Pub Date : 2021-12-03DOI: 10.34190/ejbrm.19.2.2513
A. Mitchell, M. Rich
This paper develops a review of teaching research methods and student supervisor relationships, first presented to ECRM20. Last year we tested an extensive literature review with a survey of undergraduate business students, this has now been supplemented with further survey data, interviews and a focus group. This supplementary data has deepened our understanding of the issues and has largely reinforced the findings from the previous paper. At a time when some schools are moving content on-line and seeking new forms of assessment, there is a need to ensure that research continues to fulfil a contribution towards intellectual and practical understanding. Detailed analysis has explored the extent to which the teaching of research methods within a taught degree course and the completion of an individual project has proved effective. Value perceived by the students and supervisors of a major project has been confirmed to influence both success for a candidate at an interview as well as providing a skill set suitable for longer term employment. Learning ‘skills for life’ was suggested by the students.. The extent to which students and supervisors engage was explored and opportunities for improvement are reported. The importance of adding an element of fun to the process was also raised. Little evidence of supervisors receiving training was found, Feather et al (2010, 2013) and a challenge continues to be the extent to which supervisors are fully briefed on the required dissertation process. In practice, supervisors rely on their own prior experience and this can contribute to an uneven quality of experience for students. Conclusions on the undergraduate data are developed for two specific research questions and next steps for improvement at the school are outlined for the Business School to consider.
{"title":"Teaching Research Methods and the Supervision of Undergraduate Projects: Seeking Practical Improvements to a Complex Process","authors":"A. Mitchell, M. Rich","doi":"10.34190/ejbrm.19.2.2513","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.19.2.2513","url":null,"abstract":"This paper develops a review of teaching research methods and student supervisor relationships, first presented to ECRM20. Last year we tested an extensive literature review with a survey of undergraduate business students, this has now been supplemented with further survey data, interviews and a focus group. This supplementary data has deepened our understanding of the issues and has largely reinforced the findings from the previous paper. At a time when some schools are moving content on-line and seeking new forms of assessment, there is a need to ensure that research continues to fulfil a contribution towards intellectual and practical understanding. Detailed analysis has explored the extent to which the teaching of research methods within a taught degree course and the completion of an individual project has proved effective. Value perceived by the students and supervisors of a major project has been confirmed to influence both success for a candidate at an interview as well as providing a skill set suitable for longer term employment. Learning ‘skills for life’ was suggested by the students.. The extent to which students and supervisors engage was explored and opportunities for improvement are reported. The importance of adding an element of fun to the process was also raised. Little evidence of supervisors receiving training was found, Feather et al (2010, 2013) and a challenge continues to be the extent to which supervisors are fully briefed on the required dissertation process. In practice, supervisors rely on their own prior experience and this can contribute to an uneven quality of experience for students. Conclusions on the undergraduate data are developed for two specific research questions and next steps for improvement at the school are outlined for the Business School to consider.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43729296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-03DOI: 10.34190/ejbrm.19.2.2510
Julie Béliveau, A. Corriveau
Organization members often complain about insufficient time to reflect collectively as they grapple with constant significant changes. The Learning History methodology can support this collective reflection. Given the scant empirical studies of this action research approach, the present paper fills this gap by giving an overview of this methodology and by presenting a qualitative study that answers the following research question: How does the Learning History methodology contribute to collective reflection among organization members during major organizational change? To answer this question, an empirical research project was led within five healthcare organizations in Canada during their implementation of the Planetree person-centered approach to management, care, and services. The data set includes 150 semi-structured interviews, 20 focus groups and 10 feedback meetings involving organization members representing all hierarchical levels in the five participating institutions. The results highlight the five types of contributions of the Learning History methodology to collective reflection within the five institutions that participated in the study: 1) a process of expression, dialogue, and reflection among organization members; 2) a portrait of the change underway; 3) a support tool for the change process; 4) a vector for mobilizing stakeholders; and 5) a source of organizational learning. The results also show how organization members’ collective reflection is built through the various stages of the Learning History methodology. By demonstrating that this collective reflection leads to true organizational learning, the findings position the Learning History as a research-action method useful both from a research standpoint and as an organizational development tool. In the conclusion, lessons learned using the LH approach are shared from a researcher’s perspective. This paper should interest researchers and practitioners who seek research methodologies that can offer an infrastructure for collective reflection to support organizational change and learning.
{"title":"The Learning History Methodology: An Infrastructure for Collective Reflection to Support Organizational Change and Learning","authors":"Julie Béliveau, A. Corriveau","doi":"10.34190/ejbrm.19.2.2510","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.19.2.2510","url":null,"abstract":"Organization members often complain about insufficient time to reflect collectively as they grapple with constant significant changes. The Learning History methodology can support this collective reflection. Given the scant empirical studies of this action research approach, the present paper fills this gap by giving an overview of this methodology and by presenting a qualitative study that answers the following research question: How does the Learning History methodology contribute to collective reflection among organization members during major organizational change? To answer this question, an empirical research project was led within five healthcare organizations in Canada during their implementation of the Planetree person-centered approach to management, care, and services. The data set includes 150 semi-structured interviews, 20 focus groups and 10 feedback meetings involving organization members representing all hierarchical levels in the five participating institutions. The results highlight the five types of contributions of the Learning History methodology to collective reflection within the five institutions that participated in the study: 1) a process of expression, dialogue, and reflection among organization members; 2) a portrait of the change underway; 3) a support tool for the change process; 4) a vector for mobilizing stakeholders; and 5) a source of organizational learning. The results also show how organization members’ collective reflection is built through the various stages of the Learning History methodology. By demonstrating that this collective reflection leads to true organizational learning, the findings position the Learning History as a research-action method useful both from a research standpoint and as an organizational development tool. In the conclusion, lessons learned using the LH approach are shared from a researcher’s perspective. This paper should interest researchers and practitioners who seek research methodologies that can offer an infrastructure for collective reflection to support organizational change and learning.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47699923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-03DOI: 10.34190/ejbrm.19.2.2511
Marita Turpin, J. Van Belle
This paper showcases an innovative student research project in a South African taught Masters programme, where students learnt to apply a sound research methodology in the real world, and align their work with a global research project. The Fairwork (https://fair.work) project assesses the extent to which gig work platforms in a number of countries conform to ‘fair work’ principles for their workers. The Fairwork project has a clearly defined and rigorous research methodology used by senior academics around the world to rate labour-broking platforms such as those in e-hailing (Bolt, Uber) or delivery services (UberEats) to rate their adoption of fair work principles for their workers. The University of Pretoria adopted this research methodology in the context of a student-based group project in a taught 2020 “Digital Economy” Masters programme. Student groups used the same methodology and interviewed South African platform workers to score seven different platforms. The key motivations and intended benefits were that the research methodology was already tried and tested, students should able to apply the skills taught in an earlier (theoretical) research methods course, subject specific knowledge around the gig economy had to be researched and was internalized, each group had the freedom to select its own platform, results could be validated against publicly available ratings, students engaged themselves in real world empirical research, and their research outputs had a real world relevance. In addition, this project turned out to work well under Covid19 partial lockdown circumstances. The student submissions exceeded the expectations of everyone involved, and some groups produced research results which matched the level of highly experienced researchers. This project also provides a strong contribution to the academic community, not only because it provides a validation benchmark and alternative research approach to the Fairwork project, but also because this project is easily portable to similar courses in other country contexts.
{"title":"Fast-tracking Research Methodology Immersion for Students: Experiences from a Project on Fairwork in the Gig Economy","authors":"Marita Turpin, J. Van Belle","doi":"10.34190/ejbrm.19.2.2511","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.19.2.2511","url":null,"abstract":"This paper showcases an innovative student research project in a South African taught Masters programme, where students learnt to apply a sound research methodology in the real world, and align their work with a global research project. The Fairwork (https://fair.work) project assesses the extent to which gig work platforms in a number of countries conform to ‘fair work’ principles for their workers. The Fairwork project has a clearly defined and rigorous research methodology used by senior academics around the world to rate labour-broking platforms such as those in e-hailing (Bolt, Uber) or delivery services (UberEats) to rate their adoption of fair work principles for their workers. The University of Pretoria adopted this research methodology in the context of a student-based group project in a taught 2020 “Digital Economy” Masters programme. Student groups used the same methodology and interviewed South African platform workers to score seven different platforms. The key motivations and intended benefits were that the research methodology was already tried and tested, students should able to apply the skills taught in an earlier (theoretical) research methods course, subject specific knowledge around the gig economy had to be researched and was internalized, each group had the freedom to select its own platform, results could be validated against publicly available ratings, students engaged themselves in real world empirical research, and their research outputs had a real world relevance. In addition, this project turned out to work well under Covid19 partial lockdown circumstances. The student submissions exceeded the expectations of everyone involved, and some groups produced research results which matched the level of highly experienced researchers. This project also provides a strong contribution to the academic community, not only because it provides a validation benchmark and alternative research approach to the Fairwork project, but also because this project is easily portable to similar courses in other country contexts.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49590538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-03DOI: 10.34190/ejbrm.19.2.2512
N. Pearse
Qualitative research has been criticised for not building a distinctive body of knowledge, leading to fewer publications and citations. In the light of this critique, this paper offers guidance on how qualitative researchers can contribute to developing a distinctive and cumulative body of knowledge, thereby attracting more attention to their research. In pursuit of this aim, there are four objectives addressed in this paper. The first objective is to explain the relevance and value of deductive qualitative approaches to theory building. Secondly, to illustrate how examining the maturation of a concept can help decide the appropriateness of a particular research approach. This paper explains how in their planning, researchers need to confirm their intention to contribute to theory development and to ensure that this is appropriate, given the stage of maturation of the concept to be investigated. The third objective is to offer guidance on the philosophical assumptions of the researcher and how to test research propositions. Therefore, it is advised that data collection and analysis should take place within a post-positivist paradigm, and that the field work should be designed and carried out with research propositions as a point of departure. The final research objective is to explain how the findings of a deductive qualitative study should be handled to demonstrate the contribution of the study to the body of knowledge. Here guidance is offered on the contextualisation and generalisation of research findings.
{"title":"Guidelines for Theory Development using Qualitative Research Approaches","authors":"N. Pearse","doi":"10.34190/ejbrm.19.2.2512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.19.2.2512","url":null,"abstract":"Qualitative research has been criticised for not building a distinctive body of knowledge, leading to fewer publications and citations. In the light of this critique, this paper offers guidance on how qualitative researchers can contribute to developing a distinctive and cumulative body of knowledge, thereby attracting more attention to their research. In pursuit of this aim, there are four objectives addressed in this paper. The first objective is to explain the relevance and value of deductive qualitative approaches to theory building. Secondly, to illustrate how examining the maturation of a concept can help decide the appropriateness of a particular research approach. This paper explains how in their planning, researchers need to confirm their intention to contribute to theory development and to ensure that this is appropriate, given the stage of maturation of the concept to be investigated. The third objective is to offer guidance on the philosophical assumptions of the researcher and how to test research propositions. Therefore, it is advised that data collection and analysis should take place within a post-positivist paradigm, and that the field work should be designed and carried out with research propositions as a point of departure. The final research objective is to explain how the findings of a deductive qualitative study should be handled to demonstrate the contribution of the study to the body of knowledge. Here guidance is offered on the contextualisation and generalisation of research findings.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44836624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-11DOI: 10.34190/ejbrm.19.1.2448
Ann Brown
EJBRM Volume 19 issue 1, 2021 – March 2021 Editorial by the Editor; Ann Brown
EJBRM第19卷2021年第1期-2021年3月编辑编辑；Ann Brown
{"title":"EJBRM Volume 19 issue 1, 2021 – March 2021","authors":"Ann Brown","doi":"10.34190/ejbrm.19.1.2448","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.19.1.2448","url":null,"abstract":"EJBRM Volume 19 issue 1, 2021 – March 2021 \u0000Editorial by the Editor; Ann Brown","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49551999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-08DOI: 10.34190/EJBRM.19.1.2434
A. Adebayo, B. Ackers
Sampling has historically been one of the major challenges of the comparative research approach. These sampling challenges primarily result from the way researchers select the cases/samples for the study. In this regard, researchers have to a large extent tended to employ non-probability convenience and purposive sampling techniques. Even though it may be argued that these sampling approaches need not be theory driven as samples tend to evolve in the process of research, more often than not, these sampling methods, especially in comparative research designs, while skewing research attention towards over-researched countries and cases, wealthy nations and incomparable cases, also introduce an element of bias into sampling and therefore into research findings. Thus, this paper argues for a move away from the simplicity of purposive and convenience sampling, to one of the more robust forms of theoretical sampling, in order to improve the research rigour associated with the comparative methodological approach. This paper accordingly postulates this may be achieved by engaging in some form of theoretical sampling. In this regard, this paper describes a two-phase method for generating comparative samples from theories, involving six distinct steps.
{"title":"Sampling Theoretically for Comparison","authors":"A. Adebayo, B. Ackers","doi":"10.34190/EJBRM.19.1.2434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/EJBRM.19.1.2434","url":null,"abstract":"Sampling has historically been one of the major challenges of the comparative research approach. These sampling challenges primarily result from the way researchers select the cases/samples for the study. In this regard, researchers have to a large extent tended to employ non-probability convenience and purposive sampling techniques. Even though it may be argued that these sampling approaches need not be theory driven as samples tend to evolve in the process of research, more often than not, these sampling methods, especially in comparative research designs, while skewing research attention towards over-researched countries and cases, wealthy nations and incomparable cases, also introduce an element of bias into sampling and therefore into research findings. Thus, this paper argues for a move away from the simplicity of purposive and convenience sampling, to one of the more robust forms of theoretical sampling, in order to improve the research rigour associated with the comparative methodological approach. This paper accordingly postulates this may be achieved by engaging in some form of theoretical sampling. In this regard, this paper describes a two-phase method for generating comparative samples from theories, involving six distinct steps.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49116434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-24DOI: 10.34190/EJBRM.19.1.2125
A. Basden
This paper suggests how mutual understanding and respect may be fostered between very different fields of research, which seem to have little in common. The meaning and value of each field, and the relationships among them, are revealed using Dooyeweerd's aspects. Dooyeweerd is rare among philosophers in having made an intensive study of the diversity and coherence of meaningfulness. In this way, researchers in one field can more fully understand the ways in which findings or research in other fields are meaningful. Dooyeweerd's inter-aspect relationships help us understand the types of relationship a field might have with others.
{"title":"Understanding the Relationships between Fields of Research","authors":"A. Basden","doi":"10.34190/EJBRM.19.1.2125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/EJBRM.19.1.2125","url":null,"abstract":"This paper suggests how mutual understanding and respect may be fostered between very different fields of research, which seem to have little in common. The meaning and value of each field, and the relationships among them, are revealed using Dooyeweerd's aspects. Dooyeweerd is rare among philosophers in having made an intensive study of the diversity and coherence of meaningfulness. In this way, researchers in one field can more fully understand the ways in which findings or research in other fields are meaningful. Dooyeweerd's inter-aspect relationships help us understand the types of relationship a field might have with others.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69825104","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The twenty first century has been a period of major change for business organisations and industries. This has led to an ever greater interest in and demand for managers with not only the traditional subject knowledge and technical skills but also individual business skills. To meet these demands business schools are under pressure to adapt their courses appropriately and to innovate. For an undergraduate degree in business management, this includes both the structure of the degree, the subjects covered, the teaching methods used and the whole student learning experience. But innovation poses a major challenge for researchers and teachers alike – how can the effect of an innovation be measured or assessed? This paper assesses the current state of evaluation methods applied in Business Schools. Student feedback has emerged as the dominant approach, but application is still at a fairly basic level. A case example of evaluating the new first year redesign of the business management degree at City’s Business School is used to illustrate the practical issues involved. Student feedback offers some indication of the success of the redesigned degree, but it does not entail any constructive dialogue between students and lecturers, and students often lack the skills to frame feedback constructively. The paper discusses the implications of changes in the business context for the evaluation methods used in Business Schools.
21世纪是商业组织和行业发生重大变化的时期。这导致人们对不仅具有传统学科知识和技术技能，而且具有个人商业技能的管理人员的兴趣和需求越来越大。为了满足这些需求，商学院面临着适当调整课程和创新的压力。对于商业管理本科学位，这包括学位的结构、涵盖的科目、使用的教学方法和整个学生的学习经历。但是创新对研究人员和教师都提出了一个重大挑战——如何衡量或评估创新的效果?本文对商学院应用的评估方法的现状进行了评估。学生反馈已成为主要的方法，但应用仍处于相当基础的水平。本文以评估伦敦城市商学院(City’s business School)工商管理学位第一年重新设计的案例为例，说明了所涉及的实际问题。学生的反馈提供了重新设计学位课程成功的一些迹象，但它不需要学生和讲师之间进行任何建设性的对话，学生往往缺乏建设性地构建反馈的技能。本文讨论了商业环境变化对商学院使用的评估方法的影响。
{"title":"Pedagogy and Evaluation: The Challenge for Business and\u0000 Management Degree Courses in the 21st Century","authors":"A. Brown, M. Rich","doi":"10.34190/JBRM.18.2.002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/JBRM.18.2.002","url":null,"abstract":"The twenty first century has been a period of major change\u0000 for business organisations and industries. This has led to an ever\u0000 greater interest in and demand for managers with not only the\u0000 traditional subject knowledge and technical skills but also\u0000 individual business skills. To meet these demands business schools\u0000 are under pressure to adapt their courses appropriately and to\u0000 innovate. For an undergraduate degree in business management, this\u0000 includes both the structure of the degree, the subjects covered, the\u0000 teaching methods used and the whole student learning experience. But\u0000 innovation poses a major challenge for researchers and teachers\u0000 alike – how can the effect of an innovation be measured or assessed?\u0000 This paper assesses the current state of evaluation methods applied\u0000 in Business Schools. Student feedback has emerged as the dominant\u0000 approach, but application is still at a fairly basic level. A case\u0000 example of evaluating the new first year redesign of the business\u0000 management degree at City’s Business School is used to illustrate\u0000 the practical issues involved. Student feedback offers some\u0000 indication of the success of the redesigned degree, but it does not\u0000 entail any constructive dialogue between students and lecturers, and\u0000 students often lack the skills to frame feedback constructively. The\u0000 paper discusses the implications of changes in the business context\u0000 for the evaluation methods used in Business Schools.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81698525","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mixed Methods is a research methodology that integrates several types of data (both qualitative and quantitative) for a research project, using more than one analytical technique. This book gives an excellent introduction to the methodology, focusing on the issues involved in the handling of multiple approaches. The readership is assumed to have experience of business research and at least the skill to apply some of the current research methodologies. A mixed methods researcher needs not only an awareness of the main research methodologies, but also the ability to learn how to use them or has access to collaborators who do have the appropriate complementary expertise.
{"title":"Book review: Pat Bazeley’s ‘A practical introduction to Mixed\u0000 Methods for Business and Management’","authors":"Reviewer - The Editor Ann Brown Brown","doi":"10.34190/jbrm.18.1.005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/jbrm.18.1.005","url":null,"abstract":"Mixed Methods is a research methodology that integrates several types of data (both qualitative and quantitative) for a research project, using more than one analytical technique. This book gives an excellent introduction to the methodology, focusing on the issues involved in the handling of multiple approaches. The readership is assumed to have experience of business research and at least the skill to apply some of the current research methodologies. A mixed methods researcher needs not only an awareness of the main research methodologies, but also the ability to learn how to use them or has access to collaborators who do have the appropriate complementary expertise.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90628031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Qualitative data can be gathered from an array of rich sources of research information. One of the popular ways to collect this data is by interviewing a range of experts on the topic, followed by transcription, resulting in a database of written documents, often supplemented by other documented data that informs the topic. Thematic or Content Analysis can then be used to explore the data and identify themes of meaning that enlighten the research topic, with the themes being gathered into nodes. The researcher now has an array of nodes, which needs to be organised into a coherent model, and more importantly, one that represents the views of the research informants. To do this with some degree of rigour, the researcher needs some way of ranking the nodes in terms of their relative importance. The node ranking can be based on experience, or on the literature, but neither of these approaches looks to the data itself. If the database contains new or unexpected knowledge, neither experience nor the literature will guide us to it, and vital new insights may easily be missed. The framework outlined in this paper aims to provide a sound first‑cut analysis of the data, based on the evidence in the research interviews themselves. Clearly the literature and research experience have an important role to play in shaping the results of any research. However this paper argues that one should proceed only after the data itself has been offered "the first chance to speak".The node classification matrix detailed here, identifies distinct node categories, each ranging in significance and with particular characteristics that reveal key aspects of the informants' views. In this way the researcher can use the nodes to reveal the voice of the experts, and build a scientifically rigorous set of results from a qualitative database.
{"title":"Let the Data Speak: Using Rigour to Extract Vitality from\u0000 Qualitative Data","authors":"A. Campbell","doi":"10.34190/JBRM.18.1.001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/JBRM.18.1.001","url":null,"abstract":"Qualitative data can be gathered from an array of rich\u0000 sources of research information. One of the popular ways to collect\u0000 this data is by interviewing a range of experts on the topic,\u0000 followed by transcription, resulting in a database of written\u0000 documents, often supplemented by other documented data that informs\u0000 the topic. Thematic or Content Analysis can then be used to explore\u0000 the data and identify themes of meaning that enlighten the research\u0000 topic, with the themes being gathered into nodes. The researcher now\u0000 has an array of nodes, which needs to be organised into a coherent\u0000 model, and more importantly, one that represents the views of the\u0000 research informants. To do this with some degree of rigour, the\u0000 researcher needs some way of ranking the nodes in terms of their\u0000 relative importance. The node ranking can be based on experience, or\u0000 on the literature, but neither of these approaches looks to the data\u0000 itself. If the database contains new or unexpected knowledge,\u0000 neither experience nor the literature will guide us to it, and vital\u0000 new insights may easily be missed. The framework outlined in this\u0000 paper aims to provide a sound first‑cut analysis of the data, based\u0000 on the evidence in the research interviews themselves. Clearly the\u0000 literature and research experience have an important role to play in\u0000 shaping the results of any research. However this paper argues that\u0000 one should proceed only after the data itself has been offered \"the\u0000 first chance to speak\".The node classification matrix detailed here,\u0000 identifies distinct node categories, each ranging in significance\u0000 and with particular characteristics that reveal key aspects of the\u0000 informants' views. In this way the researcher can use the nodes to\u0000 reveal the voice of the experts, and build a scientifically rigorous\u0000 set of results from a qualitative database.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80147948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：