Bridging the theory - practice divide: from research methods to management inquiry - John Paul Kalawek

Bridging the theory – practice divide? From ‘research methods’ to ‘management inquiry’

John Paul Kawalek

[email protected]

Management School

Context

In 2009 we commenced ‘re-vamping’ our research methods unit on the Sheffield MBA. There was a lot of re-thinking done, we cajoled the concept, re-formulated content, underpinning pedagogy and content.

Why?

• Poor dissertations! • Poor empirical analysis • ‘Game-playing’ with pseudo-data • Simplistic surveys of (often) bizarre phenomena • Starting point was ‘a research topic’ not ‘a client problem’ • Weakness in distinguishing inquiry in practice whilst the teaching reflected pure

research methods • Weakness in linking ‘theory’ with ‘practice’

How? We used Ulrich’s Critical Systems Heuristics to challenge our ‘boundary constructions’! See Ulrich, W. (1987), Critical heuristics of social systems design. European Journal of Operational Research 31(3), p. 276-283

Connections and disconnections in research…

In doing this ‘re-thinking’ we formulated the notion that there are often significant disconnections in research methods in general terms, and in research methods teaching. And was connected to some of the assumptions of teachers who are members of research communities… their assumptions about the nature of the research process.

Research communities themselves separate themselves from ‘solving problems’ of the ‘real world’, and do not structure their process around the problem solving process e.g. Choice of research topic is often derived from ‘perceived gaps in the literature’, not the ‘perceived problem’ in an organisation; Critiques of critiques and ‘academic cliques’.

What type of study makes a ‘good’ study in a practical project?

See also Argyris, C. (1980), Inner Contradictions of rigorous research.

We challenged many of the basic assumptions that we all make in research and in teaching research methods…

….And concluded that many of our own weaknesses in the teaching of the subject did not sufficiently see the systemic (or ‘holistic’) properties of the research PROCESS… for practical contexts. What we were doing was disjointed and un-systemic. …. In other words …we were failing the students!!

Elements 1 & 2 : The researcher and the phenomena

Intended Researcher ‘Phenomena’

M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

Ambiguity about the choice of the question – is it ‘from the literature’ or is it ‘the client problem’? Often characterised by a certain shoe-horning of ‘reality’ into a perceived ‘topic’ The relationship is often defined (or very influenced) by the ‘starting point’ – is it for example ‘to solve a problem’ or ‘are we creating the problem to solve’?

Element 3 : Formal and explicitly stated purpose of research, (and claimed as output)

Intended Researcher Organisational

Situation and/or its context (‘Phenomena’)

M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

Ambiguity about what the essential goal. Tended to be expressed to reflect the teaching of research… but not as an emergent characteristic of the process… (a) discover new knowledge about existing phenomena; (a) verify and validate known knowledge (for instance, the process of repeatability,

refutation and validation); and/or (b) discover new knowledge, unknown phenomena and new concepts, models,

theory, methods, techniques and methodology.

Element 4 : Hidden purpose (and denied)

Intended Researcher

Research Method context

Research Methods user

Phenomena

M(ii) M(iii) M(iv) M(i)

Ambiguity about the ‘real drivers’ of the research process, e.g. (a) serving the ego; (b) satisfying career ambitions; (c) serving institutional requirements for output; (d) passing a degree, resulting in a very functional view of an inquiry!

Element 5 : Purpose informs the relationship choices, design choices and therefore the whole process

Intended Researcher



Phenomena


Ambiguity around …. How a given interaction influences and determines the given ‘facts’ The design of the interaction between the observer and observed What is taken to be ‘fact’ in the dynamic process

Interaction

Observation

Element 6 : Methods ...And what is revealed about the choice of research methods (espoused), and the methods in action

#

Intended Researcher


Research methods


Phenomena

Research methods applied


There may be some understanding ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ methods, but not… (i) That the choice depends on the problem! (ii) the difference between ‘espoused’ methods and ‘methods in action’;

Element 7 : Interactions with the phenomena Perceptions of what management research is... Eg. is it ‘observing

reality’ or ‘testing’… or ‘problem-solving’?

#

Intended Researcher


Research methods


Phenomena 1


M(ii) M(iii) M(iv) M(i) CD

Do we see research to have a role in leading practice (e.g. clinical trials)

M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

Phenomena 2 Ambiguity about (i) The role of the inquiry in playing a part in making a given change in organisational contexts; and (ii) The nature of a CD (Client Deliverable) as opposed to the dissertation, and the changes that they might result in the context.

Element 8 : Use of intermediaries Observing the perceptions of others (who are ‘somehow’ connected to the phenomena)

#

Intended Researcher


Research methods


Phenomena 1


M(ii) M(iii) M(iv) M(i) CD

M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

Phenomena 2

M(ii) M(i)

Ambiguity about ‘getting insight’, hence… Students use a ‘just good-enough’ source of data…!

Element 9 : Selection and use of literature

#

Intended Researcher


Research methods


Phenomena 1


M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

M(i)

CD

M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

Phenomena 2

M(ii) M(ii)

Sources of related research

S(ii)

S(i)

S(iii)

Selected based on the social context of Universities, not to ‘solve the problem’

Element 10 : Social context

#

Intended Researcher


Research methods


Phenomena 1


M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

M(i)

CD

M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

Phenomena 2

M(ii) M(ii)

M(ii) M(i)


S(ii)

S(i)

S(iii)

e.g. academic conventions and historic norms will push the researcher to define the research process in a particular way…

Element 11 : Integration of elements over time

#

Intended Researcher


Research methods


Phenomena 1


M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

M(i)

CD

M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

Phenomena 2

M(ii) M(ii)


S(ii)

S(i)

Time

Ambiguity in the conception of the whole process, e.g. in design stage, and the constraints on the process

Element 12 : Research report

#

Intended Researcher


Research methods


Phenomena 1


M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

M(i)

CD

M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

Phenomena 2

M(ii) M(ii)


S(ii)

S(i)

Time

Research report

R(ii)

Often confused with a ‘client deliverable’! Reflects social context, not necessarily valuable to clients

How does the R(ii) reflect the whole process?

Element 12 : Assumptions about judgement of quality

#

Intended Researcher


Research methods


Phenomena 1


M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

M(i)

CD

M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

Phenomena 2

M(ii) M(ii)


S(ii)

S(i)

Research report

Judge

M(i)

The assessment needed changing to reflect the nature of the process

Element 13 : Actual judgement of quality – e.g. What is the judge judging?

#

Intended Researcher


Research methods


Phenomena 1


M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

M(i)

CD

M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

Phenomena 2

M(ii) M(ii)

Sources of related

research

S(ii)

S(i)

Research report

Judge

M(i)

The whole process?

Element 14 : Reflection on assumptions by the judge e.g. epistemological preferences

#

Intended Researcher


Research methods


Phenomena 1


M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

M(i)

CD

M(ii) M(iii) M(iv)

Phenomena 2

M(ii) M(ii)


S(ii)

S(i)

Research report

Judge

M(iv)

Challenging the assumptions of the way it is judged!

All Sheffield MBA students have clients and they ‘problem-solve’ using a given and their designed ‘management inquiry’ Their ‘management inquiry’ is underpinned by a systemic conception of the whole process Criteria of assessment reflects this process structure It is no longer a phone box on the moon, with weak linkage to the ‘real world’, students are much more engaged, they are accountable to their client, are challenged by their process, and see it as relevant – not a game to be played. From ‘Research Methods' to ‘Management Inquiry’ From a disconnected to an ‘holistic process’ to underpin the process in practice

Outcomes (aspirational to some extent)

Discussion…?

Bridging the theory - practice divide: from research methods to management inquiry - John Paul Kalawek

Education

research process

teaching of research

purpose of research

teaching research methods

research methods unit

choice of research topic

pure research methods

perceived problem