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.