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.          

Week 4 - Research Design

Numerous issues were covered in this class that linked the whole research process together.  Doing good research requires that you have a particular mindset. 

Reflexivity - I think that when you are conducting your research it is important to be both close and specific as well as step back and see the big picture from a distance.

In terms of selecting the appropriate theory I came up with the following points?

1. See what has been use in the prior literature

2. See the research questions and issues you are trying to address

3. Fit with your conceptual model

4. Understand the underpinning assumptions in the theories

5. Be familar with the limitations of the theory

6.Make sure that there is a match between the unit of analysis/scale in your study and the theory

If there are contradictions and there is inconsistency, then it is likely that the theory needs to be changed.

Theory is your ontology of reality

Theory is your why to your what

Theory provides explanations

Research is not truth, it is about good argument – your argument is good if it is well justified and you can defend it.  For example, in some accounting papers I have read I have noticed that every step or decision is explaned and defended so that you can't really argue against it.  Starting from the motivation of the study leading to the research issue, it is embedded within the broader literature.  The theory helps to make sense and explain what you are examining and is either consistent with prior researchers, or if is is different there is some logical argument for why this is the case.  The research methods flow from the theory and the research problem as research methods need to be consistent with the theoretical framework, and so on.

The ‘tacit’ rule of the game (academic rule) is argument, consistency, coherence and cohesiveness.  This means that the paper/thesis can be justified and defended, and all the elements are linked so there is flow.  The final product in an academic paper is what they end with, and not what they started with.  As the only permanent thing is change.  The best plan is one that changes in light of new information.  You need to be reflexible and adaptable during the research process and in qualitative research, design is an iterative, adaptive cycle. 

Given this it seems that a good researcher is one that does not know what their final results will be or what the finished product will be, because if we knew the answer ex ante we would not be doing research.

Bad research is when there is inconsistency.  For example, there are different arguments throughout the paper, you argue one thing and measure another thing, have differing conflicting theories, your argument does not fit with your theory, your introduction and conclusion do not match, etc.  This weakens your research as good research is good argument and your argument does not hold.

  

  

 

 

Week 3 – Theory and Theoretical Frameworks – The Distinction

If you don’t have a theory you don’t have research.  The distinction between a theory and a theoretical framework; to some extent they are similar, but they are fundamentally different.  A theory is an abstraction of reality.  General theories are the set of tools that are applied to a particular research problem – they are applied to the context we are interested in.  A theory is a mechanism, device, or model about something.  Theory is a model of the process you are looking at – the purpose of theory is to help us build our conceptual model.

The theoretical framework is where we theorise, hypothesize and put across our ideas and arguments.  For example, a hypothesis is built on a theory, however it is about what we think, it is not the theory.   The purpose of the theory is to give structure to the researcher.  When we apply a theory to our research problem/issue and develop our argument this is our theorisation, and in a sense, our contribution to the literature.  Remember that a significant and original contribution to knowledge means a significant and original contribution to theory in our disciplinary area. 

What is truth is what we can defend and make an argument for.  However, in the end we give an opinion.  When we talk about advancing knowledge, we are talking about advancing knowledge in our disciplinary area.    

There needs to be a fit between theory and the research problem because through the interaction between our theory and research problem we develop our argument and theorisation, and therefore, our contribution to knowledge.  Hence, the assumptions and philosophical positions underlying the theory need to fit and match your research problem. 

A theory is general.  Your research problem is specific.  So any one theory may be used for many research problems.  Although for a particular research problem there may be only a few theories (or even one) that are applicable.  Therefore, you are applying a general theory to a specific situation and using it to help construct an argument and understanding your problem. 

In order to make things better, you need to first understand how they work.  This is obvious because when you understand how they work you can identify the strengths and deficiencies, areas that can be improved, etc.  Data is evidence for the claim.  Need to stick the claim and evidence together.  

For qualitative research, you use theoretical sampling or purposeful sampling.  You only need one example to challenge a theory.  You do not prove, but test a theory.  You cannot prove, only disprove a theory – reject a hypothesis – falsification.  You say your findings either support your hypothesis or do not support your hypothesis.

It was interesting to discover that in qualitative research you can change your theory many times during the research until you find the right fit.  This seems a bit like grounded theory where you get your data first and then turn to the literature to finding theories, etc.

Your contribution is what is not understood in your disciplinary area.  Need to constantly ask yourself (reflexivity): what am I providing that has not already been explained? 

I think there is a constant interplay between qualitative and qualitative research – it is like a feedback loop - circular.  You go from qual to quant to qual to quant, etc and each feeds into the other. 

Websites and The Qualitative Report

I have had a look at the relevant website materials and they are quite helpful in understanding qualitative research.  The site: http://gsociology.icaap.org/methods/qual.htm has links tp heaps of other sites that I navigated. 

I subscribed to the Qualitative Report about a week ago and they have been sending me the Weekly Qualitative Report.  It has numerous articles and one, in particular, relating to doctoral students should be useful for me.  It usually helps to seek affiliations with others in the industry when learning about the 'rules of the game'.

Week 2 - Academic Gaps and Genres

I have been reading the different qualitative research genres and I think that my qualitative study based on 'coopetition' within inter-firm alliances, taken from a network perspective is a type of interpretive research.  This means that many of the underlying philosophical assumptions that I am used to will be challenged because I have been used to working with economic models that focus of dyadic relations with assumptions, such as utility maximisation and rational economic behaviour.

At first when I used to read interpretive research I was a little surprised because it was not what I expected.  For example, instead of designing the ideal or 'optimal' management control system (MCS), the researchers would write about how MCS emerge and are enacted, how they simultaneously influence and are influenced by actors (both human and non-human), how accounting numbers are effects and generate effects, how accounting can be used to generate order and disorder, how actors assign shared meanings to accounting symbols.  I would think this does not make any sense because this is not what is usually taught in pure technical accounting courses or written in textbooks.

Now I get it and I have to say I find it a refreshing alternative to studying the positivist stream of accounting research because we know that theory is one thing and reality is another and the two are not often the same.

In terms of the 3 paper literature review I have selected papers that seem to overlap thereby creating a 'gap' in the academic literature - they fit really well together.  I have discovered that when you write your paper you don't explicitly say there is a gap, but rather, you write in a way that conveys this message to your readers so that they come to understand that there is a gap.

In terms of finding a research gap, it helps to look at review papers that summarise the relevant literature on a particular topic and suggest directions for future research.  However, in this way you may end up addressing a call in the literature.  Additionally, you can try to find a gap and 'problematise' an important issue, highlighting how there is a problem that needs to solved.  Otherwise, you may end up relying too much on issues raised in existing literature.  In my case, I am focusing on the role of MCS when coopetition exists.  I think it is important to stress the risk created by coopetition and high failure rate of inter-form alliances and that the role of MCS is to manage risk both within and across organisational boundaries.  Why is it that many inter-firm alliances fail? Is it because MCS break down and fail in this situation? How do MCS emerge and enact in circumstances of coopetition?