http://ejbrm.com EJBRM News en © 2011, EJBRM Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:48:39 +0000 Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:48:39 +0000 EJBRM EJBRM EJBRM RSS generator http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss The discussion of qualitative or quantitative approaches has been going on for many years. One way to reduce the most dogmatic standings is to use mixed methods consisting of combinations of qualitative and quantitative approaches. In this paper, we have analysed usage experiences from combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in different ways. We refer to these combinations as method configurations. Our findings point out that a researcher should commence with a qualitative approach when: 1) the researcher has a lower pre-knowledge of phenomenon to be studied, 2) the phenomenon to be studied is abstract and 3) there is an uncertainty if the questions asked are the right questions. On the contrary, there is a tendency in our results that the researcher should start with a quantitative study when 1) the researcher has a good pre-knowledge of the phenomenon or 2) the phenomenon is more concrete. http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p87 Stefan Cronholm http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p87 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:01:01 +0000 Mixed methods research (MMR) is often referred to as the third methodological movement and has witnessed a rapid rise in popularity in the last 10 years. Prominent authorities in the field now refer to the MM research community which has developed its o wn philosophical, theoretical, methodological, analytical and practical foundations and constructs for the conduct of MMR. This paper provides a brief overview of some of the more common definitions of mixed methods research and methodology before introdu cing the conceptual framework of the Five Ps of mixed methods research. The Five P framework will be used to structure an exploration of some of the key challenges facing those who choose the innovative path of mixed methods research and some of the key a reas for capacity building. The Five Ps include: Paradigms; Pragmatism; Praxis; Proficiency; and Publishing. This Five Ps framework will be mapped against the contemporary landscape of the MMR movement as developed by some of the most prominent mixed meth odologists within the MMR community. These include: the overlapping components of an emerging map of MMR (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2010) and the domains of MMR (Creswell 2010). The Five Ps framework can provide those wishing to embark into mixed methods research with the essential components of a mixed methods starter kit, inclusive of a contemporary checklist of contentious issues, risks and traps that require consideration. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 29) refer to the need for MM researchers to become methodological connoisseur[s]Ž whilst Cameron (2011: 263) calls for the need to build methodological trilingualismŽ in those wishing to engage in MMR. Both these capacities require advanced research skill levels and competencies. As a conseque nce the framework also offers higher degree supervisors and educators with a pedagogic tool for guiding and teaching mixed methods. http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p96 Roslyn Cameron http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p96 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:01:01 +0000 Design science (DS) is a problem solving paradigm that involves building and evaluating innovative artifacts in a rigorous manner to solve complex, real world problems, make research contributions that extend the boundaries of what is already known, and communicate the results to appropriate audiences. The importance of this paradigm in the Information Systems (IS) field has been recognised since the early 1990’s with the publication of seminal articles by for example Nunamaker et al (1991), Walls et al (1992) and March and Smith (1995). However, over the past 15 years, DS research in IS has been sparse. In more recent times this has begun to change, with an increasing number of research contributions considering DS research. DS research in IS is important as the dominant behavioural science paradigm is not sufficient for addressing the types of problems that call for human creativity and innovative and novel solutions. One widely debated problem in the IS field that calls for such novel solutions centres on how organisations manage, deliver and optimise value from their IT investments. This paper presents a DS research project in the IS field that aims to improve organisational ability in managing and optimizing value realised from IT investments through increasing maturity in critical areas. This research involves development of an IT Capability Maturity Framework (IT CMF). The IT CMF project is centered at the Innovation Value Institute (IVI) at the National University of Ireland Maynooth (NUIM). The IVI is a joint venture between NUIM, Intel and the Boston Consulting Group and seeks to drive innovation in the management and use of IT in order to optimise business value. The IT CMF represents an emerging blueprint of key IT capability processes, and at a high level consists of four integrated IT management strategies or macro processes: managing IT like a business, managing the IT budget, managing the IT capability, and managing IT for business value. The IT CMF represents a blueprint for incrementally improving these four macro processes across five maturity levels: initial, basic, intermediate, advanced, and optimized. These four macro processes are further broken into 32 critical processes (CPs), which are the key activities that an IT organisation needs to manage in order to deliver IT solutions and measure the business value generated. The content development and review for the IT CMF is performed by the IVI development community, which comprises academic researchers, industry based practitioner-researchers and consultants based in over 55 global companies. This paper discusses its development in terms of key DS principles and presents reflections on the challenges and value associated with adopting a DS approach. The paper adds to the growing body of DS literature in the IS field, and enables other researchers and practitioners to judge the rigor with which the IT CMF artifact was created and evaluated, and its utility in practical application. http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p109 Marian Carcary http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p109 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:01:01 +0000 Research in business can address a variety of goals, including explanation or evaluation of extant business practices, development of new business practices, critiquing business practice, and examining business goals other than profit. Empirical research about extant business practices is conducted in one or both of the positivist and interpretive research paradigms. Development of new business practices, rather than simply examining existing ones, is conducted by research within the Design Science Research (DSR) paradigm. The DSR paradigm emphasises the invention, design, and development of new technologies, techniques, and methods, yet still achieving research rigour. Critically examining organisational practices and goals other than profit, such as business ethics, sustainability, and the triple bottom line, is much better conducted within the Critical Research (CR) paradigm, which critically examines the purpose, goals, and social and societal impacts of business and other practices. Unfortunately, the Introduction to Business Research Methods courses and textbooks that develop the business research community’s fledgling members’ ability to conduct, interpret, and critique and develop high quality research typically place heavy if not exclusive emphasis on positivist and interpretive research paradigms and methods at the expense of other research paradigms and methods. Such exclusive emphasis on positivist and interpretive research at the expense of other paradigms handicaps new researchers and severely limits their future ability to conduct, interpret, critique, and develop high quality research. To address this problem, this paper describes how DSR and CR have been successfully incorporated within an introductory business research methods course, which introduces students, regardless of their specific business discipline, to business research. The paper describes how it (1) deals with textbooks that have a limited perspective on business research paradigms and methods and (2) provides a needed, holistic perspective on business research, regardless of the specific discipline. To accomplish the above, the new course does four specific things. First, it situates business research as an applied discipline, along with other applied disciplines, such as medicine and engineering, and in contrast to non-applied disciplines, such as physics or psychology. Second, it includes a key new framework that contrasts the assumptions and perspectives of different research paradigms, including business research knowledge goals, the role of values in research, and epistemological issues. Third, it modifies and extends frameworks and figures from a popular business research methods textbook to supplement the limited perspective of the textbook with alternative research goals and paradigms. Fourth, the new course adds relevant introductory readings. The paper presents these extensions to the course, including how and where they are included within the course presentation, materials, and assessments, as a model for others wishing to enhance their introductory business research methods courses. http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p119 John R Venable http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p119 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:01:01 +0000 In fast-paced business organisations, there is critical need for conducting systematic research in order to explain and solve recurring problems in the industry. However, we find many building professionals losing their patience over the unknown end of a doctoral study as most of them practise problem-solving in their jobs since they were so trained. The purpose of this article is to present a visualisation tool developed by a built environment faculty to explain a typical three-year journey that mature building professionals are required to take for solving their own research inquiries. We claim that if these mature students are given a quick overview on how and what their doctoral journey would involve at the start of their studies, they will be less fearful of uncertainties and will accordingly fulfil the requirements of their doctoral studies successfully. The Eagle Research Design Table (Eagle Table) is a self-filled tool guided by three research question’s constructs. The key to expanding the Eagle Table is identifying these constructs in a research inquiry first. We have established three constructs—“WHO”, “WHAT” and “HOW”—through prolonged participatory experience in teaching research methodology to building professionals. The “WHO” construct refers to the element or subject being used in, or impacted by, the study while the “WHAT” construct refers to the body of knowledge that is required to solve the research inquiry. The final “HOW” construct refers to the action to be taken on the element or subject during the study. In this article, we present how these three research question’s constructs, when presented in a table form, proved to be successful in providing a quick overview of a doctoral study’s journey. Hence, enabling many mature building professionals to persevere in their studies. Consequently, the academic community would benefit from the rich experience and wisdom of their industry partners in handling and tackling recurring problems in the built environment. http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p130 Rahinah Ibrahim http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p130 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:01:01 +0000 Professional doctorates have been established as key arenas for learning and research with the requirement for individuals to make both a contribution to management practise and academic knowledge. Many students on these programmes are drawn from the senior business world, for which the traditionally quantitatively focused business environment is familiar territory and, from which, we often see a natural tendency towards research that embraces the positivist approach that brings with it the familiarity of hard, measurable, results-focused business disciplines. The insight into the academic world of ontology, epistemology and the different research approaches that form part of the learning arena of the professional doctorate provides an opportunity for students to consider the qualitative research alternative and the value of this in developing professional understanding and in making a contribution to knowledge, understanding and management praxis. This paper does not seek to critique the criteria for what constitutes “good” research or to argue against positivist research in the professional research arena per se. Our position is that critical reflexive thinking has a key part to play in research in both developing the student and in closing the loop between the approach taken to carry out the research, the research findings, the contribution to academic knowledge and how the research practically informs professional practice. Reflexive exploration we contend takes us beyond simple numerical objective measures and into the field of subjective understanding, which can be unsettling for the mindset of a traditionally positivistic organisation. It can be perceived as difficult and time consuming, and offering vague or conflicting outputs and we recognise that talk of subjectivity, bias and interpretation may seriously affect the acceptability of research in this tradition amongst business people and needs careful handling. The methodology must stand up to the scrutiny of both academic and management disciplines by producing results that both these disciplines accept and understand. The rewards, we suggest, of reflexive exploration, offer the opportunity of a privileged insight into workforce behaviours and motivations that are not often articulated and recognised in the business world. Within this paper we draw upon hermeneutics and critical discourse analysis highlighting the role of critical reflexivity to illustrate how these qualitative research methodologies can be used to bring the academic and business worlds together. http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p141 Caroline Cole, Steven Chase, Oliver Couch and Murray Clark http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p141 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:01:01 +0000 The traditional view of a profession is that of a discipline with a distinct set of skills and knowledge that define the area of practice and characteristics of the practitioners. This nature and area of practice of a profession is sometimes defined as its body of knowledge or ‘BoK’. In the case of project management, as the discipline moves towards professional recognition, this BoK becomes a significant device that serves the needs of many stakeholders in addition to those of the practitioner or academic. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of research in the development of project management Bodies of Knowledge. As project management emerges from the ghetto of engineering and develops its trajectory towards recognition as a profession, its knowledge area becomes even more significant because it needs to be seen to define a distinct knowledge domain that sets out the limits of the ‘profession’. However, the knowledge domain can be said to have shifted so that it is still under constant review and improvement to respond to continual change. New areas of practice have emerged, such as programme management and portfolio management, that are considered to be part of the discipline hence the knowledge area requires refinement. In this paper we show that current versions of project management BoKs are poorly served by underpinning research. We contend that evidence based research should play a part in the construction of BoKs, and that other research approaches should be also seen as relevant and effective. This paper draws on experiences of updating a formal Body of Knowledge, reviews the context of a range of project management bodies of knowledge and identifies a number of issues concerning the nature of project management knowledge and how it can be represented. We conclude that BoKs serve a valid purpose but conflicting priorities affect the development process and undermine their usefulness. From the epistemological issues identified, we add our conjecture that the capacity of bodies of knowledge to represent the broader understanding of the discipline is limited.. The paper concludes with a review of some methodological implications of the interaction of stakeholder interests and BoK development practice. http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p152 Miles Shepherd and Roger Atkinson http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p152 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:01:01 +0000 This research investigates the use of a 21-point Likert type scale in the design of a questionnaire that explores factors related to staff turnover and retention. The paper examines the notion of granularity in researcher-defined fixed rating scales, where granularity refers to the number of response categories or cut off points that are imposed on a scale (Smithson 2006). The aim of this research paper is to examine the usefulness of a scale with high granularity, from the perspectives of respondents and the researcher. The questionnaire was administered among employees in three different public sector organisations in South Africa, to create a combined data set of 178 respondents. Informing the formulation of the hypotheses was Parducci’s (1965 cited in Tourangeau, Rips & Rasinski 2000) range-frequency model, which assumes that respondents make use of the various response categories available with equal frequency, if they are evenly spaced. It was therefore hypothesised that (1) there are no significant differences in the frequency of use of the 21 response categories, implying that all of the response categories are useful to respondents; (2) that there would be no difference in the response pattern of respondents when different scale types and lengths are used, implying that increasing the scale granularity did not lead to redundancy; and (3) that there are no significant differences in the variation of responses with ongoing use of the scale. That is, if the scale was useful to respondents, they would continue to use a wide range of the response options available. Chi-square tests were primarily used to test the hypotheses. It was concluded that the 21-point scale was useful to respondents and by implication to researchers as well. This was evident in the spread of responses across the 21 response categories of the scale, and that even with prolonged use, they continued to utilise a wide range of response options. It was recommended that researchers should give more explicit attention to scale granularity when designing a questionnaire and that further research is required to assess the value of various levels of scale granularity. http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p159 Noel Pearse http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p159 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:01:01 +0000 Qualitative research routinely requires experienced practitioners in a given field to be interviewed, and there are a range of methods known to elicit dialogue. The method for elicitation presented in this paper, however, goes a stage further it seeks not only to elicit dialogue but to provide subjects with additional knowledge, which they are encouraged to use as a lens for reflection on their own experience. Using a progressive series of related information graphics, accompanied by explanations, subjects are quickly taught a new topic and are asked to reflect on their own practice while the learning occurs. The research project is described to contextualise the elicitation method within the wider engagement. The approach was tested with a number of Information Technology (I.T.) specialists, each with extensive experience of encouraging users to participate in new I.T. environments. Subjects were provided with information graphics that incrementally increased their understanding of psychological theories related to attitude change, namely cognitive dissonance and the elaboration likelihood model. As their knowledge increased, they were guided to reflect on occasions where they had encountered phenomena related to such psychological theory, its effect and affiliated best practice. Over all, this approach was effective, with over 130,000 words of relevant, advanced discourse forthcoming. In this paper, the elicitation method, its affiliated epistemology, an overview of the project and the research methodology are presented, along with some early results. http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p172 Gillian Green, Robert Campbell and Mark Grimshaw http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p172 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:01:01 +0000 This paper examines the methodology undertaken by one PhD researcher in a rural Indian context. The research built an in-depth understanding of how to deliver an improvement in the sustainable development of local rural Indian villages. The sustainable development projects are developed and implemented by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) but are part funded through the corporate responsibility programme of a multi national Bank. The research focused on the processes used in the projects, how they were implemented and the outcomes achieved. The research is unusual in management research, in that it takes a stakeholder perspective rather than the more customary corporate perspective. Consequently the focus is on understanding the processes, implementation and outcomes from the perspective of three groups of stakeholders. The three groups are the Bank, the NGOs and the villagers who are the end recipients of the projects. This paper does not explore the outcomes of this research but rather describes the research methodology undertaken to effectively execute the research. The research methodology chosen was that of case study with an interpretivist stance. Whilst case study can be an umbrella term for multiple data collection tools, there was a focus on collecting data via discussion and observation, in line with the interpretivist paradigm. To achieve the required level of discussion and observation was facilitated by undertaking an ethnographically-styled approach. This ethnographic-styled approach included the researcher spending time living in the Indian villages with respondents to understand the outcomes of the sustainable development projects which had been undertaken from their perspective. The data gathering processes include structured, semi-structured and in-depth interviews across the three primary stakeholder groups of respondents. Other data gathering included observation, documentation, artefacts, video and photographs. In summary this paper provides an insight into a method for undertaking research in a local rural developing country context. It particularly focuses on taking a stakeholder perspective to corporate interventions in a community, rather than the more usual company focused approach. It further contributes to the development of appropriate methodology for contexts where the researcher is from a different cultural and linguistic background to the respondents. http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p185 Nicola Swan http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p185 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:01:01 +0000 The Mixed Methods Reader edited by Clark and Creswell, Sage 2008, ISBN 978-1-4129-5145-6 is an exceptional book and should be required reading for anyone who is interested in undertaking academic research using a mixed methods approach. Mixed methods to which an increasing number of academic researchers are resorting is generally poorly understood and few of those who claim to use it are competent. In many cases mixed methods is seen as a refuge where those who refuse to take part in the methodological wars can shelter. In some cases the academic researcher will collect some qualitative and some quantitative data and process these independently of one another and then will claim to have used a mixed methods framework. When this is done, the claim is usually made that the researcher has used two different lenses through which to examine the research question and that this is what mixed methods is about. Whilst it cannot be said that the approach of resorting to both quantitative and qualitative data is in any way valueless a more informed and integrated framework for the use of mixed methods makes the research more powerful. Clark and Creswell provide an excellent overview of a number of important papers in the subject. They trace the need for mixed methods and they contextualise this approach and provide an accessible way of understanding its role and how it functions. The book contains 23 papers and addresses most of the important issues which any researcher needs to come to terms with if he or she is to be a successful practitioner of mixed methods. The book is divided into two parts, the first of which is titled Methodological Selections and addresses the essential topics within the mixed methods domain. The second part, titled Exemplar Research Studies, addresses the different types of mixed methods design. The Methodological Selections take on some of the philosophical issues related to Mixed Methods. In particular, I found the discussion on Pragmatism as a Philosophical Foundation for Mixed Methods and The Transformative-Emancipatory Perspective as a Philosophical Foundation for Mixed Methods interesting. The paper on Advanced Mixed Methods Research Design is particularly useful. In the Exemplar Research Studies section papers on triangulation and on experimental design are especially interesting. In general the book is accessible and there is an extensive index. The book is available at the usual bookshops. I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone wishing to become a competent Mixed Methods Researcher. http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p195 Dan Remenyi http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p195 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:01:01 +0000 The new textbook Writing a Research Proposal – Practical guidelines for business students by Professor Pumela Msweli published by Juta ISBN 978-0-70218-877-0 is a professionally produced easy to access guide to a very important aspect of academic research. The research proposal is the first step in any important research project. It is the research proposal which sets the agenda for the research, indicates its feasibility and most of all it demonstrates the researcher’s ability to undertake the work required. It is therefore most important that a competent research proposal is developed. This short book which is only 120 pages is a good guide to the work involved when developing the research proposal. It is designed for the novice to have with him or herself during the early days of their research while they are finding their feet. Over the 8 Chapters the author addresses all the important issues in an easy to understand way. Another important aspect of the book is that many of the key concepts and terms which are used in academic research are explained. Useful diagrams and tables are supplied. The issue of research language is an important one. Many novice researchers find it very difficult to get started because they do not know the terms which are used by researchers. Novices stumble over issues like deduction and induction and non sequitur are explained. However a Glossary of terms would be a helpful addition to the next edition of this book. Books by their nature have a target readership and this one is written for the novice researcher in the business studies field. Books also have a pre-determined scope and depth and this book is written as a starter-book which is really needed and no doubt this book will be a great success. When considering a master degree more depth may be required even at MBA and MBL level. Perhaps the book would be fully adequate for those undertaking honours level research. Finally publishers are always optimistic about the utility of their books and on the back cover it is suggested that Research Proposal – Practical guidelines for business students would be of use to doctoral students. It is true that even doctoral students have to start somewhere but I would say that a doctoral degree candidate would need to move on to more detailed texts rather soon. http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p197 Dan Remenyi http://www.ejbrm.com/volume9/issue2/p197 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:01:01 +0000