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.