Research

Linking theory to practice with a new research perspective

Yee Choy Leong

Graduate School of Management

Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Tel: 03-89467731, Fax: 03-89486188, e-mail: yee@econ.upm.edu.my

Abstract

This paper proposes a new research perspective in management to bridge the gap between theory and practice. The knowledge generated from this perspective is directly applicable to industry. Practitioners can use this knowledge without modifying it further. This paper presents the types of knowledge generated from this perspective. The scientific philosophy as well as knowledge generated from this perspective are discussed. A comparison is made to differentiate this new perspective with two older paradigm systems: positivism and interpretivism. The paper concludes with discussing the validity and reliability of the knowledge generated from the new perspective.

Keywords: philosophy of science; positivism; interpretivism; validity; reliability

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, a new science perspective is discussed. This perspective is grounded on a combined research methodology (Yee, 2009a) that has incorporated a consultation approach, multiple case study methods (Yin, 1984), action research (Rapoport, 1970), process approach (Platts, 1993) and grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to effectively capture, analyse, categorise, and make sense of data to produce application knowledge (Gibbons, et al., 1994) in research. The combined research methodology is not something new (see Platts, 1993 for detail technique of data collection and testing procedure), however previous approaches have far been focused on the detail technique used in data collection than the philosophies behind of developing a specific type of knowledge. The combined methodology, its protocol and technique used are discussed elsewhere (Yee, 2009b), this paper focuses on the philosophical positions of this perspective in terms of its knowledge generation or theory development. In other words, the issues that have not been discussed in detail in the past are being the central consideration of this paper. This paper focuses on the philosophical position of research rather than the detail techniques or methods used in research. Thus, the arguments in this paper are mainly at the epistemological stance, rather than focus on the method itself. A method is a research technique used by researchers to collect data, while a methodology is regarded as an intricate set of ontological and epistemological assumptions in research. The perspective that is being discussed here has been conceptualized as a methodology, rather than just a method.

This paper is structured into four parts. Firstly, the knowledge generated from this new perspective is presented. Then, the definition of science is reviewed. Thirdly, the new science perspective is compared with the two older paradigm systems: positivism and interpretivism. The discussions are centered around whether the knowledge generated from this new perspective follow scientific method or not. Finally, the paper concludes with discussing the validity and reliability of the theory generated in this system. The objective of this paper is not to criticize other research methods because almost every method has its own strengths and weaknesses. My intention here is to bridge the gap between academic and practitioners and encourage other researchers to adopt similar approach in future.

GENERATION OF EMERGING KNOWLEDGE IN RESEARCH

Build upon the recent argument that much management research was not reliable for use by practicing community in providing a basis for justifying their decision-making and actions, a new science perspective would provide a radical solution for bridging the gap between academic and practicing community. However knowledge generated from this kind of approach would become an issue to the academic community.

The issue of theory development and knowledge generation in management research has been debated in many ways. One of the most important questions about these arguments is that whether the knowledge generated is scientific or not. Traditionally, theories developed in management are in the forms of constructs, frameworks, models, matrices, typologies, etc. However, there are other forms that knowledge can be represented, such as tools, processes, roadmaps, or charts. Are these forms of knowledge representation acceptable as useful contribution in research?

According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, the followings are the definitions of these terms:

Traditional knowledge:

Framework – a set of beliefs, ideas or rules that is used as the basis for making judgments, decisions, etc.

Construct – an idea or a belief that is based on various pieces of evidence which are not always true

Category – a group of people or things with particular features in common.

Model – a simple description of a system, used for explaining how something works or calculating what might happen, etc.

Matrix – an arrangement of numbers, symbols, etc. in rows and columns, treated as a single quantity or a system of lines, roads, etc. that cross each other, forming a series of squares or shapes in between

Typology – a system of dividing things into different types

Emerging Knowledge:

System – an organized set of ideas or theories or a particular way of doing something. A group of things, pieces of equipment etc. that are connected or work together.

Tool – a thing that helps you to do your job or to achieve something

Process – a series of things that are done in order to achieve a particular result or a series of things that happen, especially ones that result in natural changes

Roadmap – a set of instructions or suggestions about how to do something or find out about something or a map that shows the roads of an area, especially one that is designed for a person who is driving a car

Charts – a page or sheet of information in the form of diagrams, lists of figures, etc.

Procedure – a way of doing something especially the usual or correct way.

Based on the understanding of the definitions above, both traditional and emerging knowledge have their specific characteristics. Table 1 below differentiates the characteristics of traditional and emerging knowledge.

Table 1 Characteristics of traditional and emerging knowledge

Traditional knowledge	Emerging knowledge
Descriptive	Prescriptive
Understanding	Implementing
Abstraction	Approach
Representation	Application
Improve prediction	Improve performance

In applying the view of the new perspective, researchers are someone who is “concerned with the design, installation, and improvement of integrated systems of man, machine, money, information and workplace by drawing upon specialized knowledge and skills in the mathematical, physical, and social sciences, together with the principles and methods of management to specify, predict, and evaluate the results to be obtained from such systems”. Applying the solution must be done in a very systematic and logical way. Not only that it must be validated by managers, but it also has to be logic and trustworthy.

The traditional method of enquiry with the theories being generated (i.e. traditional knowledge) are useful from a curricular perspective, it is much less useful from an application perspective. Traditional knowledge is very much descriptive in nature while emerging knowledge is prescriptive in nature. In new science perspective, we begin the reduction of theory to practice, and building theory from practice. We focus on a real world actual implementation rather than on an academic understanding. In this sense, the academic boundary distinctions among multiple disciplines will gradually disappear and migrate to a setting that is defined by business processes rather than academic discipline. What is important to us is our impact on business performance rather than on particular tools, techniques, or disciplinary focus. The disciplinary tool, knowledge, or technique becomes valuable when it is applied and we see its instrumentality for achieving positive business performances.

Solution to problems is considered as practical knowledge. Practical knowledge is also accepted as one type of knowledge (Gibbon et al., 1994), but may be difficult to generate. The generation of practical knowledge may view this research from a different scientific perspective and thus it has a different epistemological position. The sections that follow, discuss the meaning of science and philosophy of science of this new perspective.

WHAT IS SCIENCE?

According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Science is defined as “knowledge about the structure and behavior of the natural and physical world based on facts that you can prove… and science is a system of organizing knowledge about a particular subject”. Science subject always refers to physical sciences (e.g., physics and chemistry), life sciences (e.g., biology) and social sciences (e.g., sociology). Physical and life sciences are also called “hard sciences,” while social sciences are called “soft sciences.” Subjects like art, music, and theology are not science. But, what make a subject science and others not? One may answer that science subjects are always making an attempt to understand and predict the world. According to this answer, the key words in science are ‘understand’ and ‘predict’. However, other subject areas may also try to understand and predict the world. For example, in theology, many have attempted to understand the world and fortune-tellers are always attempt to predict the future, but they are not sciences. Thus, in order to differentiate science from non-science, one must find something in common for science and that common thing must not be found in non-science. In common, science requires a systematic approach of enquiry to gathering knowledge about a subject. Most science subjects adopted systematic, scientific approaches to investigate the world and these approaches are not found in non-scientific subjects. Thus, in order to distinguish whether a subject is science or not rely on the method of enquiry. Knowledge generated from using scientific approach is regarded as theory. The construction of theories is done by proper evaluation of facts and evidences through logical reasoning. Many artists are not using systematic scientific approaches in his/her work, and similarly fortune-tellers are not investigating facts through logical reasoning. Thus, science is the construction of scientific knowledge (theories) through systematic approach. In this sense, key terms for science should be ‘systematic approach’, ‘knowledge’ (or ‘theories’), and ‘logical reasoning’. These three key terms used in science will be discussed in detail.

Science is “systematic approach”, “knowledge” (theories), and “logical reasoning”. However, what constitute “systematic approach”, “knowledge” and “logical reasoning”? What constitute “knowledge” depends on two important components: logic and epistemology (Harre, 1974). According to Harre (1974), logic is the theory of reasoning and epistemology is the theory of knowledge. Logic is the study of principles of correct reasoning. The study of logic will enable us to justify why some piece of reasoning is correct or incorrect. Conclusions must be backed up by reasons. Hypotheses must be considered with considering both supporting and contrary evidences. Logical principles must be produced to back them up (Harre, 1974).

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It concerns with what is generally acceptable as knowledge in a discipline. It tries to define the kind of knowledge which a given method of investigation might yield and to what extent that kind of knowledge conforms to the standards of true knowledge. The standard that has been adopted must be able to identify how certain is the true knowledge we acquired and not based on probability or spurious relationships. Science deals with any part of scientific knowledge that is certain rather than those that is uncertain. Thus, science must be able to justify the level of confidence for particular methods used in scientific enquiry. These methods of enquiry always refer to the “systematic approach” in research.

What constitutes “systematic approach” depends on the specific phenomenon under investigation. In general, there are three types of systematic approach in science: observation, experimentation and survey. Observation is an approach in research that made observation under less than perfectly controlled circumstances. The researchers always have a plan in mind before making an observation about what to observe, where to observe, how the observations should be recorded, analyzed, and interpreted. Usually, researchers will not interfere with the environment and being neutral to what is being observed. Experiment is usually conducted in a contrived circumstance. The researchers set up an experiment to ensure certain variables remain constant and to let certain variables to vary while certain variables are manipulated by the researchers in order to see changes of the variables that vary. However, sometimes natural experiments are conducted because the environment under investigation cannot be detached from the reality. The positivist paradigm always assumes that events can be detached from human influence. Experiments are carried out in laboratories in which the variables are strictly controlled. This paradigm assumes that the world can be measured objectively by the use of quantitative methods. Thus, research in this paradigm tends to focus on facts and quantitative methods, and emphasizes theory testing. However, other types of research are acknowledging the influence of human factors. Interpretive paradigm is applied to a socially constructed world in which the understanding of reality must be inferred from human experiences. Data collected are subjective and qualitative in nature. Experiment conducted in this natural environment is scientific and useful. Researchers who work in this tradition tend to focus on meaning and holistic viewpoints, use qualitative approach, and emphasize theory development. Survey is an approach in research that made an investigation into things as they are, without interference. Survey may involve some interaction between researchers and the subject. Researchers use surveys to collect data that may be unavailable under any other circumstances.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

The philosophy of one’s research is about the way in which the researcher views the world. Today, there is an ongoing debate in the field of management about choice of research philosophy between two competing paradigms: positivism and interpretivism. A positivist assumes that the social world can be measured objectively. A positivist is a system of philosophy based on things that can be seen or proved such as cars, machines, or furniture (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The second philosophical position, interpretivism, proposes that reality is actually socially constructed and must therefore be inferred from the meanings of the social actors (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The first philosophy gives rise to scientific knowledge, and the second contributes to philosophical understanding. The debate is always framed in terms of a choice between the generation of knowledge is either more towards science (Positivism) or social science (interpretivism). However, there are other important kinds of knowledge beyond these two apparent dichotomies. It is known as Mode 2 (knowledge produced in the context of application). A great amount of research currently underway is of this kind of knowledge generation (Tranfield, 2002). According to Gibbon et al. (1994), Mode 1 refers to traditional modes of knowledge production according to accepted disciplinary criteria and influenced by the norms of scientific enquiry such as from the paradigms of positivism and interpretivism. Mode 2 builds on scientific and philosophical knowledge. This new accumulation of knowledge is outside the boundaries of established science, but always drawing on science and social science to solve problems in the world of practice (Tranfield, 2002). The generation of Mode 2 knowledge can be done with a combined methodology, toolism (Yee, 2009a). This combined methodology form a new way of knowledge generation and it is usually associated with real industry application. In a real practical situation, management researchers are adopting a more pragmatic view by solving real life practical problems in a real world. Managers are concerning about solution of problems rather than research philosophy and theory development.

In practical research, such as the new perspective, we start from a particular problem ‘in the real world’, and bring together all the intellectual resources that can be brought to bear on its solution. The problem has to be defined and the method of solution has to be discovered. The person working in this way may have to create and identify original problem solutions every step of the way. This will usually involve a variety of theories and methods, often ranging across more than one discipline since real-world problems are likely to be 'messy' and not soluble within the narrow confines of an academic discipline. Research aims to generate practical knowledge may be treated as an ‘applied science’, such as engineering in physical sciences or medicine in biological sciences. The question now is whether we treat the field of management as science, social science, or applied science.

Is management science, social science or applied science?

Traditionally, much of the research into the field of management has been done within a positivism (natural science) and interpretivism (social science) paradigms. Treating management as science, a positivist considers data on tangible objects and their physical movements which is more to the position of the natural scientist (Saunders, et al., 2007). Positivist concerns whether or not the social world can be studied according to the same principles as the natural sciences. At the position of natural science, a researcher is comfortable with the collection and analysis of observable facts. The epistemological position of positivism affirms the importance of imitating the natural sciences whereby the role of research is to test theories (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Knowledge is based upon the observation of phenomena, their explanation and ultimately prediction. Research method involves experimentation and control of variables with a key test of repeatability and generalisation of results.

When addressed from the viewpoint of a social science discipline, the interpretivist concerns with the feelings and attitudes of the social actors. Interpretivism is an epistemology that advocates that it is necessary for the researcher to understand differences between humans in their roles as social actors (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The study of social world requires a different logic of research procedure and systematic enquiry, one that emphasise how human as importance social actors make sense of the world. The research strategy in this sense requires the distinction between people and the objects of the natural sciences and therefore requires the social scientist to grasp the subjective meaning of social action. Social science is based upon the opinions of the social actors, their explanation and ultimately prediction (Saunders, et al., 2007). Research method involves case study and interview.

Both philosophical positions discussed above emphasize the importance of generating knowledge that answering the questions of ‘why’. When addressed from the viewpoint of an applied science discipline, the ‘how to’ questions rather than ‘why’ questions predominate. The toolism philosophy is viewing management as an applied science and has a different epistemological position. Toolists in an applied science perspective concern about practical solution to the real world problems. The research is answering the questions of ‘how to’ rather than ‘why’, whereby it concerns with using scientific knowledge, and applying it to the problem by building objects, artefacts or designing systems, processes, and roadmaps.

Over the years, management research has been criticized for lack of industrial relevant. Many management researchers are writing papers for publications in the world class journal but no one is addressing the management issues facing by the practitioners. What’s wrong with the field of management? Are we making the field better off by improving the operations and performances of firms or by adding more words to the field. One issue faced by most business schools is that it is too much methodological focus than result oriented. The academic world seems not communicating with the practicing world. Most academics somehow seem to focus on basic research, talking about mathematical modeling, statistical significant, and goodness of fit test. Academics who focus on applied research, case study, and consultation work seems to be limited and seldom appear in the journal. The work being produced by these two groups of academics seems to address two groups of audiences which are mutually exclusive. They basically live in the different worlds.

The current challenges facing managers in terms of managing businesses are being ignored by academics community who are in favor of testing new statistical models. Part of the reasons why there is lack of industrial relevant of management research is because these academics have no industrial experiences. They have never handled a business project, promoted a product, or prepared a budget. What makes the situation worst is the misunderstanding between academics and managers, the meaning of ‘real industrial practices’. To some academics, what they considered to be consulting is really an extension of teaching or recommending solutions based what is written in the textbook. They think themselves as business expert but happen to work in a classroom instead of a business. To claim expertise in an area should at least go out to find some evidences to back up these claims. This is especially true for some MBA projects whereby the students have never been visiting the industries to see the real practices in the field. I strongly encourage business school to force their MBA students to do on-site project rather than always taking college students and lecturers as respondents. World renowned university like Cambridge has employed many experienced (some retired) executives to work with their professors in joint research projects. Business executive without research experiences may tend to jump into conclusion too fast based on intuition. This is understandable because they are not trained in scientific research methods. In conclusion, this joint-research team would help to complement each other. We try to mimic the hard sciences, but forgot application and practicality of our research.

A new science perspective

The purpose of research is to generate knowledge to enrich the current body of knowledge. Traditionally, positivism and interpretivism are the two paradigms of knowledge generation in research. Knowledge generation in Toolism has taken a different perspective beyond these two apparent dichotomies and formed a new paradigm system. The development of useful knowledge relies on the development and acceptance of new paradigm systems. Kuhn (1962) defined paradigm as a set of scientific beliefs that make up a theoretical framework within which scientific theories can be tested, evaluated and revised. Kuhn argues that the history of science shows that scientific change occurs in series of ‘revolution’ in which older ‘paradigms’ are overthrown by new paradigms that may be incompatible or even incommensurate with pre-existing knowledge. Once a paradigm has emerged, researchers continue to generate knowledge around the cycle of observation-classification-theory development track. A new paradigm makes assumptions about the function and purpose of scientific research in investigating the real world and results in the generation of a quite different type of analysis as it seeks to address specific industrial problems in a different way. Thus, the generation of knowledge in a new paradigm system has a different way of viewing the world. Table 2 lists the differences between the traditional paradigms: positivism and interpretivism with a new methodology paradigm system, toolism (Yee, 2009a).

Table 2 Comparison of different research philosophy in the field of management

Research philosophy for different fields of study in Management
Positivist (Natural Science)	Interpretivist (Social Science)	Toolist (Applied Science)
1. System of philosophy that based on things that can be seen and proved such as car or machines.	System of philosophy that based on feelings and attitudes of social actors that cannot be seen, measured, or modified.	System of philosophy that based on practical solutions to real world problems.
2. Science can be understood without considering cultural, social, political, and economics factors.	Science is a social process and cannot be understood without considering cultural, social, political, and economic factors.	Science is determined by design, decompose, build products, systems, artefacts, etc. and provide solutions.
3. Science is Objective.	Science is Subjective.	Science is Pragmatic.
4. Theory testing.	Theory building.	Theory building.
5. Previous theories use to generate hypothesis.	Grounded Theory.	Grounded Theory.
6. Generate Mode 1 knowledge.	Generate Mode 1 knowledge.	Generate Mode 2 knowledge (application)
7. Quantitative.	Qualitative.	Qualitative.
8. Experiment, Survey.	Case study, Interview, ethnography.	Action research, process approach, focus group, workshop, consultation.
9. Observation (Natural scientist to measure observable facts).	Interview (Social scientist to grasp subjective meaning of social action).	Tool application (Applied scientist to use tool for solving practical problem).
10. What is it?	What do you think?	How to do it?
11. Disciplinary.	Disciplinary.	Trans-disciplinary and business process.
12. Normative.	Descriptive.	Prescriptive.
13. Large sample. (Deductive)	Small sample. (Inductive)	Small sample, detail study at micro-level.(Inductive)
14. Statistical generalisation.	Analytic generalisation.	Replication Logic.
15. Measure in the physical-context. Measurement procedure do not influence what is measured (Researchers are independent of the reality).	Measure in the social-context (Researchers try to get inside the mind of the subjects to uncover meaning, opinions and values).	Measure in the application-context or practical experiences (Nothing can be measured without changing it).

The comparison enables us to differentiate between the three systems. It also allows me to envisage a new way of seeing the world in scientific research and generate new knowledge to enrich the current body of knowledge. In this paper, I have no intention to substitute a previous paradigm system, but rather to complement the existing paradigms and enrich the world with application knowledge.

Table 2 provides us a comparison of three different research philosophies in management. The comparisons are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive. In fact, the characteristics of any one paradigm become a matter of degree, rather than a clear distinction. I believe much of the research in the field of management has traditionally been done with an epistemology bias. As a result, researchers should try to mix research methods because the findings provide broader insight into issues being investigated and triangulate the findings. Most research aims to develop descriptive or normative theories. Toolism is taking a different epistemological stance. It is adopting a prescriptive approach. It concerns with application knowledge and addresses the question of ‘how to’ design new things or solve practical problems in a systematic and logical way. The aim of this paradigm is to create knowledge within an applied science regime rather than traditional science or social science paradigms. Research of this type sets out to develop and test tool, and then to operationalise the frameworks or theories, and finally provide managers with practical approaches to improving their work or operations. Testing the tool in this sense does not have the same type of rigour as testing in the true scientific sense. This is mainly because there is no control over extraneous such as in an experiment. According to toolist, the tool is not independent of the test, and the test is not repeatable. However, in the realm of toolism, industrial managers more concern about practical results and are more interested in development and improvement than in the more experimental trial testing required by the principles of natural science. Thus the testing becomes as much a refining and developing activity as a verification activity. This clearly illustrates the gap which still exists between toolism and the rigorous positivist paradigm. The scientist will clearly feel uncomfortable with toolism approach. However, because the tool methodology was developed to meet the requirements of managers and as such is much more akin to the paradigm of the natural sciences (i.e. hypothesise and test), than to the more descriptive work typical of many of the social sciences. If the ‘positivism’ and the ‘interpretivism’ are put at two extremes on a continuum, toolism will lay in between these two extremes and is located closer to positivism. In general, the generation of practical knowledge according to toolism has taken a combination position. For example, the research needs to take hard evident and observable fact like the natural scientist (positivism), to take the view points of its social actors (interpretivism), and helping the social actors to understand their world better and to solve their problems (toolism). In other words, these different paradigms can sometimes coexist in the same study and complement one another. I strongly encourage management researchers to widen their horizons to embrace a different type of knowledge generation system with applying the toolism methodology in their research.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

From this paper, the main benefit of the new perspective is that it results in Mode 2 knowledge that is directly applicable to industry. Practising managers can use this knowledge without having to modify or adapt it to their situations. Furthermore, toolism is not only relevant to practitioners but follows the systematic enquiry of scientific research method. The combine methodology generates relevant data from practical experiences meeting both the practical and academic requirement.

Perhaps, the most important question to raise here is whether the new science perspective follows a proper, systematic scientific enquiry? Theory generated in Mode 2 according to Tranfield (2002) has the following characteristics: “problems are set and solved in the context of application, using a trans-disciplinary approach, with a socially distributed research team, working in a heterarchical structure, resulting in theory development and dissemination/application of findings accurring at the point of production rather than the latter being temporally dislocated from the former.” Clearly, Transfield supported the notion that mode 2 production process makes knowledge contributions. Although these knowledge contributions are rarely in the traditionally acceptable science, because replication studies are unlikely to be used based on the normal science approach. However, the form of knowledge that mode 2 could generate based on this paper is in terms of tools, processes, roadmaps, charts, pictures, template/forms, flowcharts, or managerial guidelines. This is different from the traditional knowledge that are in the forms of constructs, frameworks, models, matrices, and typologies.

Transfield argued that, “Undertaking strategic research to produce exemplars of archetypal forms of organisation design, might provide a worthy goal for mode 2 management research. Not only would this contribute to management knowledge by providing a thesaurus of what works in which circumstances, in much the same way as engineers create design templates for physical artefacts, but it would also facilitate managers in their roles as organisational architects and engineers.”

The acceptance argument was further strengthened by van Aken (2001). In his tripartite typology of scientific fields, he differentiates science into formal science, explanatory science, and design science. His thesis about formal science is that this science is based on logic and maths, but is empirically void. The objective of science is to build systems of propositions whose main test is their internal logical consistency. Explanatory science such as normal science, describes, explain and predict observable phenomena. Design science, according to him, “…include fields which sit between practice on the one hand and more fundamental disciplines on the other. They include engineering, medicine, and management. They are preoccupied with the question ‘how should things be?’ and aim to …develop knowledge for the design and realisation of artefacts, i.e. to solve construction problems, or to be used in the improvement of the performance of existing entities, i.e. to solve improvement problems… Research aims at developing knowledge and its application should lead to intended results.”(p. 5)

van Aken (2001) explained, “Design science are postulated to develop valid and reliable knowledge in the form of ‘field tested and grounded technological rules’. These rules facilitate both academic advancement and also can be used by practitioners in designing, configuring and implementing solutions to specific problems.” He further illustrated, “…management research might be argued to be best positioned within the social sciences as engineering in the physical and medicine in the biological sciences. Whereas engineering and medicine are concerned with the proper arrangement of physical and human biological artefacts respectively…”

By and large, the theory generated with toolism methodology is quite consistent with the design science perspective.

Is the knowledge generated valid and reliable?

The process of theory development or knowledge generation concerns about the validity and reliability of the theory produced. The data collection in the new science perspective based on toolism uses a collection of managers’ viewpoints. Differences in viewpoints will have to be clarified first before it is used. This validation is done through the minds of the managers rather than based on a large amount of written documents or reports from the firm, analysed and judged by researchers without participation of managers. The way of data collection may look simplicity to some researchers, however, through face-to-face discussion and challenge of opinions/viewpoints among managers, information is re-evaluated and re-confirmed by the users of information. Anyhow, written reports or survey questionnaire are also based on these managers’ opinions. Are these kinds of data collection methods not subject to any possible bias?

“Researchers improve the internal validity of a theory when they examine the phenomena from as many perspectives as possible” (Christensen and Carlile, 2009).

“Scholars who examine the phenomena and outcomes of interest from …the viewpoints of different functional groups in a company, can either incorporate what they learn into their explanations of causality, or rule out other explanations so that theirs is the only plausible one left standing” (Christensen and Carlile, 2009).

The problems with respondents give biased or inaccurate data can be solved in the new science perspective. Ability of managers to recall memories in answering a survey questionnaire would be reminded in the discussion. However, factual descriptions such as quantitative data were likely to be more accurate than managers’ opinions. To some researchers, especially the quantitative researcher would have a very negative perception of the field research because it is not based on large amount of quantitative data and thus for them it is less reliable.

The question of reliability has long been the criticism among the quantitative researchers towards field research. Field research is high in validity but low in reliability. Many researchers believed that the measure of statistical significance and goodness of fit test are relevant measures of reliability. This is because they perceived numerical data as more trustworthy than qualitative data. But, is this data really ‘objective’? Christensen and Carlile (2009) defended that “numbers [used in many research projects are] representing revenues, costs, and profits in financial statements are the result of processes of estimation, negotiation, debate, and politics that can produce grossly inaccurate reflections of true cost and profit.” They further argued that “Even the ‘hardest’ of numbers, such as those measuring prices and product performance, really are manifestations of the prioritizations, fudging measurements, exaggerations, and negotiations that occurred prior to a number appearing as a proxy for all of those things.”

They suggested, “The healthiest mind-set for researcher is that nearly all data – whether presented in the form of a large quantitative data set on one extreme, or an ethnographic description of behaviour on the other – are subjective. Numerical and verbal data alike are abstractions from a much more complex reality, out of which the researcher attempts to pull the most salient variables or patterns for examination.” They continued “There should be no smugness among quantitative researchers about the alleged objectivity of their data, and no defensiveness amongst field researcher about the subjectivity of theirs. We are all in the same subjective boat, and are obligated to do our best to be humble and honest with ourselves and our colleagues about where our data comes from as we participate individually within and collectively across the theory-building cycle.”

I have no intention and interest to get involved in the paradigm war between the quantitative and qualitative perspective. Every method has its strengths and weaknesses. Both quantitative and qualitative techniques are taught in research methodology classes. The techniques included their strengths and weaknesses are already clearly stated in most established textbooks use in business school. The lecturers just have to strike a balance between quantitative and qualitative in their teaching and point out the advantages and disadvantages of these techniques under different circumstances. Experienced researchers who involved in reviewing articles or examining theses just have to be fair and transparent. Using quantitative criteria to evaluate a qualitative thesis is something unprofessional and it should be avoided. For example, almost every examiner will directly or indirectly ask these questions. (1) Is your research follow proper scientific method? (2) What is the theoretical contribution of your research? (3) Can your findings be generalised? From the first sight, they are nothing wrong with these questions. However, when we think deeper and ask ourselves whether the candidate has the same definition of science, theory and generalisation with the examiner? Did the examiner realise that what the candidate has in mind? For example, did the candidate follow the positivists’ science or interpretivists’ science? Did the candidate contribute to mode 1 or mode 2 theory? Did the candidate use a statistical generalisation or analytical generalisation? Although examiner and candidate may have different perspective, most very senior professors are experienced enough to understand this when they are evaluating theses. Their judgements about the thesis they evaluate when compare with other senior professors are quite consistent. Only the lack of experiences and competent one will not be able to understand the things that we are discussing here. Knowledge generation and theory development is a very professional job. Thus, we are all obligated to conduct it professionally. The acceptance of one new perspective needs many theoretical and empirical work in future.

REFERENCES

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. 2007. Business research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Christensen C. M. and Carlile, P. R., 2009. Course research: Using the case method to build and teach management theory, Academy of Management Learning & Education. Vol. 8, No. 2, 240-251.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotony, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.

Harre, R. (1974). The philosophies of Science. Oxford University Press: London.

Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7^th edition. 2006. Oxford University Press

Platts, K. W. 1993. A process approach to researching manufacturing strategy. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 13(8): 4-17.

Rapoport, R. N. 1970. Three dilemmas in action research. Human Relations, Vol. 23.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. 2007. Research methods for business students (4^th ed.). London: Prentice Hall.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1998. Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Tranfield, D. 2002. Future challenges for of management research. European Management Journal, 20(4): 409-413.

van Aken, J.E. (2001) Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for tested and grounded technological rules. Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, Eindhoven (Netherlands).

Yee, C.L. 2009a, Toolism: Generation of Mode 2 Knowledge in Research, The 20^th Annual POMS Conference No. 011-0489, 1-4 May 2009 (Orlando, Florida, USA).

Yee, C.L. 2009b, The 4-stage protocols of Toolism, Proceeding in the International Conference on Quality, Productivity and Performance Measurement (ICQPPM), Putra Jaya, Malaysia (16-18 November 2009)(Paper No. 079).

Yin, R.K. 1984. Case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.

Research

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Industrial War Game for Top Business school

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

New Research Perspective