so called 'structure'. It also provides a critique of Williamson's 'market and hierarchies' research that is based on positivist, functional transaction cost economics.
Another paper, Granovetter (1985) entitled 'Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness" also seems to be speaking my ANT language. Essentially this paper argues that economic activities/transactions are embedded within a network of social relations and this is the source of so called 'structure'. It also provides a critique of Williamson's 'market and hierarchies' research that is based on positivist, functional transaction cost economics.
Articles from the Qualitative Research Report and Other Thoughts
I found some of the articles from the qualitative research report to be very useful in enhancing my understanding about qualitative research. For example, today there was an article that caught my attention as it was entitled 'From the Outside Looking In: How an Awareness of Difference Can Benefit in the Qualitative Research Process'. This paper problematised the insider/outsider dictohotomy and, in particular, some common criticisms of outsider research. It is argued that we are all insiders and outsiders to varying extents in every research setting. The issue is that notions of insiders and outsiders essentialise categories and therefore overlook important issues. There are inherent advantages and disadvantages with each approach. For instance, while an interviewee may be more comfortable to divulge information to an insider because they have similar characteristics (eg. background), an insider may take some things for granted and therefore neglect or overlook issues that an outsider would question. On the other hand, interviewees may not feel at ease speaking to an outsider.
The researcher's closeness to the subject of investigation may 'blunt' their criticality, causing them to overlook and take for granted aspects that appear familiar (Tinker and Armstrong, 2008). Closeness may hinder the researcher's ability to be rigorous in their analysis. The is akin to the notion of reflexivity. However, these potential biases may be conscious or subconscious. Tinker and Armstrong (2008, pg. 58) argue that being an outsider may be more advantagous than previously thought as "being on the outside looking in can provide a valuable sense of distance, which can allow the researcher an insight into other people's social worlds".
On the issue of subject/object, subjective/objective, for some types of research there is increasing blurring and fusion between these concepts. That is, they abandon notions of dualisms - such as ANT. I have found some really relevant articles within my disciplinary area about issues that I have been thinking about mor my research. Specifically, Ahrens (2008) in AOS is called 'Overcoming the Subjective-Objective Divide in Interpretive Management Accounting Research'.
I was reading the Qualitative Research Report and followed some of the links to other resources, which transported me to a paper called 'Qualitative Research: Validity and Reliability'. This is exactly something I was thinking about; my presumption was that in qualitative research there still exists the idea of reliability and validity, even though it is done differently and this is not what it is called. The article I read basically argued that the issue of reliability and validity in qualitative research is intertwined with the definitions of qualitative research. Contrary to scholars that claim that quantitative research is not as valid and reliable as quantitative research, this essay argued that it is possible for qualitative research to be properly valid and reliable by taking into consideration the qualitative criteria in social research including in its design and methods. This is a social research debate given that it is grounded in social theory.
A point that struck my attention in relation to qualitative research is that the inherent difficulty and diagreement comes about because we are trying to find answers about a subject matter that is in slow motion, however continuously changing. That is, we are trying to identify and observe a moving target: the social world. This issue is particularly acute in interpretive research. Interpretive qual seeks to interpret a socially constructed reality and given that perceptions and meanings play a crucial role, there may be multiple realities, not one concrete reality. It could be argued that qual and quant constitute different approaches to social investigation.
Qualitative validity has to do with the association between data and conclusion. What valid conclusions can one draw from the data that you have? It is claimed that to achieve validity in qualitative research, you need to reduce the gap between reality and representation; the more the data and conclusion are correspondent the more a piece of qualitative research is valid. Validity in qualitative research concerns the relationship between the data and the construct, the findings and the conclusion.
With reliability I think of consistency. Internal reliability may refer to a case in which more than one observer agree to what is seen and heard. External reliability refers to the degree to whcih the study can be replicated. Analogous to my thinking, this paper states that reliability refers to "the degree of consistency with which instances are assigned to the same category by different observers or by the same observers on different occasions" (Hammersley, 1992, pg. 67). Also, reliability may refer to "the degree to which the finding is independent of accidental circumstances in the research" (Kirk and Miller, 1986, pg. 20). To record the observations consistently is to have a reliable method. Reliability relates to the extent to which the concepts used appropriately describe what they ought to describe.
I am realizing the benefits of having both a qualitative and quantitative mindset. In qualitative research when you are looking for relationships between the concepts, this is like quantitative research when you are testing the structual model and path coefficients. In the first stage of coding qualitative data (when you are doing your open coding) you are breaking down your data into discrete parts to produce concepts, labelling data with concepts into categories based on similarities. This is analogous to quantitative research where the individual items in your survey instrument measuring a particular construct are the concepts in qual and the category in qual is the construct in quant.
When collecting qualitative data and trying to make sense of it to form meaningful conclusions, prediction is important. In terms of prediction in qualitative research, it is a softer prediction compared to quantitative research because you are not necessarily stipulating specific variables and predicting the nature/direction between them. Rather, your soft prediction is based on the theory that you use to provide a unique language and tools for how you explain the underlying processes behind the observed phenomena.
These are all issues that I hope to address in our qualitative research project.
The researcher's closeness to the subject of investigation may 'blunt' their criticality, causing them to overlook and take for granted aspects that appear familiar (Tinker and Armstrong, 2008). Closeness may hinder the researcher's ability to be rigorous in their analysis. The is akin to the notion of reflexivity. However, these potential biases may be conscious or subconscious. Tinker and Armstrong (2008, pg. 58) argue that being an outsider may be more advantagous than previously thought as "being on the outside looking in can provide a valuable sense of distance, which can allow the researcher an insight into other people's social worlds".
On the issue of subject/object, subjective/objective, for some types of research there is increasing blurring and fusion between these concepts. That is, they abandon notions of dualisms - such as ANT. I have found some really relevant articles within my disciplinary area about issues that I have been thinking about mor my research. Specifically, Ahrens (2008) in AOS is called 'Overcoming the Subjective-Objective Divide in Interpretive Management Accounting Research'.
I was reading the Qualitative Research Report and followed some of the links to other resources, which transported me to a paper called 'Qualitative Research: Validity and Reliability'. This is exactly something I was thinking about; my presumption was that in qualitative research there still exists the idea of reliability and validity, even though it is done differently and this is not what it is called. The article I read basically argued that the issue of reliability and validity in qualitative research is intertwined with the definitions of qualitative research. Contrary to scholars that claim that quantitative research is not as valid and reliable as quantitative research, this essay argued that it is possible for qualitative research to be properly valid and reliable by taking into consideration the qualitative criteria in social research including in its design and methods. This is a social research debate given that it is grounded in social theory.
A point that struck my attention in relation to qualitative research is that the inherent difficulty and diagreement comes about because we are trying to find answers about a subject matter that is in slow motion, however continuously changing. That is, we are trying to identify and observe a moving target: the social world. This issue is particularly acute in interpretive research. Interpretive qual seeks to interpret a socially constructed reality and given that perceptions and meanings play a crucial role, there may be multiple realities, not one concrete reality. It could be argued that qual and quant constitute different approaches to social investigation.
Qualitative validity has to do with the association between data and conclusion. What valid conclusions can one draw from the data that you have? It is claimed that to achieve validity in qualitative research, you need to reduce the gap between reality and representation; the more the data and conclusion are correspondent the more a piece of qualitative research is valid. Validity in qualitative research concerns the relationship between the data and the construct, the findings and the conclusion.
With reliability I think of consistency. Internal reliability may refer to a case in which more than one observer agree to what is seen and heard. External reliability refers to the degree to whcih the study can be replicated. Analogous to my thinking, this paper states that reliability refers to "the degree of consistency with which instances are assigned to the same category by different observers or by the same observers on different occasions" (Hammersley, 1992, pg. 67). Also, reliability may refer to "the degree to which the finding is independent of accidental circumstances in the research" (Kirk and Miller, 1986, pg. 20). To record the observations consistently is to have a reliable method. Reliability relates to the extent to which the concepts used appropriately describe what they ought to describe.
I am realizing the benefits of having both a qualitative and quantitative mindset. In qualitative research when you are looking for relationships between the concepts, this is like quantitative research when you are testing the structual model and path coefficients. In the first stage of coding qualitative data (when you are doing your open coding) you are breaking down your data into discrete parts to produce concepts, labelling data with concepts into categories based on similarities. This is analogous to quantitative research where the individual items in your survey instrument measuring a particular construct are the concepts in qual and the category in qual is the construct in quant.
When collecting qualitative data and trying to make sense of it to form meaningful conclusions, prediction is important. In terms of prediction in qualitative research, it is a softer prediction compared to quantitative research because you are not necessarily stipulating specific variables and predicting the nature/direction between them. Rather, your soft prediction is based on the theory that you use to provide a unique language and tools for how you explain the underlying processes behind the observed phenomena.
These are all issues that I hope to address in our qualitative research project.
Sunday 15 May 2011
NVivo9 and EndNote
This week we used we had a go at NVivo9 qualitative data analysis software. Prior to this class I had already attended a full day training session on NVivo software so I was familiar with what it does and how to use it. I think that NVivo is very useful in terms of storing all your data in one place as well as provide tools in order to help a researcher determine emerging themes and assign meaning from their data. I had a look at the tutorial videos on You Tube as well as the getting started guide. NVivo is one of the most popular qualitative data analysis tools used in business, government and academia.
NVivo is quite versatile in that a wide range of data can be imported and shared with colleagues on group projects, including documents, papers, articles, books, spreadsheets, databases, photos, video and audio files. In addition to analysing the various forms of data, NVivo can be used to manage bibliographical data or literature reviews. NVivo would be of great value when you are working on a significant project, such as a PhD. However, I think that in the end just like when you use a calculator, the researcher needs to do the real analysis because qualitative analysis involves reading, thinking, reflecting, writing, which all lead towards an argument.
I have also been attending some training courses and recently I went to an EndNote class to learn how to deal with bibliographical software. I think that these software packages all have some value, however it's all about finding something that works for you. I have a very simple and effective system of managing my list of sources - I have a word document and continuously add new references under different headings depending on what issues that relate to, ie. management control systems, actor-network theory, methodology, coopetition, etc. Either way, it involves the researcher doing the thinking work.
Unfortunately, NVivo does not transcribe verbal interviews from your digital recorder into a text document, and there are some other shortcomings of NVivo. Also, given that qualitative research, is a very iterative process/cycle I wonder if it is reflexible enough when the direction of your project changes and a researcher needs to change the structure of the project. For example, the framework of the nodes and categories need to be altered. However, in terms of running various queries in order to identify some characteristics in your data (which manually may be difficult), NVivo should be very helpful.
NVivo is quite versatile in that a wide range of data can be imported and shared with colleagues on group projects, including documents, papers, articles, books, spreadsheets, databases, photos, video and audio files. In addition to analysing the various forms of data, NVivo can be used to manage bibliographical data or literature reviews. NVivo would be of great value when you are working on a significant project, such as a PhD. However, I think that in the end just like when you use a calculator, the researcher needs to do the real analysis because qualitative analysis involves reading, thinking, reflecting, writing, which all lead towards an argument.
I have also been attending some training courses and recently I went to an EndNote class to learn how to deal with bibliographical software. I think that these software packages all have some value, however it's all about finding something that works for you. I have a very simple and effective system of managing my list of sources - I have a word document and continuously add new references under different headings depending on what issues that relate to, ie. management control systems, actor-network theory, methodology, coopetition, etc. Either way, it involves the researcher doing the thinking work.
Unfortunately, NVivo does not transcribe verbal interviews from your digital recorder into a text document, and there are some other shortcomings of NVivo. Also, given that qualitative research, is a very iterative process/cycle I wonder if it is reflexible enough when the direction of your project changes and a researcher needs to change the structure of the project. For example, the framework of the nodes and categories need to be altered. However, in terms of running various queries in order to identify some characteristics in your data (which manually may be difficult), NVivo should be very helpful.
Tuesday 10 May 2011
Analysing the Interview
It is about what is defensible and justifiable. Analysis in a way is not really analysis, it is about based on the data you have, what is the most defensible argument and position you can take. An issue I thought about in this class was do patterns emerge from the interviews or do we assign a pattern to the data? In a way, you see what you want to see or are trained to see. I think that all research is subjective as it always involves some kind of judgement call. Researchers try to be objective but they are only human, they are not machines. Just because it is a number people think that it is objective, but the question is how did you get that number. What choices did you make, why did they select a particular survey instrument over another, this is subjective. It is about what fits, can you defend your argument with your evidence and your theory.
Qualitative research is a very iterative, cyclical, at times, repetitive process. The process of fitting your data with your theory involves a judgement, a skill, and it is very much an art not a skill. I have noticed that Kerry speaks with metaphors when explaining key concepts. For example, in terms of analysing the data, the picture on the jigsaw puzzle is like the theory, if the pieces (your data) fit your theory, it works, otherwise you have the wrong theory.
During interviews it is very important to hear the full story of an interviewee because the moral (meaning) of the story comes at the end. However, we also need to create a story from what we see. You can think about this in terms of an argument in a paper. When someone tells a story they are taking you through a journey and presenting an argument or their point of view, the ending of the story is like the conclusion of a paper. In the story, the moral is related to all the things a person said. In a paper, the conclusion is related to their overall argument in the paper.
A good theory should explain and not just describe. For example, when collecting interview data you see certain themes emerging, such as organizations working together, alliances falling apart, MCS working in some cases and not in other cases, how the rules of the game are created and changed. ANT provides the reasons, explanations for why these observations take place. In terms of structure and power, ANT deals with these issues but in its own way. They are there, they exist, but ANT explains them in a different way, they use a different language. It is like a different way of seeing things, a different mindset. The issue is how can you convince others to see the way that you see.
So it's like your data are observations of what is happening in the world, and the theory is a possible explanation for why things are happening. The feature that makes qualitative research interesting is that a particular event can happen, but different people with different theories can have different explanations for why something happened. This shows the diversity of qualitative research and the way that even with the same data, two researchers may come up with different conclusions and theories about what is happening.
In relation to reflexivity, there are two issues. First, your own biases that you need to deal with. Second, there are the biases of the interviewee, you need to understand the way they think. The interviewee could have a particular bias, and the interviewer could have different biases, and the interpretation of what really happenedmay not be what really happened.
In terms of analysing your data, Kerry mentioned an interesting point that was about not ignoring your data. You don't want to only selectively use the data that supports your argument and ignore everything else. You need to decide how to address this other data. It may mean that your theory is inadequate and by changing the theory you can use all of your data. Or the data may be telling you that there is something more to the issue that you have overlooked. Whenever you interpret your data, you need to consider your context. If it's one thing that I have learnt when dealing with humans is that you can't apply some set criteria or assumptions to everyone just because they have some particular attributes.
In order to be reflexive in a sense you you need to accept the fact that you don't know. If you think you know, but you don't, there is a problem because you come up with the wrong conclusions.
Qualitative research is a very iterative, cyclical, at times, repetitive process. The process of fitting your data with your theory involves a judgement, a skill, and it is very much an art not a skill. I have noticed that Kerry speaks with metaphors when explaining key concepts. For example, in terms of analysing the data, the picture on the jigsaw puzzle is like the theory, if the pieces (your data) fit your theory, it works, otherwise you have the wrong theory.
During interviews it is very important to hear the full story of an interviewee because the moral (meaning) of the story comes at the end. However, we also need to create a story from what we see. You can think about this in terms of an argument in a paper. When someone tells a story they are taking you through a journey and presenting an argument or their point of view, the ending of the story is like the conclusion of a paper. In the story, the moral is related to all the things a person said. In a paper, the conclusion is related to their overall argument in the paper.
A good theory should explain and not just describe. For example, when collecting interview data you see certain themes emerging, such as organizations working together, alliances falling apart, MCS working in some cases and not in other cases, how the rules of the game are created and changed. ANT provides the reasons, explanations for why these observations take place. In terms of structure and power, ANT deals with these issues but in its own way. They are there, they exist, but ANT explains them in a different way, they use a different language. It is like a different way of seeing things, a different mindset. The issue is how can you convince others to see the way that you see.
So it's like your data are observations of what is happening in the world, and the theory is a possible explanation for why things are happening. The feature that makes qualitative research interesting is that a particular event can happen, but different people with different theories can have different explanations for why something happened. This shows the diversity of qualitative research and the way that even with the same data, two researchers may come up with different conclusions and theories about what is happening.
In relation to reflexivity, there are two issues. First, your own biases that you need to deal with. Second, there are the biases of the interviewee, you need to understand the way they think. The interviewee could have a particular bias, and the interviewer could have different biases, and the interpretation of what really happenedmay not be what really happened.
In terms of analysing your data, Kerry mentioned an interesting point that was about not ignoring your data. You don't want to only selectively use the data that supports your argument and ignore everything else. You need to decide how to address this other data. It may mean that your theory is inadequate and by changing the theory you can use all of your data. Or the data may be telling you that there is something more to the issue that you have overlooked. Whenever you interpret your data, you need to consider your context. If it's one thing that I have learnt when dealing with humans is that you can't apply some set criteria or assumptions to everyone just because they have some particular attributes.
In order to be reflexive in a sense you you need to accept the fact that you don't know. If you think you know, but you don't, there is a problem because you come up with the wrong conclusions.
Thursday 5 May 2011
Grounded Theory
I really enjoyed this session by Dr. Walter Fernandez on grounded theory. I had heard of grounded theory before and I was pleased to learn more in this seminar from someone who practices it and advocates it. I learnt that grounded theory is an inductive process of theory generation, discovery and exploration. It focuses on the the development of middle-range theories - R Merton - and sociology. GT is inductive in that you go to the field and inducting knowledge and then going through the literature. I like to see it has going from the specific to the general. In deductive work, you go from the general to the specific as you draw on the literature to test a theory through certain hypotheses and propositions.
Another issue I have come to realize is that when you are conducting such high level research you need to be familiar witht the current state of the body of knowledge in the field - need to understand the knowledge we have now and how knowledge has been built. In order to understand the creation of knowledge a researcher needs to read and be familiar with the history of the field, such as key figures/academics, key developments, etc. Then you more clearly can specify your contribution.
In grounded theory you start with your data collection in the field and then go back to the literature in a circular, iterative fashion. As a result, you delay your literature review as well as the choice of theory. GT has its own set of challenges. I think that given you start with the data, you need a really good case site in order to find rich enough data. The research question emerges through this iterative process, after data collection, analysis, and memo writing by the researcher. In essence, you are doing the same tasks but in a different order. It is a different way of looking at it.
GT theory can be used with different types qualitative research including positivist, interpretive and critical as it is compatible with different ontologies and epistomologies. An interesting point raised was that a research can choose one of these three positions and no one can dispute it, it does not invalidate the other positions so positivist, interpretive and critical research can co-exist together. A particular researcher may choose to do only one type of research during their whole career or may do one or more types of research. My supervisor, Habib, for example does more than one type - positivist research when he uses surveys (Mahama, 2006) and interpretive when he does qualitative field studies with ANT (Chua and Mahama, 2007). Also, in the latter paper, it seems like there is some grounded theory in this paper in the way they do their coding and the reference to a particular reference on grounded theory.
A question I am now thinking is ex anti the researcher knows they are doing grounded theory, but ex post when the thesis and the paper is finished can you tell it is grounded theory apart from the obvious mention in the research methods section. I assume that the paper overall would read in the same way.
In terms of dealing with reflexivity to avoid your biases I was wondering how you do this and Walter said that basically you write things down first, you ideas, your preferences, certain things that may bias your judgement, so you are aware of them when you collect and analyse data. However, as the human mind and behaviour is incredibly complex I am wondering if some preconceived opinions, preferences and biases we have are subconscious. The exercise mentioned would only identify biases that we are conscious about, however I think that there are many biases that are in our subconscious and even we don't know, and yet, they will affect our judgements and interpretations. They are so deeply embedded within our subconscious because of they way we have been trained since we were born that we just take it for granted.
Walter had an interesting perspective when it came to doing grounded theory in that some say in research there is a dichotomy between rigour and relevance and he feels that this dualism is not true and that research can be both rigorous and relevant. I probably agree with this. Situating your research within the literature is what makes it academic and rigorous and doing the fieldwork is what makes it relevant. Other issues were also discussed, such as internal validity (the concept-indicator model) and external validity. However, I am not sure if these words are really mentioned in qualitative work because these expressions tend to be associated with more quantitative research. In some qualitative studies, like (Chua and Mahama, 2007) paper they mention dependability and confirmability and at some qualitative masterclass they said that the term validity is not used in qualitative research but other terms that essentially represent the same thing.
Walter said that while GT is a very powerful research tool, you need to have what it takes. Specifically, the researcher needs to have a tolerance for uncertainty. You need to have the ability to cope with not knowing. However, I think that this is true of all types of research - a true researcher does not know and they are discovering new things, that is the definition of a researcher. In fact, life is uncertain.
Walter was very helpful in going through various GT techniques and steps, such as Neisser's schemata, iterative data collection and analysis, the role of the literature review, Eisenhart's research model, circle of GT research, open coding, theoretical and selective coding, entering the field, conceptual relationships, theoretical memos, theoretical saturation, theoretical densification, substantive theory as well as other issues.
Researchers doing GT need to creative and imaginative. I like to work with both text/writing and figures/graphs. You need to reach saturation for the scope of your study and obviously the scope of a study varies greatly. During my studies, I think that I have always reached saturation as I have noticed that there are various stages to reach saturation. For example, you start reading in a particular area, you start noticing the particular terms that are used (discipline specific), recurring references and substantive content. As you do more reading it starts to become more familiar and repetitive, you start to get the main issue and the minor issues stemming off from the main issue. Once you have exhausted your readings to the point that there is nothing new or relevant you have reached saturation.
GT looks at the underlying processes. In terms of doing the literature review, it plays a very different role to what is conventionally taught. You do it later after the collection and analysis of some data. Also, there are different stages of the literature review, such as the preliminary, thematic and theoretical LT. To have a more rigorous study, all these stages should be completed where the theoretical LT is completed once you have analysed the data and want to find a theory that fits. I asked which basket of theories you would typically used in GT and the answer was basically theories from sociology as well as possibly psychology because we are concerned with human behaviour and processes.
Walter provided us with a comprehensive list of references and GT sources from Glaser, Strauss and Corbin as well as other references including his own work, which I hope to read soon. A term that caught my attention is theoretical sensitivity. Based on my experiences, I find that the best way to learn new things is to read the work of others and understanding not only what they are doing, but how and, of course, why.
Another issue I have come to realize is that when you are conducting such high level research you need to be familiar witht the current state of the body of knowledge in the field - need to understand the knowledge we have now and how knowledge has been built. In order to understand the creation of knowledge a researcher needs to read and be familiar with the history of the field, such as key figures/academics, key developments, etc. Then you more clearly can specify your contribution.
In grounded theory you start with your data collection in the field and then go back to the literature in a circular, iterative fashion. As a result, you delay your literature review as well as the choice of theory. GT has its own set of challenges. I think that given you start with the data, you need a really good case site in order to find rich enough data. The research question emerges through this iterative process, after data collection, analysis, and memo writing by the researcher. In essence, you are doing the same tasks but in a different order. It is a different way of looking at it.
GT theory can be used with different types qualitative research including positivist, interpretive and critical as it is compatible with different ontologies and epistomologies. An interesting point raised was that a research can choose one of these three positions and no one can dispute it, it does not invalidate the other positions so positivist, interpretive and critical research can co-exist together. A particular researcher may choose to do only one type of research during their whole career or may do one or more types of research. My supervisor, Habib, for example does more than one type - positivist research when he uses surveys (Mahama, 2006) and interpretive when he does qualitative field studies with ANT (Chua and Mahama, 2007). Also, in the latter paper, it seems like there is some grounded theory in this paper in the way they do their coding and the reference to a particular reference on grounded theory.
A question I am now thinking is ex anti the researcher knows they are doing grounded theory, but ex post when the thesis and the paper is finished can you tell it is grounded theory apart from the obvious mention in the research methods section. I assume that the paper overall would read in the same way.
In terms of dealing with reflexivity to avoid your biases I was wondering how you do this and Walter said that basically you write things down first, you ideas, your preferences, certain things that may bias your judgement, so you are aware of them when you collect and analyse data. However, as the human mind and behaviour is incredibly complex I am wondering if some preconceived opinions, preferences and biases we have are subconscious. The exercise mentioned would only identify biases that we are conscious about, however I think that there are many biases that are in our subconscious and even we don't know, and yet, they will affect our judgements and interpretations. They are so deeply embedded within our subconscious because of they way we have been trained since we were born that we just take it for granted.
Walter had an interesting perspective when it came to doing grounded theory in that some say in research there is a dichotomy between rigour and relevance and he feels that this dualism is not true and that research can be both rigorous and relevant. I probably agree with this. Situating your research within the literature is what makes it academic and rigorous and doing the fieldwork is what makes it relevant. Other issues were also discussed, such as internal validity (the concept-indicator model) and external validity. However, I am not sure if these words are really mentioned in qualitative work because these expressions tend to be associated with more quantitative research. In some qualitative studies, like (Chua and Mahama, 2007) paper they mention dependability and confirmability and at some qualitative masterclass they said that the term validity is not used in qualitative research but other terms that essentially represent the same thing.
Walter said that while GT is a very powerful research tool, you need to have what it takes. Specifically, the researcher needs to have a tolerance for uncertainty. You need to have the ability to cope with not knowing. However, I think that this is true of all types of research - a true researcher does not know and they are discovering new things, that is the definition of a researcher. In fact, life is uncertain.
Walter was very helpful in going through various GT techniques and steps, such as Neisser's schemata, iterative data collection and analysis, the role of the literature review, Eisenhart's research model, circle of GT research, open coding, theoretical and selective coding, entering the field, conceptual relationships, theoretical memos, theoretical saturation, theoretical densification, substantive theory as well as other issues.
Researchers doing GT need to creative and imaginative. I like to work with both text/writing and figures/graphs. You need to reach saturation for the scope of your study and obviously the scope of a study varies greatly. During my studies, I think that I have always reached saturation as I have noticed that there are various stages to reach saturation. For example, you start reading in a particular area, you start noticing the particular terms that are used (discipline specific), recurring references and substantive content. As you do more reading it starts to become more familiar and repetitive, you start to get the main issue and the minor issues stemming off from the main issue. Once you have exhausted your readings to the point that there is nothing new or relevant you have reached saturation.
GT looks at the underlying processes. In terms of doing the literature review, it plays a very different role to what is conventionally taught. You do it later after the collection and analysis of some data. Also, there are different stages of the literature review, such as the preliminary, thematic and theoretical LT. To have a more rigorous study, all these stages should be completed where the theoretical LT is completed once you have analysed the data and want to find a theory that fits. I asked which basket of theories you would typically used in GT and the answer was basically theories from sociology as well as possibly psychology because we are concerned with human behaviour and processes.
Walter provided us with a comprehensive list of references and GT sources from Glaser, Strauss and Corbin as well as other references including his own work, which I hope to read soon. A term that caught my attention is theoretical sensitivity. Based on my experiences, I find that the best way to learn new things is to read the work of others and understanding not only what they are doing, but how and, of course, why.
Wednesday 4 May 2011
Sociological Theories
Accounting research draws on many other fields. For instance, management accounting draws on economics, sociology, psychology as well as other disciplines. Accounting is a social science and management accounting, in particular, looks at many managerial processes of accounting. As such, academics within the disciplinary field of management accounting must be familiar with theories that explain human and group behaviour and the role of accounting within these contexts.
I have been reading the book 'Modern Sociological Theory' and I can see the application of these theories in management accounting papers. I think that the various theories presented in this book can be used for all types of qualitative research, especially interpretive and critical accounting. Psychological theories are also very useful and apply to management accounting papers that examine human behaviour, actions and processes.
I am also ordering the Handbook of Management Accounting Research in order to become acquainted with the body of knowledge in my field as well as the key players in my disciplinary field. The cumulative effect of scholarly papers in my academic area is summarised in these three volumes with each chapter written by different international management accounting scholars. I have found this handbook to be very helpful when understanding the current state of the field, contributions made, gaps in the literature as well as the standard of quality for papers in my field.
I have been reading the book 'Modern Sociological Theory' and I can see the application of these theories in management accounting papers. I think that the various theories presented in this book can be used for all types of qualitative research, especially interpretive and critical accounting. Psychological theories are also very useful and apply to management accounting papers that examine human behaviour, actions and processes.
I am also ordering the Handbook of Management Accounting Research in order to become acquainted with the body of knowledge in my field as well as the key players in my disciplinary field. The cumulative effect of scholarly papers in my academic area is summarised in these three volumes with each chapter written by different international management accounting scholars. I have found this handbook to be very helpful when understanding the current state of the field, contributions made, gaps in the literature as well as the standard of quality for papers in my field.
Good Proposal Template
I have been looking at the good proposal template and I understand that in order to have a good research proposal or thesis for that matter you need one main argument that you can support and theoretically contributes to the academic literature in your disciplinary field. The elements in the template include: the key academic paper (motivation); research problem (gap); cause (independent variable) and effect (dependent variable) linkages (model of processes); theory to explain and theorise the process; research problem/gap is important for the cause and effect linkages (explained by theory); evidence for research problem; feasible way of gathering evidence; how will case site provide relevance evidence to support claim, which is explained by the theory (warrant). Of course all these elements need to connect and flow seamlessly into a cohesive unity.
In terms of identifying variables in qualitative research and drawing a relationship between them I have noticed that although my 'variables' are MCS and paradoxical systems, in this case, coopetition or separately competition and cooperation they way they are related depends on the theory that will be used to explain the 'why'. Qualitative processes explain the process underlying the relationship, however my theory ANT is incredibly dynamic and the relationship between variables is very dynamic and can go both ways as the variables are interdependent. For example, accounting is an interdependent actor and both influences and is influenced by the network or coopetition. So, in a sense, I have the variables but I do not really know which one is the independent variable and which one is the dependent variable, particularly as this is an interpretive approach to doing qualitative research. Therefore, I cannot say one variable is the cause and the other is the effect. If I was doing a qualitative study in a positivist manner, then I could tell which variable is the independent (cause) and dependent (effect) variable.
Also, I think that in terms of narrowing down the scope of the project for something that is appropriate for this course I think that the little aspect of that presents a worthwhile research problem to study is the information control problem. In particular, how does an organization both protect and share its information with a competitor. There are many instances in practice that face this problem of working with a competitor (which is coopetition; if you work with a competitor you both cooperate and compete with them). For example, employees in organizations, organizations as a whole, whenever there is some form of teamwork you can argue that there some form of coopetition because although together you are cooperating for some common goal, in the end, everyone is in for themselves, and the only reason that they are cooperating in the first place is because each person thinks that they gain (self-interest).
Whilst teamwork is an example where my problem is found, I feel that if I select only a teamwork setting, it will not flow and be connected to what I am really looking at because my research problem is not on teamwork. I think that there would be a disconnect and I could not really justify why I am looking at teams. I would prefer to find a case closer to my research problem and narrow it down to examining the way that an organization (even a small one) protects and shares information when interacting with a competitor. I think that this would make more sense and would support my main line of argument.
I have also come to realise that a researcher must take into account so many factors, weigh and balance them in order to do a project that is feasible. Unfortunately, data collection appears to be one of the main constraints facing researchers because I find it relatively straightforward to identify a research problem within the literature, however the data is difficult to collect or even non-existence, so you need to change your reserach problem. In contrast, the data you can get and is available may not be rich enough and is unable to provide a contribution to the literature so you need more data. Following this thinking, this is why grounded theory may be advantageous in a sense because you start with the data and go back to your literature. For me, I always think about the availability and quality of the data as being a major issue and if I started with data collection and then realized that I can make a contribution, I know that the project is well underway.
It's about what is realistic and when you get carried away with the literature you find a great gap but then then you can't do it. Either way, given that you need that fit between the research problem (academic literature motivation) and data/evidence I think that a researcher needs to balance them and address these two sides simultaneously.
In terms of identifying variables in qualitative research and drawing a relationship between them I have noticed that although my 'variables' are MCS and paradoxical systems, in this case, coopetition or separately competition and cooperation they way they are related depends on the theory that will be used to explain the 'why'. Qualitative processes explain the process underlying the relationship, however my theory ANT is incredibly dynamic and the relationship between variables is very dynamic and can go both ways as the variables are interdependent. For example, accounting is an interdependent actor and both influences and is influenced by the network or coopetition. So, in a sense, I have the variables but I do not really know which one is the independent variable and which one is the dependent variable, particularly as this is an interpretive approach to doing qualitative research. Therefore, I cannot say one variable is the cause and the other is the effect. If I was doing a qualitative study in a positivist manner, then I could tell which variable is the independent (cause) and dependent (effect) variable.
Also, I think that in terms of narrowing down the scope of the project for something that is appropriate for this course I think that the little aspect of that presents a worthwhile research problem to study is the information control problem. In particular, how does an organization both protect and share its information with a competitor. There are many instances in practice that face this problem of working with a competitor (which is coopetition; if you work with a competitor you both cooperate and compete with them). For example, employees in organizations, organizations as a whole, whenever there is some form of teamwork you can argue that there some form of coopetition because although together you are cooperating for some common goal, in the end, everyone is in for themselves, and the only reason that they are cooperating in the first place is because each person thinks that they gain (self-interest).
Whilst teamwork is an example where my problem is found, I feel that if I select only a teamwork setting, it will not flow and be connected to what I am really looking at because my research problem is not on teamwork. I think that there would be a disconnect and I could not really justify why I am looking at teams. I would prefer to find a case closer to my research problem and narrow it down to examining the way that an organization (even a small one) protects and shares information when interacting with a competitor. I think that this would make more sense and would support my main line of argument.
I have also come to realise that a researcher must take into account so many factors, weigh and balance them in order to do a project that is feasible. Unfortunately, data collection appears to be one of the main constraints facing researchers because I find it relatively straightforward to identify a research problem within the literature, however the data is difficult to collect or even non-existence, so you need to change your reserach problem. In contrast, the data you can get and is available may not be rich enough and is unable to provide a contribution to the literature so you need more data. Following this thinking, this is why grounded theory may be advantageous in a sense because you start with the data and go back to your literature. For me, I always think about the availability and quality of the data as being a major issue and if I started with data collection and then realized that I can make a contribution, I know that the project is well underway.
It's about what is realistic and when you get carried away with the literature you find a great gap but then then you can't do it. Either way, given that you need that fit between the research problem (academic literature motivation) and data/evidence I think that a researcher needs to balance them and address these two sides simultaneously.
Monday 18 April 2011
Thoughts on Conducting Interviews
Overall, this interview exercise has shown that there are many issues that need to be kept in mind when conducting interviews. Factors to take into account can be divided into three groups:
1. Pre-interview preparation;
2. During the interview;
3. Post-interview reflections.
In order to prepare for the interview, Michael and I discussed the overall research objective/aim of the study in order to situate the study in the relevant context. We decided that the study would be on the experience of international students studying at ANU. Next, we felt that we had to develop an interview protocol with open-ended interview questions. This provided some structure for the semi-structured interviews so that they were all to some extent similar and comparable as the same questions were asked to each interviewee. Developing suitable interview questions took some time as we decomposed our overall aim into parts to generate specific interview questions. Given that this is a qualitative study, I have noticed that when writing questions certain terms or words can be used that are more appropriate for these kinds of studies. For example, some words commonly used in interview questions for qualitative research include: perceptions, experiences, describe, factors, influences, affect, attitudes, etc. It is important to bear in mind that the order of questions as well as the questions themselves may lead to possible response bias, and therefore, it is the responsibility of the researchers to minimise this bias. When constructing our interview questions we tried to keep them as neutral as possible so as to reduce potential interviewer bias. For example, our first question asked how they would describe their experience as an international student at ANU in general. This left open the possibility for interviewees to mention any aspect that they considered relevant to them.
We selected subjects at random and who were not acquainted with the researchers and we found this process to be quite effective as the subjects asked all consented to an interview. In practice, when selecting case organizations for case studies and potential interviewees it may help to develop contacts/connections, know key informants and have some kind of relationship with the organization. However, I wonder if there is a difference in potential responses if researchers know or do not know the interviewees personally. This may be something that could be investigated further.
Conducting the interviews was a relatively smooth process overall as we were well prepared going into the interviews. I think that the researchers need to be prepared going into an interview in order to make it flow as smooth as possible. For instance, this may include making sure that both the researchers and interviewees are fluent in the language in which the interview is conducted in, interviewers being familiar with the interview questions and broad objective of the study, making sure that your recording equipment works, checking the environment (e.g. the room) in which the interview will be conducted in, developing some expectations of possible answers to check whether responses confirm or contradict your expectations.
Another issue that has come to mind is whether you provide consenting interviewees a list of the interview questions before an interview. In this way, they have some way of preparing for the interview and can already come up with some data or responses to give. Because sometimes when you are asked a question on the spur of the moment you might not come up with all the answers on the spot. However, if you have some time to think over the interview questions, you my come up with richer answers during the interview. Moreover, you may also provide some company documents that help answer some questions.
During our interviews with international students we found that interviewees, at times, did not fully understand our questions. Based on this observation I see that a major issue when doing interviews is making sure that your interviews understand and do not misinterpret your questions, otherwise the responses may not help you in collecting relevant data. I found that having two interviews conducting one interview is very useful as they can take different roles as well as switch during an interview. For example, our plan was for one of us to recruit an international student, one of us interviewed them as the other person observed and took observational notes, made sure the recording equipment worked and also listened to the interview to check that all the salient points had been covered and mentioned any other issues. Because you do not realise it at first but there are many tasks that an interviewer needs to complete during an interview and it helps to have two people alternating roles.
Another observation is that sometimes you need to let the interviewees talk if they want to talk as they may reveal some important information in their stories. We conducted three interviews with three international students and I found that one interviewee in particular talked the most and, in turn, provided us the richest data. However, at the same time, often it is even what is not said that is equally important. Some responses for some questions were a little short as there appeared to be a bit of a language barrier.
Body language and external environmental factors are important issues to take note of when conducting interviews. I found that it is not just the words said but also the way they are said, the tone of the voice and the disposition of the interviewee that all provide meaning and context, and therefore help with interpretation. For example, one interviewee seemed a little rushed during the responses, however they still provided us with important data. You need to consider if there are any distractions and whether the interviewee is comfortable. Our interviews were conducted in three different locations - a quiet room, in the foyer of the library and outside. We noticed that our three interviewees had three distinct profiles which reflected in their responses provided.
After the interviews, transcribing them took a while and we consulted useful references to help code and analyse our raw data. So in qualitative research there needs to be some kind of systematic approach to provide meaning and interpretation to your data. I think that qualitative research has some element of grounded theory in it, particularly if you do more interpretive research. I look forward to learning more about grounded theory in qualitative research because it seems to some extent quite different and radical to the more scientific method of research.
In transcribing our interviews in verbatim, we noted that there are other items that are often included in transcripts, such as ..., ahhh, uhmm, etc. In analysing the data we used established coding frameworks, and worked on one question at a time. First, decomposing it into discrete parts, then comparing these parts across the three interviewees to identify similarities and differences, and lastly, establishing potential connections and relationships amongst the responses. This process helped us to identify common or unique emergent themes in the data.
Lastly, after the interviews I took some reflective and analytical notes and memos in order to jot down some pertinent points and observations of the interviews. Here I reflected on my observations and and what I thought rather than analysing the data from the transcripts. I found that this exercise helped we when I later had to code and analyse the data from the transcripts. So, in a sense, when conducting interviews the interviewer has multiple tasks and roles. Also, you obtain different sources of data, the responses to the interview questions from the interviewees as well as reflective and analytical memos of the interviewer.
Thursday 14 April 2011
Ahrens and Chapman (2007)
Ahrens and Chapman (2007) "Management Accounting as Practice"
This is another paper that I found to be very useful for my research as it highlights the "distinctive practice theory approach to considering the role of management accounting in the constitution of organizations" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 1). I really enjoy the way that Ahrens and Chapman write in such a smooth, fluid way, which is indispensable for good qualitative research. For example, in this work the researchers state that by "situating the interrelationships between technical and interpretive accounting processes in the wider field of organisational practices we elaborate the ways in which management control systems as structures of intentionality both shape and are shaped by shared norms and understandings" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 1).
According to Ahrens and Chapman (2007, pg. 2) "accounting cannot be understood simply with reference to its supposed functional properties because it is implicated in the shaping of its own context". Both contemporary and historical studies have brought insight into the diverse ways in which accounting has been and is being implicated in a wide variety of activities and social arrangements. This paper draws a link between technical and interpretive aspects of accounting by demonstrating how the "cumulative effect of such interpretive studies of accounting has been to establish the flexibility and variability of accounting" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 2). In other words, studying accounting from an interpretive perspective provides another layer of studies that could not be obtained from technical (positivist) accounting studies.
In their papers, Ahrens and Chapman make numerous references to leading scholars in their field, such as Hopwood and Chua, among many others.
Interpretive studies may require the use of a practice theory that may not play such a crucial role in more positivist/functional accounting studies - "practice theory seeks to delve into the details of the functioning of subsystems. Practices are about the specific relationships forged between understandings and traditions of social groups and their aspirations and pressing problems" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 3). This paper draws on practice theory in an attempt to fill the various gaps in our understanding of management accounting as practice. Where practice theorists have been concerned to reflect on the ways in which action relates to aspects of context. In particular, it is this context, perception that drives behaviour (even if inaccurate), interpretations and shared meanings that may hold the key to explaining the success or failure of a particular accounting system, or the emergence and enactment of MCS.
Various theories of studies are discussed that give rise to various specific notions of practice including studies of governmentality, disciplinary powers, critical accounting, social theories such as actor network theory.
Management control as practice aims to understand a much wider and more complex field of organising practices. Ahrens and Chapman (2007, pg. 23) make an interesting point that "theoretical accounting concepts cannot be used by practitioners as 'means' to pursue their 'ends' because means and ends are constructed simultaneously in practice". It seems that practice theory shows a very dynamic and versatile side to accounting as "for practice theorists social order is real in the sense that activities belong to practices and that practices and arrangements can be identified as sustaining or changing one another" Ahrens and Chapman (2007, pg. 23).
Interestingly, although practice theory does not ignore conflict it does not cast it in terms of control and resistance. Instead, "practice theory emphasises the role of actors in drawing upon the rules, procedures, ideals, targets, etc, of management control practice because interest and conflict are not given" Ahrens and Chapman (2007, pg. 24). Their practice perspective underscores the ways that actors' motivations come to be constructed through their daily effort as individuals engage with each other and interact with MCS.
The major contribution of practice theory is to provide a language for expressing practical activity in context and recognising the constitution of context through action. Their final concluding comments shows the potential for other accounting studies to provide timely contributions to the stock of knowledge - "rather than take the much observed fluidity and unpredictability of management accounting and control in practice as a sign of the feebleness of accounting theory we should adjust our notion of theory such that it becomes more suitable for the study of practice" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 24). Everything happens for a reason and it is important to understand WHY. This is the VALUE and CONTRIBUTION of qualitative research.
This is another paper that I found to be very useful for my research as it highlights the "distinctive practice theory approach to considering the role of management accounting in the constitution of organizations" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 1). I really enjoy the way that Ahrens and Chapman write in such a smooth, fluid way, which is indispensable for good qualitative research. For example, in this work the researchers state that by "situating the interrelationships between technical and interpretive accounting processes in the wider field of organisational practices we elaborate the ways in which management control systems as structures of intentionality both shape and are shaped by shared norms and understandings" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 1).
According to Ahrens and Chapman (2007, pg. 2) "accounting cannot be understood simply with reference to its supposed functional properties because it is implicated in the shaping of its own context". Both contemporary and historical studies have brought insight into the diverse ways in which accounting has been and is being implicated in a wide variety of activities and social arrangements. This paper draws a link between technical and interpretive aspects of accounting by demonstrating how the "cumulative effect of such interpretive studies of accounting has been to establish the flexibility and variability of accounting" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 2). In other words, studying accounting from an interpretive perspective provides another layer of studies that could not be obtained from technical (positivist) accounting studies.
In their papers, Ahrens and Chapman make numerous references to leading scholars in their field, such as Hopwood and Chua, among many others.
Interpretive studies may require the use of a practice theory that may not play such a crucial role in more positivist/functional accounting studies - "practice theory seeks to delve into the details of the functioning of subsystems. Practices are about the specific relationships forged between understandings and traditions of social groups and their aspirations and pressing problems" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 3). This paper draws on practice theory in an attempt to fill the various gaps in our understanding of management accounting as practice. Where practice theorists have been concerned to reflect on the ways in which action relates to aspects of context. In particular, it is this context, perception that drives behaviour (even if inaccurate), interpretations and shared meanings that may hold the key to explaining the success or failure of a particular accounting system, or the emergence and enactment of MCS.
Various theories of studies are discussed that give rise to various specific notions of practice including studies of governmentality, disciplinary powers, critical accounting, social theories such as actor network theory.
Management control as practice aims to understand a much wider and more complex field of organising practices. Ahrens and Chapman (2007, pg. 23) make an interesting point that "theoretical accounting concepts cannot be used by practitioners as 'means' to pursue their 'ends' because means and ends are constructed simultaneously in practice". It seems that practice theory shows a very dynamic and versatile side to accounting as "for practice theorists social order is real in the sense that activities belong to practices and that practices and arrangements can be identified as sustaining or changing one another" Ahrens and Chapman (2007, pg. 23).
Interestingly, although practice theory does not ignore conflict it does not cast it in terms of control and resistance. Instead, "practice theory emphasises the role of actors in drawing upon the rules, procedures, ideals, targets, etc, of management control practice because interest and conflict are not given" Ahrens and Chapman (2007, pg. 24). Their practice perspective underscores the ways that actors' motivations come to be constructed through their daily effort as individuals engage with each other and interact with MCS.
The major contribution of practice theory is to provide a language for expressing practical activity in context and recognising the constitution of context through action. Their final concluding comments shows the potential for other accounting studies to provide timely contributions to the stock of knowledge - "rather than take the much observed fluidity and unpredictability of management accounting and control in practice as a sign of the feebleness of accounting theory we should adjust our notion of theory such that it becomes more suitable for the study of practice" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007, pg. 24). Everything happens for a reason and it is important to understand WHY. This is the VALUE and CONTRIBUTION of qualitative research.
Wednesday 13 April 2011
Ahrens and Chapman (2006)
I found a really useful academic paper in my disciplinary field of management accounting and I thought and should write a few notes. The paper is by Ahrens and Chapman (2006) and it is called "Doing Qualitative Field Research in Management Accounting: Positioning Data to Contribute to Theory". I think that this paper will help me to understand the implicit 'rules of the game' in my disciplinary area and help me to conduct 'good' qualitative research in order to contribute to management accounting scholarship.
This paper is useful for my studies in qualitative research because unlike quantitative research where you may have some established research instruments and and established benchmarks for validity, reliability, etc, in qualitative research I wonder what benchmarks, if any, can we use to compare our research to established standards in our field. For example, how do I know if I am interpreting the data correctly? How do I link the data to my research questions. This paper provides these answers.
The paper shows the interlacing of data, theory and research problems by providing examples of specific individual research projects.
Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 819) argue that theory, method, methodology and knowledge gains in qualitative field studies are intertwined through the ongoing hypothesis development in the field". They emphasise the distinguishing role of theory in qualitative research which is related to "the expression of a subjective reality more than clarification of an objective one" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 819).
Moreover, this paper allows researchers to assess the trustworthiness of their accounts as according to Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 819) the "intention is to develop a more appropriate basis for judging the plausibility of qualitative field studies than notions borrowed from positivist methodology". This is a noteworthy contribution to my field as there is a need to develop some kind of framework to assess the quality of qualitative interpretive research. The paper distinguishes interpretivism from positivism. This work also explains the difference between theory, domain, methodology, hypothesis and method in terms of their meaning, relevance and examples. Many leading qualitative research papers published in top tier accounting journals are provided.
Below are some key points that will help me to conduct 'good' qualitative research in management accounting:
- Doing qualitative field studies in management accounting is about methodology, not method, where they delineate the notion of the field as a research domain;
- What differentiates the qualitative field researcher is a particular way of knowing the field;
- In particular, qualitative field researchers in management accounting agree that "social reality is emergent, subjectively created, and objectified through human interaction" (Chua, 1986, pg. 615, in Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 819) - understand the intricacies of social interaction, such as the ways meanings are derived;
- Doing qualitative field studies is not merely empirical but a profoundly theoretical activity;
- The field is not just a part of of the empirical world but it is shaped by the theoretical viewpoints of the researcher;
- According to Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 820) the "practice of doing qualitative field studies involves an ongoing reflection of data and its positioning against different theories such that the data can contribute to and develop further the chosen research questions". This is where there needs to be a good 'fit' between the theory, research questions and data;
- Data are not pure parts of objective reality but rather are aspects of a recorded activity that a researchers considers significant for theoretical reasons;
- Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 821) outline "how qualitative field studies can make theoretical contributions by giving insight into how images of specific social realities may infuse action and relate this to the ability of qualitative field studies to express the processual character of accounting";
- These theoretical discussions provide the basis to develop a re-assessment of validity and reliability for qualitative field research and provide the sources of discipline for the researcher. Hence, theory plays a crucial role in qualitative research in making sense of your data as well as linking data to the research questions and theorising. Also, theoretical discussions help to discipline the researcher through the exercise of reflexivity;
- "Qualitative field studies collect data in the domain 'field' and employ 'qualitative' methodology (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 821);
- Qualitative approaches may be referred to as naturalistic, holistic, interpretive and phenomenological;
- The principles that guide qualitative work, include a forucs on meaning, the use of analytical induction, have a close proximity to the data, attempts to link agency to structure;
- Qualitative and qualitative research has different ontological and episotemological assumptions;
- "The conflation of method with methodology means that ontological assumptions remain unrecognised as assumptions. We see the distinction between method and methodology and the theoretical potential that it affords for defining research questions and notions of research trustworthiness as central to much of the miscommunication between qualitative and quantitative researchers" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 822);
- The interview may be mobilised towards interpretive or positivist ends contingent on the view of reality to be explored. Either expressing a social reality or clarifying an objective reality;
- Objective realities versus context dependent constructs;
- According to Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 823) "qualitative methodology seeks to explore aspects of social order that are not objectively real but are instead subjectively created through the interaction of actors, rarely mentioning the words hypothesis or testing at all";
- Qualitative field studies study "situations and questions in which the uses and meanings of management accounting are fluid" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 823);
- A characteristic of qualitative field studies is the potential for linking structured and unstructured data;
- As stated by Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 826) "it would be wrong to simply associate positivism with prediction and qualitative methodology with explanation. Prediction without explanation is the hope that past correlations hold in future"..."Prediction and explanation are not opposites, but are complexly intertwined in both qualitative and positivistic management accounting research";
- "Qualitative field studies must achieve 'fit' between theory, methodology, hypothesis, method and domain in order to contribute to the literature. Fit indicates the successful conclusion of that process" (Silverman, 1993, pg. 1-2, in Arhens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 826-827);
- According to Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 831) "images infuse action insofar as wider organisational and social meanings are connected with accounting through process because actors in the field refer to those meanings in the processes of creating and practicing accounting";
- Qualitative field studies have been associated with a quest for meaning;
- A reminder for field researchers is not to take for granted stability in management accounting systems, their uses, and organisational roles;
- Doing qualitative field studies is a disciplined process which therefore requires the application of reflexivity. The research must constantly question their own ideas.
Re-assessing Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Field Studies
According to Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 833) "notions of validity that were developed to evaluate positivistic studies of objective reality are unsuitable for qualitative field studies". For qualitative studies "valid and reliable accounts of the role of accounting in social reality cannot pretend to study this reality without reference to the agency of the actors in the field and independently of the reseacher's theoretical interest".
This is a noteworthy point as it indicates that the question of replication studies in qualitative field research is inappropriate because we would not expect identical results when two observers study the same organisation from different points of view, or when they study different substructures within a large organisation. We do, however, expect that the two descriptions are compatible, in other words, the conclusions of one study do not implicitly or explicitly contradict those of the other (Becker, 1970 in Arhens and Chapman, 2006).
Patterns of causality are of interest to both qualitative and positivistic researchers according to Luft and Shields (2003). The qualitative researcher works on the assumption that oganisational activity is meaningful in practice. Interestingly, Cronbach (1982, pg. 108, in Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 834) states that "validity is subjective rather than objective: the plausibility of the conclusion is what counts. And plausibility, to twist a cliche`, lies in the ear of the beholder".
Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 835-836) state that the "field researcher's prior knowledge disciplines her interpretation of new observations..."Theory helps the author structure masses of data and communicate its significance at the same time as it helps construct that significance. Even though detailed insight into organisational processes is necessary to inform a good field study, there is always more going on than the researcher can observe and report in a publication. A good field study therefore requires a problem to be addressed and a theory can can frame the problem such that the fieldwork can contribute to the ongoing debate"..."Theorising [in field research] is about moving from the general to the local to the general [...]" Baxter and Chua, 1998, pg. 80, in Arhens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 836). That is, problem theory and data influence each other throughout the research process as the process is one of iteratively seeking to generate a plausible fit between problem, theory, and data (Arhens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 836).
According to Arhens and Chapman (2006) this iterative process requires three main sources of discipline:
1. the readers' knowledge of the existing literature imposes a disciplinary context;
2. the researcher does not make up a story and suppress inconvenient data;
3. the significance of the theoretical contribution is ultimately judged by the reader.
Underlying the argument of Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 836) is "a notion of theory that is first and foremost a vehicle for understanding and communication". Although things may be independent on theory, descriptions of them are always dependent on theory. According to Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 837) "to generate findigs that are of interest to the wider management accounting research community, the qualitative field research must be able to continuously make linkages between theory and findings from the field in order to evaluable the potential interest of the research as it unfolds. This ongoing engaging of research questions, theory, and data has important implications for the ways in which qualitative field researchers can define the field and interpret its activities".
Ahrens and Chapman have co-authored many papers together and I noticed how they write so very well. I have included some quotes because these scholars write in an almost poetic fashion that cannot be paraphrased.
In order to be do good qualitative researcher you need to be good with people and you need to write really well (articulation) as words are your data and interviews, observations and document analysis can all be reduced to text and words.
Luft and Shields (2003) "Mapping Management Accounting: Graphics and Guidelines for Theory-Consistent Empirical Research" - another very useful paper in my field - indicated that qualitative field studies are inclined to emphasise that management accounting is not easily classified as only a dependent or only an independent variable, but rather they tend to be more complexly implicated in the unfolding of events as both cause and effect of changes.
This paper is useful for my studies in qualitative research because unlike quantitative research where you may have some established research instruments and and established benchmarks for validity, reliability, etc, in qualitative research I wonder what benchmarks, if any, can we use to compare our research to established standards in our field. For example, how do I know if I am interpreting the data correctly? How do I link the data to my research questions. This paper provides these answers.
The paper shows the interlacing of data, theory and research problems by providing examples of specific individual research projects.
Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 819) argue that theory, method, methodology and knowledge gains in qualitative field studies are intertwined through the ongoing hypothesis development in the field". They emphasise the distinguishing role of theory in qualitative research which is related to "the expression of a subjective reality more than clarification of an objective one" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 819).
Moreover, this paper allows researchers to assess the trustworthiness of their accounts as according to Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 819) the "intention is to develop a more appropriate basis for judging the plausibility of qualitative field studies than notions borrowed from positivist methodology". This is a noteworthy contribution to my field as there is a need to develop some kind of framework to assess the quality of qualitative interpretive research. The paper distinguishes interpretivism from positivism. This work also explains the difference between theory, domain, methodology, hypothesis and method in terms of their meaning, relevance and examples. Many leading qualitative research papers published in top tier accounting journals are provided.
Below are some key points that will help me to conduct 'good' qualitative research in management accounting:
- Doing qualitative field studies in management accounting is about methodology, not method, where they delineate the notion of the field as a research domain;
- What differentiates the qualitative field researcher is a particular way of knowing the field;
- In particular, qualitative field researchers in management accounting agree that "social reality is emergent, subjectively created, and objectified through human interaction" (Chua, 1986, pg. 615, in Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 819) - understand the intricacies of social interaction, such as the ways meanings are derived;
- Doing qualitative field studies is not merely empirical but a profoundly theoretical activity;
- The field is not just a part of of the empirical world but it is shaped by the theoretical viewpoints of the researcher;
- According to Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 820) the "practice of doing qualitative field studies involves an ongoing reflection of data and its positioning against different theories such that the data can contribute to and develop further the chosen research questions". This is where there needs to be a good 'fit' between the theory, research questions and data;
- Data are not pure parts of objective reality but rather are aspects of a recorded activity that a researchers considers significant for theoretical reasons;
- Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 821) outline "how qualitative field studies can make theoretical contributions by giving insight into how images of specific social realities may infuse action and relate this to the ability of qualitative field studies to express the processual character of accounting";
- These theoretical discussions provide the basis to develop a re-assessment of validity and reliability for qualitative field research and provide the sources of discipline for the researcher. Hence, theory plays a crucial role in qualitative research in making sense of your data as well as linking data to the research questions and theorising. Also, theoretical discussions help to discipline the researcher through the exercise of reflexivity;
- "Qualitative field studies collect data in the domain 'field' and employ 'qualitative' methodology (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 821);
- Qualitative approaches may be referred to as naturalistic, holistic, interpretive and phenomenological;
- The principles that guide qualitative work, include a forucs on meaning, the use of analytical induction, have a close proximity to the data, attempts to link agency to structure;
- Qualitative and qualitative research has different ontological and episotemological assumptions;
- "The conflation of method with methodology means that ontological assumptions remain unrecognised as assumptions. We see the distinction between method and methodology and the theoretical potential that it affords for defining research questions and notions of research trustworthiness as central to much of the miscommunication between qualitative and quantitative researchers" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 822);
- The interview may be mobilised towards interpretive or positivist ends contingent on the view of reality to be explored. Either expressing a social reality or clarifying an objective reality;
- Objective realities versus context dependent constructs;
- According to Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 823) "qualitative methodology seeks to explore aspects of social order that are not objectively real but are instead subjectively created through the interaction of actors, rarely mentioning the words hypothesis or testing at all";
- Qualitative field studies study "situations and questions in which the uses and meanings of management accounting are fluid" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 823);
- A characteristic of qualitative field studies is the potential for linking structured and unstructured data;
- As stated by Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 826) "it would be wrong to simply associate positivism with prediction and qualitative methodology with explanation. Prediction without explanation is the hope that past correlations hold in future"..."Prediction and explanation are not opposites, but are complexly intertwined in both qualitative and positivistic management accounting research";
- "Qualitative field studies must achieve 'fit' between theory, methodology, hypothesis, method and domain in order to contribute to the literature. Fit indicates the successful conclusion of that process" (Silverman, 1993, pg. 1-2, in Arhens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 826-827);
- According to Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 831) "images infuse action insofar as wider organisational and social meanings are connected with accounting through process because actors in the field refer to those meanings in the processes of creating and practicing accounting";
- Qualitative field studies have been associated with a quest for meaning;
- A reminder for field researchers is not to take for granted stability in management accounting systems, their uses, and organisational roles;
- Doing qualitative field studies is a disciplined process which therefore requires the application of reflexivity. The research must constantly question their own ideas.
Re-assessing Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Field Studies
According to Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 833) "notions of validity that were developed to evaluate positivistic studies of objective reality are unsuitable for qualitative field studies". For qualitative studies "valid and reliable accounts of the role of accounting in social reality cannot pretend to study this reality without reference to the agency of the actors in the field and independently of the reseacher's theoretical interest".
This is a noteworthy point as it indicates that the question of replication studies in qualitative field research is inappropriate because we would not expect identical results when two observers study the same organisation from different points of view, or when they study different substructures within a large organisation. We do, however, expect that the two descriptions are compatible, in other words, the conclusions of one study do not implicitly or explicitly contradict those of the other (Becker, 1970 in Arhens and Chapman, 2006).
Patterns of causality are of interest to both qualitative and positivistic researchers according to Luft and Shields (2003). The qualitative researcher works on the assumption that oganisational activity is meaningful in practice. Interestingly, Cronbach (1982, pg. 108, in Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 834) states that "validity is subjective rather than objective: the plausibility of the conclusion is what counts. And plausibility, to twist a cliche`, lies in the ear of the beholder".
Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 835-836) state that the "field researcher's prior knowledge disciplines her interpretation of new observations..."Theory helps the author structure masses of data and communicate its significance at the same time as it helps construct that significance. Even though detailed insight into organisational processes is necessary to inform a good field study, there is always more going on than the researcher can observe and report in a publication. A good field study therefore requires a problem to be addressed and a theory can can frame the problem such that the fieldwork can contribute to the ongoing debate"..."Theorising [in field research] is about moving from the general to the local to the general [...]" Baxter and Chua, 1998, pg. 80, in Arhens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 836). That is, problem theory and data influence each other throughout the research process as the process is one of iteratively seeking to generate a plausible fit between problem, theory, and data (Arhens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 836).
According to Arhens and Chapman (2006) this iterative process requires three main sources of discipline:
1. the readers' knowledge of the existing literature imposes a disciplinary context;
2. the researcher does not make up a story and suppress inconvenient data;
3. the significance of the theoretical contribution is ultimately judged by the reader.
Underlying the argument of Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 836) is "a notion of theory that is first and foremost a vehicle for understanding and communication". Although things may be independent on theory, descriptions of them are always dependent on theory. According to Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 837) "to generate findigs that are of interest to the wider management accounting research community, the qualitative field research must be able to continuously make linkages between theory and findings from the field in order to evaluable the potential interest of the research as it unfolds. This ongoing engaging of research questions, theory, and data has important implications for the ways in which qualitative field researchers can define the field and interpret its activities".
Ahrens and Chapman have co-authored many papers together and I noticed how they write so very well. I have included some quotes because these scholars write in an almost poetic fashion that cannot be paraphrased.
In order to be do good qualitative researcher you need to be good with people and you need to write really well (articulation) as words are your data and interviews, observations and document analysis can all be reduced to text and words.
Luft and Shields (2003) "Mapping Management Accounting: Graphics and Guidelines for Theory-Consistent Empirical Research" - another very useful paper in my field - indicated that qualitative field studies are inclined to emphasise that management accounting is not easily classified as only a dependent or only an independent variable, but rather they tend to be more complexly implicated in the unfolding of events as both cause and effect of changes.
Week 7 - Archival Methods and Textual Sources
How do you derive useful evidence from existing documents and archives?
Archival methods is similar to document analysis. In this class I learnt how to use historical and text-based data sources. Specifically, originally I thought that this topic was going to be about how to analyse documents and text, however during the class I realized that there was a focus on archival documents from a historical perspective. There was a bit of a mixed methods approach to show how some quantitative data could be used to help interpret qualitative data. There was a strong focus on historical/archival documents as evidence and sources of data for business research. Hence, when doing this kind of research there is a survival bias in the documents that survive and can be used for analysis.
This classed opened my eyes to the possibilities of doing two types of case studies:
1. contemporary case studies;
2. historical case studies.
Taking an earnings management perspective, the lecturer showed us a graph of reported earnings and internally reported earnings, which highlighted an important difference - that reported earnings were lower and smoother compared to internally reported earnings, as there was an incentive to report lower earnings based on external factors. The interesting part was how archival/historical documents were used to identify events during history at particular times to explain particular peaks and toughs in reported earnings. Therefore, documents are an important source of data to help explain certain patterns in observed quantitative data. This provides evidence into the motivations for particular reported behaviour. This EM example was a useful illustration of a mixed methods approach incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The quantitative side showed observed reported behaviour/patterns; the relationships between the variables, and the qualitative side explain why certain patterns took place. With such a mixed methods approach it is possible to do some triangulation and obtain corroborating evidence.
Various sources of information were provided in order to access archival sources, such as various libraries and universities.
Archival methods is similar to document analysis. In this class I learnt how to use historical and text-based data sources. Specifically, originally I thought that this topic was going to be about how to analyse documents and text, however during the class I realized that there was a focus on archival documents from a historical perspective. There was a bit of a mixed methods approach to show how some quantitative data could be used to help interpret qualitative data. There was a strong focus on historical/archival documents as evidence and sources of data for business research. Hence, when doing this kind of research there is a survival bias in the documents that survive and can be used for analysis.
This classed opened my eyes to the possibilities of doing two types of case studies:
1. contemporary case studies;
2. historical case studies.
Taking an earnings management perspective, the lecturer showed us a graph of reported earnings and internally reported earnings, which highlighted an important difference - that reported earnings were lower and smoother compared to internally reported earnings, as there was an incentive to report lower earnings based on external factors. The interesting part was how archival/historical documents were used to identify events during history at particular times to explain particular peaks and toughs in reported earnings. Therefore, documents are an important source of data to help explain certain patterns in observed quantitative data. This provides evidence into the motivations for particular reported behaviour. This EM example was a useful illustration of a mixed methods approach incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The quantitative side showed observed reported behaviour/patterns; the relationships between the variables, and the qualitative side explain why certain patterns took place. With such a mixed methods approach it is possible to do some triangulation and obtain corroborating evidence.
Various sources of information were provided in order to access archival sources, such as various libraries and universities.
Week 6 - Fieldwork Methods and Issues
This class focused on field work methods and in particular some forms of data collection techniques, such as interviews. One useful tip was that it is important to have an ongoing relationship with your case organization and interviewees rather than a one-off relationship. For example, it is important that the organization benefits from your study and gets something out of it. Like anything, I think that every exchange needs to be reciprocal and while the research is gaining valuable output from the case organization, the organization needs to also gain something valuable. If you are conducting action research, perhaps the benefits to the organization involved are more obvious. Apart from offering a summarised version of the results from the interviews, I think it is important to find some other benefits for the organization. In particular, organizations may gain academic contacts and these contacts could be used for consulting work, given that academics also provide some consulting services to practitioners in the public and private sectors.
In terms of interviews, I think that there are different types of benefits with all types of interviews, including, structured interviews, semi-structured interviews and unstructured interviews. An important point that I learnt was that while it is important to have some structure when conducting interviews so that the interview has some focus and consistency across different interviews, it is also important to have some room for interviews to express their own thoughts and add there own comments. Often interviewees may provide interviews with important sources of data where emergent issues may be revealed that are relevant to the broader research issue. As a result, it is important not to stop interviewees to quickly when they are telling a story because the hook at the end may be what you are looking for and be very important. Sometimes it is the information that is unexpected that is the most significant. I think this is important element or characteristic about research. You are a researcher if you are discovering or learning about things that you do not know about - the unexpected element - if you already knew everything or had a fair idea at the beginning you would not be a researcher.
I think that another important point when conducting interviews is that just because it is an interview (questions and answers) does not mean that there are not other data collection approaches occurring at the same time. For example, during an interview - especially if there are two interviewer that alternate - one asking the questions and the other making observational notes and later both can write reflective/analytical memos - observation can occur during interviews. I think that observation is important because it is well known that with humans words and language account for only a small proportion of communication. Other forms of more subtle forms of communication that occurs during an interview includes body language and non-verbal cues that one research could take notes on while the other research conducts the interview. Also, other external factors, such as the environment, the room where the interview takes place, noise, size, temperature and time, may all play a role in the potential responses obtained.
Body language may include various elements. For example, even they way that they present themselves, are they punctual, are they happy to do the interview, do they want to be there and give their time or are they in a rush, are they motivated and enthusiastic when you ask the question or do they hesitate when questions are asked.
Also, I discovered that during an interview, interviewees may write some notes or, for example, draw diagrams and provide documents to the interviewer and these are all forms of data that the researcher can potentially use.
When conducting interviews it is important to bear in mind that there may be potential interviewer bias and response bias, where respondents may give the answer that the researcher is looking for so it is important to keep these points in mind when conducting interviews. Also, interviewees may be untruthful in their responses and lie. However, even if you discover that they have lied, possibly when conducting data triangulation techniques, it is important to understand the source and why they lied because this still provides important data for your study. Also, it is important to make sure that interviewees understand the questions that you are asking which means that both the interviewer and the interviewee need to be fluent in the language that is being spoken in the interview.
Based on my readings, I found that quotes or verbatim in published articles often includes the umms and arhs and ..., which apparently all contain some form of meaning. Therefore, when transcribing interviews it is important to include everything however it may take several hours to transcribe a one hour interview. In this class I also learnt various technologies that can be used to record interviews.
Apart from using projective techniques in interviews, I was reading about mirroring. Mirroring is where you use the words and phrases that the interviewees use in order to construct a later question or comment. I think that mirroring would be quite useful in interviews because you are using their language, which is not foreign to them, and as a result, the interviewee may be more comfortable.
Focus groups are group interviews and I have not really seen focus groups in papers in my field. Recently, I participated in the ANU CBE Alumni focus group session. Participating in a focus group has helped me to better understand what focus groups are about. Basically, the purpose of the focus group was to get collective views on a certain topic of interest - this involved gaining insights into the communication style, events, alumni support and fundraising. The focus group provided the opportunity to shed light on what works and what requires attention as well as to better understand the needs of alumni. I found the open exchange very beneficial as I enjoyed the fact that it as a group interview. There were 6 of us alumni and 3 interviewers (1 main interviewer). The focus group was digitally recorded and enjoyed the opportunity to actively participate myself but also hear what other participants had to see, which I guess you don't get if you have a one-on-one interview.
The focus group ended on a really good note as the interviewers indicated that the welcomed our feedback on the style, delivery and usefulness of the exercise. They also gave us the opportunity to contact them further if we had anymore ideas in coming days, weeks, months or even years. I found this focus group to be mutually beneficial. Obviously, we were promised a summarised version of the findings after they were analysed.
In terms of interviews, I think that there are different types of benefits with all types of interviews, including, structured interviews, semi-structured interviews and unstructured interviews. An important point that I learnt was that while it is important to have some structure when conducting interviews so that the interview has some focus and consistency across different interviews, it is also important to have some room for interviews to express their own thoughts and add there own comments. Often interviewees may provide interviews with important sources of data where emergent issues may be revealed that are relevant to the broader research issue. As a result, it is important not to stop interviewees to quickly when they are telling a story because the hook at the end may be what you are looking for and be very important. Sometimes it is the information that is unexpected that is the most significant. I think this is important element or characteristic about research. You are a researcher if you are discovering or learning about things that you do not know about - the unexpected element - if you already knew everything or had a fair idea at the beginning you would not be a researcher.
I think that another important point when conducting interviews is that just because it is an interview (questions and answers) does not mean that there are not other data collection approaches occurring at the same time. For example, during an interview - especially if there are two interviewer that alternate - one asking the questions and the other making observational notes and later both can write reflective/analytical memos - observation can occur during interviews. I think that observation is important because it is well known that with humans words and language account for only a small proportion of communication. Other forms of more subtle forms of communication that occurs during an interview includes body language and non-verbal cues that one research could take notes on while the other research conducts the interview. Also, other external factors, such as the environment, the room where the interview takes place, noise, size, temperature and time, may all play a role in the potential responses obtained.
Body language may include various elements. For example, even they way that they present themselves, are they punctual, are they happy to do the interview, do they want to be there and give their time or are they in a rush, are they motivated and enthusiastic when you ask the question or do they hesitate when questions are asked.
Also, I discovered that during an interview, interviewees may write some notes or, for example, draw diagrams and provide documents to the interviewer and these are all forms of data that the researcher can potentially use.
When conducting interviews it is important to bear in mind that there may be potential interviewer bias and response bias, where respondents may give the answer that the researcher is looking for so it is important to keep these points in mind when conducting interviews. Also, interviewees may be untruthful in their responses and lie. However, even if you discover that they have lied, possibly when conducting data triangulation techniques, it is important to understand the source and why they lied because this still provides important data for your study. Also, it is important to make sure that interviewees understand the questions that you are asking which means that both the interviewer and the interviewee need to be fluent in the language that is being spoken in the interview.
Based on my readings, I found that quotes or verbatim in published articles often includes the umms and arhs and ..., which apparently all contain some form of meaning. Therefore, when transcribing interviews it is important to include everything however it may take several hours to transcribe a one hour interview. In this class I also learnt various technologies that can be used to record interviews.
Apart from using projective techniques in interviews, I was reading about mirroring. Mirroring is where you use the words and phrases that the interviewees use in order to construct a later question or comment. I think that mirroring would be quite useful in interviews because you are using their language, which is not foreign to them, and as a result, the interviewee may be more comfortable.
Focus groups are group interviews and I have not really seen focus groups in papers in my field. Recently, I participated in the ANU CBE Alumni focus group session. Participating in a focus group has helped me to better understand what focus groups are about. Basically, the purpose of the focus group was to get collective views on a certain topic of interest - this involved gaining insights into the communication style, events, alumni support and fundraising. The focus group provided the opportunity to shed light on what works and what requires attention as well as to better understand the needs of alumni. I found the open exchange very beneficial as I enjoyed the fact that it as a group interview. There were 6 of us alumni and 3 interviewers (1 main interviewer). The focus group was digitally recorded and enjoyed the opportunity to actively participate myself but also hear what other participants had to see, which I guess you don't get if you have a one-on-one interview.
The focus group ended on a really good note as the interviewers indicated that the welcomed our feedback on the style, delivery and usefulness of the exercise. They also gave us the opportunity to contact them further if we had anymore ideas in coming days, weeks, months or even years. I found this focus group to be mutually beneficial. Obviously, we were promised a summarised version of the findings after they were analysed.
Week 5 Types of Research
If it's one thing I have learnt about doing good research is that a good thesis or research paper needs a problem and an argument, otherwise there is no thesis. For there to be a good problem and argument everything needs to be justified throughout so it is defensible and there is linkages and flows. It is not about a right or wrong answer, it's about a good or bad or better answer.
Something I found useful was when Professor Jacobs mentioned the two types of errors: (1) errors of fact/substance, and (2) errors of communication. This is really important because sometimes there can be misunderstandings between people and it is important to understand the source of this misunderstanding. Is it because the two people have different information and are forming different conclusions or is it because they agree on the substance but have not adequately expressed it so that the other person understands.
I like how in qualitative research it is the outliers/abnormal/influential/extreme observations that are interesting and the focus of study.
In terms of case studies, I understand that there are single case designs and multiple case designs. I have read papers with both single and multiple case designs and I see that a single case design is sufficient if you have a rich enough, in-depth study that allows you to tell a well informed story about a single organization: the where, what, how and why. However, if you want to compare and contrast and find similarities and differences and multiple case design may be appropriate. For instance, I read one paper and they justified a multiple case design because it was an exploratory case study which they wanted to use to develop theory and so they needed multiple cases in order to find similarities and differences.
For case study research, I have seen that there are many references by Yin that are commonly used in my academic field. I like the way that case studies are quite versatile in that they can be used for all kinds of research: such as postivist, interpretive and critical research. Also, they can be used for exploratory, explanatory research as well as several other kinds of research.
Triangulation seems to be used in case study inquiries and I think that this is a term that seems to be a little misunderstood as I think that different people have different interpretations for what triangulation is about. For example, there are different types of triangulation, including:
1. data triangulation
2. investigator triangulation
3. theory triangulation
4. methodological triangulation.
I think most people see that triangulation relates to triangulation as data and methodological triangulation.
In terms of ethnographic research I have written separate blog entries.
Action research seems less common in my disciplinary area of management accounting. Action research is interesting in that it aims to simultaneously build on the stock of knowledge as well as resolve current practical problems. The differentiating feature of action research, compared to other types of research, is that it is concerned with creating organizational change while at the same time studying the process. This latter part is the focus of research in my academic field. To me, action research has a more practical, applied focus and I understand that this research output is published in more practitioner-oriented journals and magazines rather than pure scholarly research journals. Within the accounting sphere, I think that the relevant practitioner journals that possibly publish more action type research includes: Australian Accounting Review (AAR) as it is published on behalf of CPA Australia, which is a major accounting body for accounting practititioners. Action research is not consulting because action research combines both action and research.
I think that action research would be particularly relevant if accounting academics wished to examine more practical phenomena together with accounting practitioners. For example, academics may conduct a study with CPA or ICAA or the Big 4 and combine both action and research together so that their research provides both a contribution to practice - the action element - by intervening in an accounting business process or an organization, as well as providing a contribution to theory - the research element. This output could be published in AAR. With action research, I think it is important that the sponsor of your research is a key organization or industry body in your field.
Another thought is that I think it is imperative that when you are the process of deciding on and planning a particular academic study it is important to identify target journals that your research could eventually be sent to for publication. You could already at the outset potentially contact some academic gatekeepers in the field to see if your proposed research study is something that is acceptable within your academic discipline. In this way, you have a bit more confidence when you are in the process of conducting your research (including the gap in the literature, theoretical framework, research methods) it is something that is appropriate and acceptable within your field. It would be a waste of time if you plan and complete particular study without consulting key players in your discipline and then when you have finished you realise that no one sees the relevant of what you have done.
Something I found useful was when Professor Jacobs mentioned the two types of errors: (1) errors of fact/substance, and (2) errors of communication. This is really important because sometimes there can be misunderstandings between people and it is important to understand the source of this misunderstanding. Is it because the two people have different information and are forming different conclusions or is it because they agree on the substance but have not adequately expressed it so that the other person understands.
I like how in qualitative research it is the outliers/abnormal/influential/extreme observations that are interesting and the focus of study.
In terms of case studies, I understand that there are single case designs and multiple case designs. I have read papers with both single and multiple case designs and I see that a single case design is sufficient if you have a rich enough, in-depth study that allows you to tell a well informed story about a single organization: the where, what, how and why. However, if you want to compare and contrast and find similarities and differences and multiple case design may be appropriate. For instance, I read one paper and they justified a multiple case design because it was an exploratory case study which they wanted to use to develop theory and so they needed multiple cases in order to find similarities and differences.
For case study research, I have seen that there are many references by Yin that are commonly used in my academic field. I like the way that case studies are quite versatile in that they can be used for all kinds of research: such as postivist, interpretive and critical research. Also, they can be used for exploratory, explanatory research as well as several other kinds of research.
Triangulation seems to be used in case study inquiries and I think that this is a term that seems to be a little misunderstood as I think that different people have different interpretations for what triangulation is about. For example, there are different types of triangulation, including:
1. data triangulation
2. investigator triangulation
3. theory triangulation
4. methodological triangulation.
I think most people see that triangulation relates to triangulation as data and methodological triangulation.
In terms of ethnographic research I have written separate blog entries.
Action research seems less common in my disciplinary area of management accounting. Action research is interesting in that it aims to simultaneously build on the stock of knowledge as well as resolve current practical problems. The differentiating feature of action research, compared to other types of research, is that it is concerned with creating organizational change while at the same time studying the process. This latter part is the focus of research in my academic field. To me, action research has a more practical, applied focus and I understand that this research output is published in more practitioner-oriented journals and magazines rather than pure scholarly research journals. Within the accounting sphere, I think that the relevant practitioner journals that possibly publish more action type research includes: Australian Accounting Review (AAR) as it is published on behalf of CPA Australia, which is a major accounting body for accounting practititioners. Action research is not consulting because action research combines both action and research.
I think that action research would be particularly relevant if accounting academics wished to examine more practical phenomena together with accounting practitioners. For example, academics may conduct a study with CPA or ICAA or the Big 4 and combine both action and research together so that their research provides both a contribution to practice - the action element - by intervening in an accounting business process or an organization, as well as providing a contribution to theory - the research element. This output could be published in AAR. With action research, I think it is important that the sponsor of your research is a key organization or industry body in your field.
Another thought is that I think it is imperative that when you are the process of deciding on and planning a particular academic study it is important to identify target journals that your research could eventually be sent to for publication. You could already at the outset potentially contact some academic gatekeepers in the field to see if your proposed research study is something that is acceptable within your academic discipline. In this way, you have a bit more confidence when you are in the process of conducting your research (including the gap in the literature, theoretical framework, research methods) it is something that is appropriate and acceptable within your field. It would be a waste of time if you plan and complete particular study without consulting key players in your discipline and then when you have finished you realise that no one sees the relevant of what you have done.
Reflective Blog and Field Notes/Memos
To me this reflective blog that we are working on during the semester seems like doing field notes and analytical/reflective memos that are done in ethnographic research and field studies. In ethnographic studies, there are certain terms and expressions that are used, for example, discovery where everything is seen in context, it is naturalistic, in-depth and rich. Also, the ethnographer learns from people and I feel that this blog is a way of learning that has a parallel with continuously reflecting and writing fieldnotes that are done during fieldwork. Ethnographics emphasise obervational evidence and various forms of memos and field notes, such as reflective, analytical and observational.
Writing field notes on a regular basis, which include observations, impressions, feelings, thoughts, hunches, questions, among other things is akin to this reflective blog and I think it is really good practice for preparing fieldnotes in a qualitative field study because in qualitative research the research is the research instrument.
Moreover, that fact that qualitative research is an iterative process and is based on emergent ideas identified, this blog helps us to think, write, analyse and refine so that we develop our emergent ideas. As a result, there is a lot of data in ethnograpic research because not only do you have the primary and secondary of sources as well as data collected from interviews, documents and transcripts, but also you have your own data that is created when you write reflective and analytical memos based on the data you collect.
Context is imperative because it allows you to give interpretation and therefore meaning to the raw data you collect. One thing I like about qualitative research, especially in ethnographies and grounded theory is that with the knowledge of what happens in the field you can challenge assumptions. That is, ethnograhy/field studies leads the researcher to question what we 'take for granted'. In particular, I read the term 'taken-for-granted' assumptions in a qualitative field study - Chua and Mahama (2007) and at the time I was a little uncertain as to why this expression was used - but now I get it. Myers (2009, pg. 93) indicates then ethnographic research is the appropriate research method for studying organizational culture, and "organizational culture includes not just the explicit values and behaviours of the members of an organization, but also taken-for-granted assumptions that are virtually impossible to discover if you are there for only a short time". Ethnographic research is the only method that enables a researcher to spend a considerable amount of time in the field so that you can uncover the unwritten rules of how things work - these unwritten rules are rarely verbalized. This is like the tacit 'rules of game' that we need to uncover for our academic discipline.
Writing field notes on a regular basis, which include observations, impressions, feelings, thoughts, hunches, questions, among other things is akin to this reflective blog and I think it is really good practice for preparing fieldnotes in a qualitative field study because in qualitative research the research is the research instrument.
Moreover, that fact that qualitative research is an iterative process and is based on emergent ideas identified, this blog helps us to think, write, analyse and refine so that we develop our emergent ideas. As a result, there is a lot of data in ethnograpic research because not only do you have the primary and secondary of sources as well as data collected from interviews, documents and transcripts, but also you have your own data that is created when you write reflective and analytical memos based on the data you collect.
Context is imperative because it allows you to give interpretation and therefore meaning to the raw data you collect. One thing I like about qualitative research, especially in ethnographies and grounded theory is that with the knowledge of what happens in the field you can challenge assumptions. That is, ethnograhy/field studies leads the researcher to question what we 'take for granted'. In particular, I read the term 'taken-for-granted' assumptions in a qualitative field study - Chua and Mahama (2007) and at the time I was a little uncertain as to why this expression was used - but now I get it. Myers (2009, pg. 93) indicates then ethnographic research is the appropriate research method for studying organizational culture, and "organizational culture includes not just the explicit values and behaviours of the members of an organization, but also taken-for-granted assumptions that are virtually impossible to discover if you are there for only a short time". Ethnographic research is the only method that enables a researcher to spend a considerable amount of time in the field so that you can uncover the unwritten rules of how things work - these unwritten rules are rarely verbalized. This is like the tacit 'rules of game' that we need to uncover for our academic discipline.
Sunday 20 March 2011
Week 4 - Research Design Continued
Start with the literature and write the introduction last because the intro is setting the scene for what is to come and this can only be done when you are finished.
Good qualitative research has a conceptual framework
A good thesis has a problem, if you don’t have a problem, you don’t have a thesis.
Is there are a gap between the actual and the expected? If we don’t know what we expected, how do we know if there is a gap.
I have noticed that there are certain ways of writing and that you need to be subtle when conveying an idea. For instance,
1. You write in a way that conveys the message that there is a gap, without actually saying that there is a gap;
2. Write in a way so that you don’t criticise the literature of prior academics but create a space for your research, showing how you study extends upon their study. For example, Professor X examined xxx and has made a significant and fundamental contribution to furthering our understanding about xxx. However, there are some aspects that could be more fully explored in order to explain xxx. For example,…We contend that the issue surrounding xxx would shed light on xxx and further extend the extant literature and contribute to knowledge.
In this way you are not criticising existing literature; instead you are using their work as motivation for your studying and you are paying them a compliment as well as also showing how your study is the next building block on the extension of knowledge.
A noteworthy issue that was raised in this class is that there seems to be a backlog of about 5 years worth of work. So the research I'm reading in the published journal for 2011 is old! There is work in progress that is waiting to be published. Therefore, it is important to access forthcoming papers and work in progress by looking SSRN, conference papers, google scholar and speak to academics and students in your field to see what is going on around you. It is important to make sure that no one else is doing what you are doing.
Citing certain authors is like setting your exam question. Your work will be compared against their work - this is benchmark. Well that is a pretty high bar.
Kerry said that a good research question/issue is a relationship not a statement.
e.g. examining how banning bottled water affects consumer behaviour. (Good research)
Not, bottled water and consumer behaviour (Bad research)
I found this really useful because it is not something I had thought about consciously before, however now that I have noticed this I can see how titles of papers and theses reflect a relationship rather than a statement. I am sure that this will help me in selecting a title for my research.
Finally, the use of projective techniques come up in this class and this just goes to show how important it is to talk and listen to other people and read literature from other fields (paper on projective techniques in marketing research from 1950). This technique may reduce potential response bias.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)