Samenvatting
Samenvatting artikelen Advanced Research Methods
Een samenvatting van alle artikelen van het vak Advanced Research Methods (MAN-MOD012) van de master Business Administration aan de RU!
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 32 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 32 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Summary Advanced ResearchMethods
Inhoud
Week 1: Research Paradigms.................................................................................................................2
Guba & Lincoln (1994) – Competing paradigms.................................................................................2
Week 2: Fundamentals of qualitative research......................................................................................7
Flick (2007) – From an idea to a research question............................................................................7
Flick (2007) – Designing Qualitative Research....................................................................................8
Video on Reflexivity across research approaches.............................................................................12
Week 3: The plurality of qualitative research designs and types of data.............................................13
Gabriels (2018) - Qualitative Researchers: Cherry-pickers or beachcombers?.................................13
Langley & Abdallah (2011). Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management
..........................................................................................................................................................13
Week 4: From data to theory...............................................................................................................20
Gioia et al (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research....................................................20
Symon & Cassell (2012). Chapter 20 & 26........................................................................................23
Chapter 20: case studies in organizational research (Buchanan)..................................................23
Chapter 26: Discourse Analysis and Discursive Research (Oswick)...............................................26
Week 5: No lecture...............................................................................................................................29
Week 6: Writing it up: the craft of writing............................................................................................29
Reay et al (2019). Presenting findings from qualitative research: one size does not fit all!.............29
Week 7: No lecture...............................................................................................................................32
,Week 1: Research Paradigms
Guba & Lincoln (1994) – Competing paradigms
The term ‘qualitative’ is not an umbrella term superior to the term ‘paradigm’. They argue that both
qualitative and quantitative methods may be used appropriately with any research paradigm. A
paradigm is ‘the basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigator, not only in choices of
methods but in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways’. Basic = they must be
accepted simply on faith.
1) The quantitative/qualitative distinction
Historically, there has been an emphasis on quantification in science. The ‘received view’ of science
is about positivism & post-positivism. The hypotheses are mostly stated as mathematical
propositions or that can easily be converted into mathematical formulas. There exists a widespread
conviction that only quantitative data are ultimately valid or of high quality. John Stuart Mill was the
first to urge social scientists to imitate the ‘harder’ scientists promising that the qualitative field
would face maturation. Qualitative researchers became the new kids on the block; the imitation lead
to greater acceptance and more valid knowledge.
Critiques of the received view:
Two counter-pressures against quantification have emerged: These are both of the same interests
and weight.
1) internal to the paradigm
Context stripping: variables that exist in the context might greatly alter findings. Relevance
becomes less.
Exclusion of meaning and purpose: Causes that human behaviour cannot be understood as there
is no meaning and purpose attached to their activities.
Disjunction of grand theories with local contexts; the etic/emic dilemma. The etic (outsider)
theory brought to bear on an inquiry by an investigator may have little of no meaning within the emic
(insider) view of studied individuals, groups etc.
Inapplicability of general data to individual cases: Generalizations, even though maybe
statistically meaningful, have no applicability in the individual case.
Exclusion of the discovery dimension in inquiry: too much emphasis on the verification of specific
a priori hypotheses instead of the source of the hypotheses (discovery process).
These intraparadigm problems could be solved by greater use of qualitative data. But proposing
alternative paradigms that involve fundamental adjustments in the basic assumptions would be
better.
2) external to the paradigm
The theory-ladenness of facts: it is stated that theories and facts are interdependent; facts are
facts only within some theoretical framework.
The underdetermination of theory: the problem of induction. The historical position of science
that it can, by its methods, ultimately converge on the ‘real’ truth is brough into question.
The value-ladenness of facts: Values and facts are not independent. ‘Facts’are viewed through a
theory window and through a value window.
the interactive nature of the inquirer-inquired into dyad: The received view of science pictures
,the inquirer as standing behind a one-way mirror, viewing natural phenomena as they happen and
recording them objectively. The inquirer does not influence the phenomena or vice versa. But this is
not plausible.
Interests in alternative paradigms grew due to a dissatisfaction with the overemphasis on
quantitative methods and the extraparadigm critiques.
2) The nature of paradigms
“Paradigms as basic belief systems based on ontological, epistemological and methodological
assumptions”.
Ontology = What is the form and nature of reality? What can be known about reality? E.g. If a ‘real’
world is assumed, then what can be known about it is ‘how things really are’ and ‘how things really
work’.
Epistemology = What is the nature of the relationship between the knower/would-knower and what
can be known? Is linked to the ontological question. E.g. if a ‘real’ world is assumed, then the posture
of the knower must be one of objective detachment in order to be able to discover ‘how things really
are and work’.
Methodology = How can the would-knower/knower go about finding out whatever he/she believes
that can be known? Linked to ontology and epistemology. E.g. a ‘real’ reality pursued by an
‘objective’ knower can use observations or an analysis of covariances for example.
The sets of answers given are in all cases human constructions; they are all inventions of the human
mind and thus subject to human error.
All paradigms except for positivism are till in formative stages, so there is no final agreement about
their definitions, meanings or implications.
Column 1: Positivism
Received view. Focusses on efforts to verify a hypothesis
Ontology - Naïve realism: An apprehendable reality exists which is driven by immutable natural
laws and mechanism. Knowledge about ´the way things are´ is given in the form of time- and context-
, free generalization.
Epistemology – dualist and objectivist: The investigator and the investigated object are
independent entities and the investigator can study the object without influencing it or being
influenced by it. Influence in either direction is a threat to validity and if this happens, various
strategies are followed to reduce or eliminate it. By following the procedures, values and biases are
prevented from influencing the outcomes. Inquiry takes place through a one-way mirror.
Methodology – experimental and manipulative: questions/hypotheses are subject to empirical
tests in order to verify them. Possible influencing conditions must be prevented.
Column 2: Post-positivism
Efforts to respond to the most problematic criticisms of positivism. Focusses on efforts to falsify a
hypothesis
Ontology – Critical realism: reality is assumed to exist but to be only imperfectly apprehendable
because of basically flawed human intellectual mechanisms and the fundamentally intractable nature
of phenomena. It is called ‘critical’ realism because of the fact that reality must be subjected to the
widest possible critical examination to facilitate apprehending reality as closely as possible (but never
perfectly)
Epistemology – modified dualist/objectivist: Dualism cannot be maintained but objectivity
remains a ‘regulatory ideal’. Special emphasis is placed on external ‘guardians’ of objectivity like
peer-reviewers etc. Replicated findings are probably true, but always subject to falsification.
Methodology – modified experimental/manipulative: critical multiplism (kind of triangulation) as a
way of falsifying hypotheses. Doing research in more natural settings, collecting more situational
information and reintroducing discovery. Grounded theory. Increased utilization of qualitative
techniques.
Column 3: Critical theory
a banket term including, feminism, materialism, Marxism etc. Critical theory can be divided into
three substrands; poststructuralism, postmodernism and a blend of these two.
Ontology – Historical realism: A reality is assumed to be apprehendable but is shaped overtime by
social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic and gender factors and then crystallized into a series of
structures that are now taken as ‘real’.
Epistemology – Transactional and subjectivist: the investigator and the investigated object are
assumed to be interactively linked, with the values of the investigator (or situated ‘others’)
influencing the research. Because of this, findings are ‘value mediated’. This challenged the
distinction between ontology and epistemology; what can be known is intertwined with the
interaction between a particular investigator and a particular object/group. Knowledge is value
dependent as well. Knowledge does not accumulate in absolute sense but it grows and changes.
Generalization can occur when the mix of social, political etc. circumstances and values are similar
across settings.
Methodology – dialogic and dialectical: The transactional nature of inquiry needs dialogue
between the investigator and the subjects investigated. This dialogue has to be dialectical to
transform ignorance and misapprehensions into more informed consciousness (seeing how the
structures might be changed and comprehending the actions required to effect change). It is about
the reconstruction of previously held constructions
Column 4: Constructivism
Ontology – Relativist: realities are apprehendable in the form of multiple, intangible mental
constructions, socially and experimentally based, local and specific in nature (elements are often
shared among many individuals and across cultures) and dependent for their form and content on
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper jannegoossens99. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 67474 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen